"Tactical" Nukes.

 To those who continue to bring here all kinds of "tactical nukes" BS just because they saw a "mushroom cloud".

1. Tactical nuke is defined as such NOT because of its yield, but because of its utility, that is--for solving tactical tasks. If the enemy's brigade spreads over large area and 2 to 5 kilotons are not enough, nobody prevents you from using 100kT device. It still will solve tactical level task only. Here is an example--Motorrifle Battalion attacking in one echelon with tactical nuke. 

Tactical being for achieving the tactical objective. It could be 2 kT, it could be something much more potent if, say, strong point is in the deep bunker. 

2. You cannot use nuke and not be immediately detected and identified by, say, Russia who has an advanced sensor network, including space-based Kupol which can see not only the flash (easily) and will know the nature of the charge, but it will know its yield but sensors will register all damaging factors of nuclear explosion ranging from flash to EMP, to radiation to a seismic event. The US knows this. Its use of nuke will be immediately detected and the user identified. What follows next--even majority nutjobs in D.C. can imagine. 

So, please, stop dragging here all kinds of hysterical X twits by some morons stating that because they saw "mushroom cloud" it is nuke. 

Yes, Plus Russians Were Preparing...

 ... Godzilla to be unleashed on unsuspecting world. I addressed this BS about nukes in my latest video. But here we have a CIA Director who needs basic education in military operations and Russia's military doctrine. 

Bill Burns, the head of the CIA, said at the Financial Times' Weekend festival in London that he believed there was a "genuine risk" Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons in the first months of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Telegraph reported on Sept. 7. "There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons," Burns said, referring to the time around Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts. Following the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south in late 2022, the U.S. "rigorously prepared" for Russia's use of strategic or tactical nuclear weapons, CNN reported in March, citing its undisclosed sources. After Russian propaganda spread reports that Ukraine allegedly intended to use a so-called "dirty bomb" against Russia, U.S. officials feared the Kremlin would use this pretext as a cover for a possible nuclear attack, according to CNN.

Burns, a career diplomat--a euphemism for a spook--has about zero qualifications for sound military operational analysis to "think" about anything related to real war, let alone about using "tactical" nukes. He is in a profession of lying and propaganda. The idea of Russia using nukes originated from those very same "undisclosed sources", which for two and a half years have been, due to a lack of real military operational ability and military-industrial capability, engaged in pure unadulterated propaganda because this is the only thing they can do. Once one considers the fact that the US Army and CIA's "bright star" David Petraeus continues to parade himself regularly as a military and intel amateur, what do you expect from a product of the Anglo-American degree mill (such as Oxford) in "International Relations". 

The whole clockwork of Russian military machine and the way it is integrated with the Russian state and society is beyond the grasp of overwhelming majority of the contemporary US "elite"--they simply do not understand it, as is confirmed by an immense body of the empirical evidence in the period from 2007 through today. The fact that Burns, while being the US Ambassador to Moscow, sent some note that Moscow will not tolerate turning 404 into a hostile territory is not a proof of any "diplomatic insights" but the summary of Russian media who openly discussed the issue for many years. Add here the absence of the strategic intel and strategic forecasting as such in the current US political discourse and you get the picture. 

Now to one of our friends posting yesterday a proverb from Bible: Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice. It was posted on the occasion of me pointing out the fact that the US Armed Forces and a bunch of US "military experts" simply do not know REAL military history, which many of the American officers and servicemen even in this blog confirm, and this in no way deducts from their otherwise professionalism or human qualities--US Armed Forces still have many competent and courageous people. But as an organism, Pentagon is not a pretty picture. So, pointing out that US experience in combined arms operations simply doesn't measure up to that of Russia is now "gloating"? Or is it "gloating" pointing out the collapse of a whole criminal enterprise with 404 on part of the US due to hubris and historical ignorance? Should the Red Army and Soviet people have followed the biblical proverb when they have liberated concentration camps, or when they fought off the Nazi war machine and then crushed it--the credit for which IS being stolen by Western propaganda. Or should Russian people not "gloat" seeing the criminal globalist force responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Russian civilians and a million of its brainwashed minions from 404 in the largest war in Europe since WW II? I am sure Vietnamese people shouldn't "gloat" either. 

And the combined West sensing what is coming for it is desperate, and oh, suddenly becomes so sensitive to the truth. I can only quote the conclusion to my latest book: 

The United States to which I and my family immigrated in the 1990s is no more. It is now an insecure nation, whose economic and political systems have ceased to function. America’s only tool of enriching itself, the U.S. Dollar, had its foundation—the myth of American military supremacy—obliterated, exposing one weakness after another, ranging from malicious corrupt elites to an inability to develop a realistic strategy and procurement policy for its bloated military, which is not designed to fight a  modern war against a serious enemy. That such an “enemy” might not want to attack the U.S. is beyond Washington’s think-tanks comprehension.

Furthermore, why should a bankrupt nation, which has failed to adapt to the new technological paradigms in warfare and which faces physical disintegration, plan for war with China, which the United States considers its main “challenger”? The only explanation is this is either wishful thinking, a desperate attempt to grasp at the last straw of greatness past without any attempt to reconsider and maybe reverse suicidal policies which brought the United States to her knees, or simply yet another effort to direct resources towards its militarized economy.

Any real war in Asia, as usual to be false flagged by the U.S., will result in the ultimate crushing of U.S. forces and a complete destruction of the United States, which only then will recognize that it has actually fought its final war. The problem which the new de facto multipolar world faces is to make sure that America’s final war doesn’t become a final war for the world which U.S. elites never knew and did not want to know. 

I have other proverb, predating Bible--Vae Victis.

This And That.

 First about this:

Russian tactical nuclear weapons might arrive in Belarus as early as this summer, Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed on Saturday. Moscow is completing the construction of a specialized storage facility for such arms, amid repeated calls by Minsk to deploy them on its soil, he added. The site in Belarus will be ready by July 1, Putin told Russia 24 TV. The president also said that Moscow does not plan to hand over control of any tactical nuclear weapons to Minsk and that it would only deploy its own arms to Belarus. He did not specify when exactly the weapons would be transported to the new site.

There is absolutely nothing sensational about it and this message is primarily for Poland, just in case. Good ol' Iskander's range is 500 kilometers (it doesn't mean that longer range Iskanders will not appear soon) and when placed slightly West of Minsk it covers exactly half of Poland and also "improves" behavior of Baltic states. Moscow and Minsk are parties to union state of Russia and Belarus and it is only natural to do militarily whatever allied countries decide to do within their borders. 

Now about real economy, Putin is not bluffing:

"Поджигатели планируют направить на Украину 400 с лишним танков. Все то же самое, что и по боеприпасам. За это время мы произведем новых, и модернизируются имеющиеся тоже, свыше 1600, а общее количество танков РФ будет превышать в три раза количество танков ВСУ, даже более, чем в три раза", - добавил Путин.

Translation: "The arsonists plan to send more than 400 tanks to Ukraine. The same goes for ammunition. During this time, we will produce new ones, and the existing ones will also be modernized, over 1,600, and the total number of tanks of the Russian Federation will exceed three times the number of tanks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, even more than three times,” Putin added.

I know, some people in Pentagon scratch their heads but, as I mentioned in my video too, the actual number of produced and modernized tanks in Russia this year may reach 3,000, with majority of them the tanks of new types, primarily of T-90M Proryv type. For T-14 Armata, nobody knows the actual number, what is known that there are now more than a hundred of them and at least couple of battalions (around 60 tanks, give and take) are training for the deployment to the front line. I am on record for years about "revelation mode". Meanwhile the fossil of Henry Kissinger also had a revelation recently when concluded that the new Cold War is much more dangerous than the old one. No shit, genius--in related news: water is wet, sky is blue and Western establishment is ignorant. 

I speak about it here:

And while at it, you might as well pay attention to this decent video about British carriers, granted that some facts there are somewhat debatable, but in general it is a worthy one. Per "third" and "fourth" rules of thumb, they are tied to a business known in Russia as "Coefficient of Operational Tension" (КОН--Коэффициэнт Оперативного Напряжения) and it is the science onto itself and staffs of formations deal with that. 

But there is no doubt that HMS Prince of Wales so far is an embarrassment, even when allowed for the issues of being a new design. 

In related news, Ukies begin to evacuate Avdeevka, whose "position" looked like this yesterday:

There were some convulsions by VSU on Kupyansk axis, naturally, they ended bad for VSU and when people ask me (this was the question from one of the viewers on YT) what war Russia is getting ready for producing these monstrous quantities of war materiel from shells and missiles to tanks, my answer is very simple--Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. Russia is preparing for facing down any threat emanating from the combined West with such military advantage that even psychopaths need to think twice. But then again, the narrative did change, noticeably. Somebody in Pentagon must know that Russian reserves have not been deployed yet. They will when and if needed. This is your primer for Sunday. 

 

P.S. Ah, yes. Comrade Xi still didn't call Mr. Ze as Western media assured us was his intention. What could have possibly go wrong, wink, wink?