Some Insights Now Begin To Arrive.

As was anticipated. CBS reports on actuality of war from the POV of the US military personnel and lo and behold--they say what I have been saying for many years, how the real war feels. 

Survivors of the deadliest Iranian attack on U.S. forces since the war began have disputed the Pentagon's description of events and said their unit in Kuwait was left dangerously exposed when six service members were killed and more than 20 wounded. Speaking publicly for the first time, members of the targeted unit offered CBS News a detailed account of the attack and its harrowing aftermath from the perspective of those on the ground. 

Of course, they have to dispute what Hegseth says. This is not your small arms firefights (however nasty they could be) where you call in CAS, this is long-range fires, my friends, and they are longer than many of those in the US arsenal. 

In the hours before the attack, incoming missile alarms had signaled to a crew of about 60 troops to take cover in a cement bunker while a ballistic missile flew overhead. But around 9:15 a.m., an all-clear alert sounded. Officers removed their helmets and returned to their desks in the wood and tin workspace, about the width of three trailers. From there they resumed managing the movement of equipment, munitions and personnel across the Middle East. About 30 minutes later, "everything shook," one soldier told CBS News. "And it's something like what you see in the movies. Your ears are ringing. Everything's fuzzy. Your vision is blurry. You're dizzy. There's dust and smoke everywhere."  Dazed, the service member surveyed a grisly scene: "Head wounds, heavy bleeding, lots of perforated eardrums, and then just shrapnel all over, so folks are bleeding from their abdomen, bleeding from arms, bleeding from legs."

Yep, I like this phrase "something like what you see in the movies"--correct, it is very symptomatic, because the US Army doesn't know what is a precise fire impact of stand-off weapons. Of course, even in Iraq or Afghanistan you still could have been hit by RPG while in Humvee or even experience a nasty IED, that did happen many times, but this is different. Shahed, the Iranian drone can carry anywhere between 50 and 90 kilos of high explosives.  It has the range of up to 2,500 kilometers and fully fits the criteria of a high precision stand-off weapon. It can pay visits in salvos, and often does and the results of that are not what Pentagon tries to spin ... away from the real story. 

Word of Hegseth's description of the events at a press conference in Washington did not sit well with some of the survivors. The secretary had described the drone as a "squirter" that "happened to hit a tactical operations center that was fortified, but these are powerful weapons." And while several of those familiar with the events on the ground did not agree with the description, they did not want their remarks to be misconstrued. "It's not my intent to diminish morale or to disparage the Army or the Department of War more holistically, but I do think that telling the truth is important and we're not going to learn from these mistakes if we pretend these mistakes didn't happen," one soldier said.

I have news for this brave soldier--Pentagon doesn't learn, it cannot, look at the SMO. It is a different kind of war, which no US servicemen ever experienced, they did now. And that brings us to a purely technical issue:

Asked if the attack was an inherent reality of engaging in combat, he agreed. "That's true," he said. Asked if this attack was preventable, the soldier added: "In my opinion, absolutely, yes." "I am very sad for their loss and it's something I'll carry with me for the rest of my life," he said. "But I'm also immensely proud of them and their sacrifice, and their family should be too."

1. The US has no air defense means to deal with one of this threats. Shaheds will continue to fly and will continue, together with ballistic and cruise missiles, take out anything they deem necessary. The US WILL NOT ask Russia and Russia WILL NOT agree to sell to Pentagon things it doesn't have and will not have any time soon, I list a few: Elka, Tunguska, S1 Pantsir, Tor M2, Buk M3 et al. No, it was not "preventable". 

2. Poor men who got killed. Their sacrifice was for Israel and not for the US Constitution and American people. Only part of American people but their loyalty is with Israel. 

Per Hegseth, something tells me he soon will be fired and maybe even more. Die you today for me to live and die tomorrow. That's Trump's MO.  

Douglas Macgregor At Daniel Davis.

 Yes, the US is run by imbeciles. Doug, especially starting from 25:00, is awesome))). They also talk about Vladimir's talk today with Nima. 

Matt Purple Begins To Suspect Something.

 Matt Purple of The American Conservative concludes that:

Our Elites Couldn’t ‘Reset’ a Wall Outlet, Let Alone the Global Economy

Ah, lovely. Some messages finally begin to trickle down and make Purple, using the example of the founder of the World Economic Forum held in Davos, question competence of Western elites. Purple delves into Klaus Schwab's background and ideas, such as proverbial 'Reset': 

Some explanation is in order. Back in 2014, an economist named Klaus Schwab emerged out of the hive of sentient buzzwords that is Davos to declare that it was time for an elite-engineered “Great Reset” of capitalism. There was just one problem: the little people who inhabit economies had been through quite enough disruption of late and weren’t especially keen on more. Schwab’s idea found little purchase outside of the global Gulfstream gentry. ...Just who is this Schwab? You will be relieved to learn that he’s a lifelong academic and founder of the World Economic Forum. And yet, you wonder, does he have any honorary doctorates? He does, in fact, no fewer than 17 of them. Yet it’s here that we damn him with robust praise. Back in parts of the world where bacon-wrapped scallops are not instantly available upon request, policy doesn’t trickle down from globe-girdling theorists; it comes from elected leaders and national civil servants. (What’s the one thing that might make Angela Merkel belly-laugh? Try telling her Jean-Claude Juncker used to run Europe.) And while politicians are occasionally tempted towards radical change, they’re also accountable to voters, whose lives they can’t afford to blow up by, say, holding down the economy’s power button for 10 seconds. Progress has to be more gradual and piecemeal than that. Disruption even amid a pandemic can garner serious pushback.

That explains it a bit why this "scholar", pardon my insult to real scholarship, makes mutually exclusive suggestions in his grand idea of 'Reset'. This IS expected from Western "elites" and Purple's references to Merkel or manifest alcoholic Jean-Claude Junker  hardly makes his case against contemporary Western elites stronger. I am not sure what is the reason behind Junker being drunk whenever dealing with the so called "global" and European economy--maybe the recognition of a deep shit this economy is in--but Merkel, far from laughing belly-laughing herself is a laughing stock of a stateswoman who must serve as an Exhibit A in any future school of government of how not to run the country. 

But I generally agree with Purple, Western "elites", including most of Washington D.C. do not know shit from shinola, which is not that surprising when overwhelming majority of them are the products of humanities programs, which, basically, teach nothing about modern world other than moribund cliches about travails of electoral politics and simulacra of governing. And here is the point--the only skills Western elites have are those of how to run perpetual election campaigns to retain their place at the trough of government spending. Moreover, the United States is not-governable in principle, because it is nothing more than a geographic playground for a political power clans who see themselves only within the framework of monetarist policies and Wall Street's, and military-industrial complex' fat tit of contributions. What governing? What steering the ship of state in the right direction? You are talking about a bunch of white-board "academics"  most of whose life experience was confined to comfortable offices of banks and law firms, with some breaks for lunch or dinners in upscale restaurants, and whose grasp of the geopolitical, economic, military and other relevant realities, or lack thereof, is conditioned by a bunch of "theories" which are nothing more than an excuse for the entrance into the clubs of Western "intellectuals", who, as Purple correctly wonders about Schwab:

I’m starting to wonder whether he could successfully back a car out of a garage.

He can't, neither can modern Western "elites" run anything complex in reality. What the fuck do you expect from some financier or "analyst" who saw CNC machining center on TV and thinks that war is just the matter of sitting at the monitor with joystick. Want to see a parade of morons--look no further than TV and main-stream media. One cretin after another selling you unreality and opinions on matters they cannot possibly have any opinions about. I write about stupidity of West's "elites" for years, decades really. It would have been comical if it wouldn't have been so dangerous because these people, as the irrefutable empirical evidence suggests, will continue to pretend, or believe sincerely, that they have what it takes to save what they themselves helped to run into the ground by their doctrine-mongering. Financial capitalism is not viable, as is not the whole concept of post-modernism and its ugly ejaculate of the white-board "academics"--post-industrialism. One cannot go against fundamental laws of physics and its underlying truism that development which matters for humanity IS energy. More energy--more real development, emphasis on real. Energy, all sorts of it, is material and it proved already that making money is not a substitute for a real technological development and new social reality which cannot be stopped, even by the invention of ANTIFA and BLM, and acts of political pedophilia Greta Thunberg embodies. Those are all acts of desperation by modern Western "elites", who are not ready to face history doing what she always does--continuing its unrelenting step. These "elites" have only two options--either get out of the way or be smashed by whatever method this history will chose, even after we were told that this history has ended.

I Wanted To Be A Superman...

You know like a real deal, with all those super-powers--you can fly both in the air and space, you can lift some things like railroad engines or Boeing-747 with no effort, you can see girls' boobs through clothes and other wonderful things you could do with your super-powers. But, by the tender age of 40 I finally figured out that Superman movies were actually all a Hollywood fantasy and I got depressed. It came about the same time I recognized that Santa Claus doesn't exist. My dreams of super-powers, together with dreams of Jeannie, when Barbara Eden was still drop-dead gorgeous  (my wife still doesn't know about that), were dealt a crushing blow and I had to reconcile myself to a reality, where I reside, with a different level of success, even today. 

But my dreams of super-powers, especially mental ones, couldn't have come more useful than today, when navigating an opaque Mississippi of pseudo-academic BS filling this mighty river through numerous tributaries streaming from the American political "science" universe and publications which sell this mental ejaculation as a valid scholarship. But, as I stated above, I long ago reconciled myself with the fact that I will never gain even a minute percentage of Superman's powers, which, as it turned out, is not the case with US geopolitical "thinkers" who are still active in casting their spells, which are as effective as those cast by infantile participants at numerous Comic Con conventions, where they go to exorcise any symptoms of unfolding maturity in order to remain children before going on the social security. Enter a couple of esteemed political "scientists" who, in no less than Council of Foreign Relations very own rag, Foreign Affairs, arrived to this conclusion:

Multiple signs point to a crisis in global order. The uncoordinated international response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the resulting economic downturns, the resurgence of nationalist politics, and the hardening of state borders all seem to herald the emergence of a less cooperative and more fragile international system. According to many observers, these developments underscore the dangers of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America first” policies and his retreat from global leadership. 

My immediate quarrel with these two is not even this passage, however detached from reality it is (I will elaborate), but with the title of their piece itself: How Hegemony Ends. The Unraveling of American Power. My quarrel with it is the tense in which the title written because American "hegemony", much of it self-proclaimed, ended quite some time ago. So? the proper title should be How Hegemony Ended. It is difficult to precisely pin-point this moment but, and I wrote extensively on that, the first real manifestation was a double whammy first in Crimea and second--Syria. Signs of America's power unraveling were registered even earlier. Now back to quotation. I don't know what "global order" those scientists are talking about but the truth of the matter is extremely simple: the United States could have been in the position of some sort of a global game warden--I omit, for now, the issue of the United States not having resources for that from the inception--if it knew its limitations, and even Russia and China would probably be OK, more or less, if the US would have recognized that. But no. Instead of an order, the United States, due to lack of resources and largely faked own 20th century military history, created one hell of a mess. 

Moreover, it is one thing when when it is a mess outside, but the US cannot govern itself properly. The terms democracy and human rights when used by US side at any international platform create ironic smiles at best, a Homeric laughter--at worst. There is nothing more pathetic than Barbara Jean Trenton trying to relive her 16-mm large screen glory in the times of fast internet and CGI. The US is Barbara Jean Trenton, unsuccessfully, trying to attract young lovers with her wrinkled face and disfigured by arthritis fingers, even with some rings with large diamonds on them. But then again, where are those certificates of authenticity for those stones? Did they ever exist? Not everything that shines is gold or a diamond. To the credit of the authors, they find this proposition erroneous: 

Some analysts believe that the United States can still turn this around, by restoring the strategies by which it, from the end of World War II to the aftermath of the Cold War, built and sustained a successful international order. If a post-Trump United States could reclaim the responsibilities of global power, then this era—including the pandemic that will define it—could stand as a temporary aberration rather than a step on the way to permanent disarray. 

Good for them, but even in debunking these ridiculous a-historic parallels, they arrive to a rather timid retort:

Today, those same dynamics have turned against the United States: a vicious cycle that erodes U.S. power has replaced the virtuous cycles that once reinforced it. With the rise of great powers such as China and Russia, autocratic and illiberal projects rival the U.S.-led liberal international system. Developing countries—and even many developed ones—can seek alternative patrons rather than remain dependent on Western largess and support. And illiberal, often right-wing transnational networks are pressing against the norms and pieties of the liberal international order that once seemed so implacable. In short, U.S. global leadership is not simply in retreat; it is unraveling. And the decline is not cyclical but permanent.   

They, same as John Mearsheimer (my first chapter in the last book addresses his last treatise) do not understand not only a fundamental crisis of "liberalism", a euphemism for financial capitalism, and that "seeking of alternative patrons" came about precisely that instead of order and stability the United States provided for warfare, atrocities, violence, destruction and all that is endemic in the system which now begins to eat itself from the inside. I leave a "largess"  argument for others to ponder--we didn't even start to count how many trillions of dollars this "largess" cost to such countries as Iraq, Serbia, Ukraine, Syria, Libya or Afghanistan, to name a few, in lost lives, destroyed infrastructure, stolen national treasure to name a few effects of this "liberal" order. What they don't understand is that if not for the Soviet Union saving what commonly is addressed as West by defeating European Nazism and Fascism, no serious talk about "liberal order" would have been possible. That is why Russia holds every year Victory Day Parade--not only to honor her fallen, but to remind this very West who and how defeated its very own demons. That is why Putin, in an interview to...ahem...The National Interest stresses this. 

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

It was Russia who bore the brunt and that is why Russia builds state-of-the-art weapons and armed forces. Today, any talk about "democracy", "liberalism", and global "order", unless it is done by a completely brainwashed people--not an uncommon feature among Western "scholars"--cannot and will not hide anymore attempts by Western financial oligarchy, led by US "elites", who think themselves as heirs to Superman's powers, to put a whole world under their control. Including by means of rewriting a history or, on many occasions, just making it up.

Thus, claims as such:

China and Russia are not the only states seeking to make world politics more favorable to nondemocratic regimes and less amenable to U.S. hegemony. As early as 2007, lending by “rogue donors” such as then oil-rich Venezuela raised the possibility that such no-strings-attached assistance might undermine Western aid initiatives designed to encourage governments to embrace liberal reforms.

Are made by people who are either lying through their teeth or, which is equally probable, dumb as stumps. "Liberal reforms" is a euphemism for total deregulation and privatization of national treasures by Western oligarchy. Ukraine is having a blast with those "reforms". While authors continue to bloviate throughout a meandering piece about how US "patronage" collapsed and how international "networks" are being reconfigured, I will repeat myself. They could have spared the space in the magazine and the time for reading by simply stating two basic facts:

1. US lost, with a humiliating score, economic race to China;

2. US lost, with a humiliating score, arms race to Russia.  

These two facts alone explain why the US never was a "superman" and why most of its "superpowers" turned out, such as magic wands of Harry Potter cosplayers at Comic Con conventions, to be as effective as a treatment of the fourth stage cancer with a hydrocortisone topical cream. And here is what I wanted to repeat, considering an infinitesimally small probability that these two "professors" will ever read this: throw your degrees in political pseudo-science into trash bin and start learning real economy and real military balance. Only that may help to regain some connection to the reality and maybe dispose off delusions about super-powers, which were never there, other than of a big screen in movie theater or on TV, especially in the country which cannot defend its sacred symbols, such as monuments, and history against the crowds of radical thugs and their enablers at the very political top. But yes, I dreamed once of being a Superman...and about Barbara Eden when she was Jeannie.  

Why?

As news have it (in Russian) Trump wants to see Russia, India, Australia and South Korea at what used to be G-7 meeting some time in the future (in Russian). As you may have noticed already, one entity which is conspicuously absent from this is the largest, by far, economy in the world, which is China. This is not to mentio0n that the fact that Trump's desires mean absolutely nothing for Russia, who has a committed relations with China. Trump also has to understand that Russia was in decoupling mode with Europe for a few years no. Sure, selling Russian energy to Europe is important, so is important to sell finished and agricultural products, but here is a short view of what Russian-European trade relations look like today:

Russia is the EU's fifth largest trading partner and the EU is Russia's largest trading partner, with a two-way trade in goods value of €232 billion in 2019. In 2019 Russia was the origin of ca. 40% of EU imports of gas and 27% of EU imports of oil. Due to the large value these imports, EU’s trade deficit with Russia (€ 57 billion in 2019) is only second to EU’s trade deficit with China.

The issue here, of course, is the fact that this trade is represented for a whole Europe, 4 of the major nations of her, constitute a bulk of G-7. By far the most important dynamics here is this: 

EU-Russia bilateral trade in goods peaked in 2012, dropping by 43% between 2012 and 2016 from two-way €322 billion in 2012 to €183 billion in 2016. Since 2016, bilateral trade has partially recovered. However, Overall EU exports to Russia were in 2019 25% lower than in 2012, agri-food exports were 38% lower.

These are the effects of a non-stop trade war (sanctions) on Russia supported by all those Europeans and, quoting, Karen Shakhnazarov, "sanctions are good for Russia", because sanctions allow increasing decoupling from EU, including by means of import substitution, and the only way Europe can still retain interest for Russians is EU being a market, which will increasingly, due to a sheer stupidity of EU bureaucracy, will be destabilized due to confluence of macroeconomic and cultural factors. Russia is just fine dealing with Europeans on a bilateral level. But here is another dynamics to consider:

Look at this dynamics, which brought Russia-Chinese trade to $107 billion in 2019 and continues to grow, eventually projected to hit volume of $200 billion by 2024. Comparable to the volume of trade of Russia with Europe, which hates Russian guts and will behave as the US lap dog in the future. So, Russia's choice is quite obvious here. Especially when one considers a puny trade relations between the US and Russia and Russia having a full grasp of US enmity towards herself. Aw, just look at these numbers:

Russia ranked No. 28 in total trade value through March with a total of $6.61 billion. Exports totaled $1.18 billion and Imports totaled $5.43 billion, a deficit of $4.25 billion.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? So, Trump wants to exclude China from "international community" by holding this gathering which decides nothing and is worthless in terms of any practical solutions to an unfolding catastrophe which is global economic crisis. So, anyone can explain what Russia is to gain, other than some photo-ops for Trump, from this meeting? Why should Vladimir Putin even be there? Moscow and New Delhi have a direct line and can solve their issues by talking directly, Europe, frankly, is economically suicidal, Australia is a non-entity for Russia, so why? I don't know, but Trump, evidently thinks that this is a good idea. I think it is a waste of time, because the settling of global issues must happen first between G-3: China, US and Russia. Until something is decided within this triangle no other meetings will produce any sensible world order which will reasonably satisfy everyone. The United States is not ready to deal with this issue yet, but US has only two options here: war and getting back to the reality. What will be this choice we don't know yet, hopefully the latter one.  

On The GDP, Yet Again.

It seems this GDP question does not want to die.  First, out of the blue Michael Kofman and Richard Connolly of Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) write this:

An equally important problem is how one compares GDP and relative living standards. Russia’s economy, which may seem to be closer to the size of South Korea’s based on simplistic conversions at current market exchange rates, is more accurately reflected as the sixth largest economy in the world. This is because while market exchange rates are appropriate for measuring the value of internationally traded goods, PPP rates should be used when measuring non-traded goods and services. It is precisely these non-traded goods and services that tend to dominate military expenditure in countries like Russia that have sizeable and largely autarkic defense industries.

Well, it seems they read my books at CNA. In fact, I would dare to say that Russia's economy is, actually, fifth largest economy in the world. How so? Here is a demonstration in the most profound way--yes, I am not going to be talking about military hardware, where Russia gets a gigantic bang for a buck--by giving visuals for comparison of things people do not need special skills to understand. Here is one:

This is the house for sale in the hell of a nice community near....Mashkov Lake near Moscow (no, not Moscow, Idaho), 75 (47 miles) kilometers from the Red Square, near highways, beautiful established community with school, stores, the works. The house is on almost half-acre of land, has the area of 190 sq.meters or around 2050 square feet. It is on sale for R5.8 Million, that is, converting directly to USD, R5.8 million/62.2 = $93, 247. 

As you can see, if I would have been American economist I would immediately try: 

1. To find rough equivalent of this house in the United States around the city with such massive gravitas which could at least remotely compare to that of Moscow. Let's try in D.C. suburbs, right? The only thing remotely comparable to this house in Russia I found at Virginia Beach, VA.

2. As you can see, this house is 4.5 times more expensive than the Russian one, and it is 154 miles (as crow flies) from the US Capital. As you may expected, driving highways will be even longer distance. 

So, let us calculate GDP created by building these two houses in Russia and in US. Right! As you may have guessed it already, the United States created 4.5 times more GDP than Russia by building comparable house in a place which, let's be frank, is not exactly Moscow. Mind you, that Russia builds all kinds of real estate, from apartments to houses, like there is no tomorrow. In fact, the house like that near Moscow, near Krasnoyarsk or Voronezh would cost you less, much less. While in the United States for $93,000 you can buy, even in affordable Spokane, WA, this:

What a lovely charmingly decrepit piece of...history. Here is how PPP (Purchase Power Parity) GDP works, or, rather confuses most Western think-tank free-loaders who do not understand that most of what they know about the world outside is a baloney or a caricature. Like the fact that China's real middle class which has incomes comparable to that of the average US income is larger than the whole population of the United States. That is a good hint. In the end, for the same $439,900 in Virginia Beach, VA, one can always buy this IN Moscow:

And enjoy life on a full acre of nature with around 6,000 square feet of living space. Mind you, you will still have money left to not only furnish this thing but to host a huge housewarming party. I am sure if you are on the extravagant side, there will be money left on strippers too, good ones.

Now, can you scale down, or scale up, Russia's and American economies? Difficult still but it shows you, at least, what all those proverbial $22 Trillion of the US GDP are worth. Not as much as you may have thought before. Nor the argument that Russians do not earn as much is entirely valid. Yes, many Russians do not earn as much and that is ongoing problem, but, say, R60,000 which roughly converts into $965, gets you pretty comfortable living practically everywhere in Russia bar some places like Moscow or Sochi, especially if you own you apartment--very many Russians do and by own I mean OWN, not paying mortgage. There is a lot of what is going into those economic considerations. But it has to be understood today that nominal numbers in USD are absolutely meaningless and, in fact, dangerous because they create a false sense of confidence. But then, there is the other factor--a suppressed complex of inferiority. Shanghai skyline today can outshine anything out there, while many people from Western world, who partook in Western propaganda, upon ending up as tourists in Moscow, St. Pete, Sochi or any other major Russian city and cultural center are often subjected to a cultural shock and severe cognitive dissonance. Why do you think Moscow won tourist Oscar this year?  

And then, of course, comes this ever important factor--as Patrick Armstrong calls it--Russia is a full service economy, she produces literally everything from socks and shoes to refrigerators, space ships, cars, TV sets and advanced diagnostic medical systems. And, of course, Russia produces weapons, very advanced weapons and at least some people are beginning to get the message:

Russian procurement dwarfs that of most European powers combined. Beyond delivering large quantities of weaponry for today’s forces, Russia’s scientists and research institutes are far along in development of hypersonic weapons, such as Tsirkon and Avangard, along with next-generation air defense systems like S-500. This volume of procurement and research and development should not be possible with a military budget ostensibly the same size as the United Kingdom’s. When theory checks in with practice, the problem with the approaches that return such answers is plain for anyone to see.

But you read me for the last five years, didn't you (wink, wink)? Such admissions are extremely important since infuse a much needed cold fresh air of reality into the stale atmosphere of the Western echo-chamber of the military-political analysis wrought with risks of at some point of time BSing policy-makers into the suicidal belief of the invincibility of the American military which may start a war resulting in catastrophic material and reputational losses for NATO forces and thus creating conditions for dangerous "saving face" escalation to a nuclear threshold. THIS must be avoided at all costs and giving Western policy-makers more realistic impression about what they are dealing with in Russia is a good start for finding peaceful arrangements in this new multi polar world. In the end, Kofman and Connolly admit:

Russian military expenditure, and as a consequence the potential for Russia to sustain its military power, is much more durable and less prone to fluctuations than it might appear. The implication is that even at its current anemic rate of economic growth, Russia is likely to be able to sustain a considerable level of military expenditure, posing an enduring challenge to the United States for the foreseeable decades. While ours is an exploratory analysis, it suggests that Russian defense spending is not prone to wild swings, nor has it been dramatically affected by changes in oil prices or U.S. sanctions. Given the disparity in national budget allocations, even as European allies increase their defense spending, Moscow is not going to struggle in keeping pace. 

Their piece is a good indicator of Kofman doing at least some homework, unlike it was earlier, when I criticized Kofman, and that is a movement in a right direction. Russia doesn't need to be loved or appreciated, Russians already made their civilizational choice, Russia needs some overly hot-shots in the West to get a shot of the reality for avoiding the confrontation in which the West cannot win militarily. After all, Russia's military history speaks for itself. But do not forget, however, that IMF (which is run by the US) doesn't even include Russia into the list of a countries with Advanced Economies, while Lithuania and San-Marino are there. Good grief.

P.S. I thank the guys from Colonel Lang's forum who pointed me to this piece by Kofman and Connolly. 

A Delightful Insanity.

No, we can laugh, indeed we can--all the way to the bottom. First is a sewer which in Germany is known as journalism has its ass handed to it by a shyster and it is, indeed, delightful. 

German historian Marie Sophie Hingst, famous for her blog about family members who perished in the Holocaust, has been caught in a lie. The revelation also put the media, which published her other ‘personal stories’, in a bind. 

Let's be honest--it is hilarious by any measure. But especially so when one gets deeper into history of the issue:

Her exploits did not go unnoticed as, at some point, her blog reached a whopping 240,000 readers while she was named‘blogger of the year’ and awarded by the Golden Bloggers association – the group behind one of the major German social media influencers’ awards. Hingst was also invited to moderate panel discussions for the association of patrons of the Berlin Holocaust Memorial and frequently spoke on behalf of relatives of the Holocaust victims, according to the German press.However, her stories which awoke such an echo in her readers’ hearts turned out to be completely made up...

Oy-vey! But let's not judge this freak too harshly. Remember Rachel Dolezal--a Caucasian bimbo feminist and Civil Rights champion with Czech last name who decided that she is a...black woman? 

Black Sista

Civil Rights is such a dope and, probably, a very lucrative carrier. I, however, have to resign myself to the fate of a white heterosexual man and stay away from current fad of gender-race fluidity. But all these news wouldn't be as good if not for wonderful manifestations of feminism within the framework of this very gender-fluidity. In fact, it is an absolute delight:

US transgender runner Cece Telferm, who previously competed against men, has become embroiled in controversy after winning the women’s 400m hurdles title – with many fans accusing the athlete of having an unfair advantage.Franklin Pierce University senior Telfer took the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) women’s 400m hurdles title in dominant fashion at the end of May, setting a new personal best of 57.53 and finishing more than a second ahead of rival runners.

Hey-hey-hey, stop it--what "unfair advantage" are they talking about? Don't they know, and many Ph.Ds in Gender and Women Studies tell us so, gender is merely a figment of imagination, a social construct and one can be whatever one wishes to be. Nobody can prevent anyone to be a woman one day, a man--the other and IT--the next week. In fact, in accordance to all new social studies programs--a reality is what we make of it. In fact, if Elizabeth Warren is a native American then I am, certainly, an aspiring transgender man and is entitled to sex-change operation money being paid out to me in cash or a cashiers check. And why not? It is my reality and it is sacred because in it my feelings are warm and fuzzy while reality is hard. Really really hard....

Lost In Translation?

Somehow, in the midst of all this FUBAR with US bureaucrats threatening Russia to start the war for whatever reasons, and the ongoing mass hysteria around new SCJ nomination, with new rape victims which Kavanaugh may have heard about once or saw on TV, "stepping out", one piece of real news got lost. It is huge:

HONG KONG (Reuters) - U.S. crude oil shipments to China have “totally stopped”, the President of China Merchants Energy Shipping Co (CMES) said on Wednesday, as the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies takes its toll on what was a fast growing businesses.  

See dynamics here. It doesn't stop there and it goes even further:

He also said the trade dispute was forcing China to seek soybeans from suppliers other than the United States, adding that China now bought most its soybeans from South America. 

Make no mistake, I get it, MAGA, Trump's "tactics" (capable to impress only sophomores from business schools) in "negotiating" the deals. But my question here, granted, now adjusted for Trump's foreign policy "accomplishments", such as allowing, in fact, initiating,  infestation of his own administration with lowest of the low neocons, is this: are they out of their freaking mind? Again, I get it, Trump thinks that he can convince China to "do better" in economic relations with US. Sure, but here is a very interesting dynamics from the other economic "front", this one is Russian.  

Even morons from US Treasury begin to suspect that this whole "trade war" and, especially, sanctions not only do not work--in fact, they hurt the US more and more. While giving its due to "evil, aggressive Russia" about to take over the world, US Treasury suddenly "discovered" for itself why US sanctions do not work on Russia. 

We cannot, for example, counter Russian aggression in the same way we approach countries like North Korea or Iran.  Russia’s economy and resource base are more sizeable, and is fully integrated into the global economy and international financial system.  North Korea and Iran, on the other hand, for decades have been largely or almost entirely isolated from the global financial system.  Because Russia’s integration presents an especially unique challenge, we’ve surgically deployed Treasury tools to balance maximizing pressure on Russia while minimizing unintentional spillovers to the United States, our European allies, and the global economy.  

Obviously US Treasury must pander to such neocons as  Menendez and Corker, but behind this fluffy rhetoric is nothing more than admission of a failure and fear. In what sense, you may ask? Well, consider this: President Putin today is in India. After immense pressure on India the US applied in the last months the deal on S-400 is on and it is massive--worth $5 billion. Turkish intentions to buy the same system and even SU-35s in themselves could be a PR disaster for both US and NATO. Russia continues to press hard on immensely lucrative hi tech arms market with cheaper and better, sometimes much better, weapon systems than the US can offer. 

And then, of course, there is Russian energy--pipe gas, LNG, oil and nuclear--and here is the deal: the US is simply not competitive in this market. It is not even a debatable point, it is a hard fact of life and, like a victim caught in the quicksand, instead of limiting one's moves in order to slow down sinking, the US, it seems, is hell bent on destroying own economy and sinking the country with it.

It is a known fact today that US elites, with few exceptions, do not understand what IS US economy today, nor do they have understanding of its real size and capability. Russia, through the words of its high ranking representatives not for once expressed openly an intention to remove the US as number one on the arms market, now, China is not worried too much about energy issues with the US (to the US loss, of course) since massive energy infrastructure between Russia and China is nearing its completion. So, instead of finding compromises, Trump Administration thinks that it has wherewithal to be aggressive. Even if to adjust our train of though for alleged Trump's desire to extricate the US from "bad deals", one has to ask this question:

                               What about US Dollar?    

Well, even Bloomberg sensed something. As an example, Russia made dedollarization its official economic policy. And the issue is not anymore good ol' dilemma between weak or strong dollar which, supposedly, will make, in case of being weak, US products stronger while simultaneously providing for the US re-industrialization--this is not the case anymore because the world does not operate like this anymore. And while the bunch of ignorant US foreign policy "experts" pass the gas on how to preserve this "liberal world order", they should pay attention to the fact of real competitiveness of  the nations US declares trade wars and slaps sanctions on and why those nations are not enthused about this mythical "liberal world order", which is as liberal as I am Chinese. I have my very serious doubts that adequate assessment of reality by US elites is possible anymore and that is very bad news for America. I will make a review of commercial aerospace outlook soon--it is a wowser.   

UPDATE:  No comments are necessary.