I Am Not Sure Yet How To View This.

I mean new think-tank headed by Andrew Bacevich--The Quincy Institute. From the get go one is startled by the names of couple of contributors to what is defined as responsible statecraft institute--George Soros' name definitely makes one to pause. Yet, one has to keep in mind that ideas behind this new think-tank set it in a complete opposition to a majority of the present US think-tanks whose main purpose is justification of disastrous US foreign policy and military adventurism. So, Quincy Institute's intro does make sense:

The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible conception of U.S. interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind. Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in itself. Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the United States had earned.

Attacks by the most vile Neo-cons, such as low-life Bill Kristol, against this new think-tank also make total sense--the whole idea that somebody other than them (Neo-cons) will have a platform when discussing issues of war and peace terrifies them, especially when such a platform is headed by a cadre US Army senior officer with operational experience, especially knowing what a personal tragedy this officer went through when losing his son, US Army young officer in a criminal military adventure in Iraq. Bacevich's voice does matter in this case. 

Larison's comment on this new endeavor is good:

The name of the Quincy Institute for this new effort to promote a foreign policy of peace and restraint is well-chosen. As we are coming up on the bicentennial of John Quincy Adams’ famous July 4th speech in a couple years, we do well to remember what he said to his fellow countrymen. This passage in particular should be repeated as often as possible:

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

It took a long time, but Adams’ warning came to pass. We did enlist under other banners than our own, and we did involve ourselves in the wars of interest and intrigue, and the maxims of our policy have changed to force. There are many that want to make sure that our foreign policy remains this way, and the Quincy Institute offers Americans the hope that it does not have to be that way forever.

Remarkably, the only sensible discussion on America's real and legitimate national interests is possible only within the framework which Quincy Institute wants to establish. At this stage one is only hopeful that establishment of this institute is not one step too few, too late.

Facepalm Of The Week.

By now you probably all know my "shtick", or, if anyone wishes, they may call it a foundation for a Ph.D. thesis on a complete delusion of the United States' so called "think-tanks" (more like think-carts and buggies) and military and political top which resides in a permanent Chalabi moment. The distinction of being a moron of the week goes to this guy:

Courtney, the RAND analyst, said despite Putin's successes in the region, Russia will remain a limited great power that serves mainly as a military supplier because it lacks the resources and capability that the West has for nation building or reconstruction. "The challenge for Putin is to turn the use of his military force and military weapons supplies in the Middle East to something that is a lasting success, and we don't yet see how Russia is going to get there," he said.

I understand that humanities and economics graduate and post-graduate degrees from US universities may have some weight in the circles of people who attend some soirees where they drink good Scotch and discuss capitalization of some snake oil trading corporation, but it is obviously quite  worthless in a real world which moves on tangibles. It is especially so, when speaking about tangibles in warfare and all major geopolitical and economic consequences which follow. I understand that RAND is some institution of high standings in the United States but against the background of non-stop failures as a result of the American military adventurism one has to ask a question--does this William Courtney guy is even coherent when he delivers  this utter nonsense? If this is the intellectual level of RAND's fellows then there should be no surprise of this unmitigated foreign policy and military disaster of the last 20+ years for the US. 

I. highlighted in yellow: can esteemed Mr. Courtney remind me when and how did the United States build or reconstruct anything lately? Judging by Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya--not much reconstruction, let alone "nation-building" is going on there. In Syria, where the United States supported Al Qaeda and interfered for the interests of Israel, one of the supporters of ISIS, Russia had to fight and defeat all those wonderful jihadists, which, evidently, the United States hasn't been able to defeat (did it even try?). But I have some news for Courtney:

a) Nation-building or reconstruction starts with the defeat of utterly destructive and evil forces of Islamic jihad. Russia did just that and in doing so (together with the SAA and Iranian forces) provided a foundation for the reconstruction of Syria;

b) That multifaceted victory (there is still some fighting and mopping up remains to be done), including massive humanitarian aid Russia provided for Syrian people, of course is already being credited... to the United States.  But hey, didn't we see this before, you know, after WW I, or WW II.   

II. This point, however, is even more important--the Polichinelle secret of this whole "nation-building" thing is that both the US Military and US Economy are stretched to the breaking point and are simply in no shape, by the virtue of extremely limited actual resources, to do any "nation-building". Of course, the American record in this undertaking in the last 25 years is one of unmitigated disaster and failure. 

So, in what world does Mr. Courtney reside? Certainly not of this planet. I clearly understand that Americans are proud, often justifiably, people but I would be lying not only to myself but to the cold hard facts of our moment in space and time if I wouldn't address this pseudo-intellectual circus, slowly translating into a certifiable mad-house, which is taking place now inside the United States.  These are symptoms of a serious illness and they either will get addressed or the country, as in normal country, will be completely lost--it is already half-way there. A massive reality intervention is in order but current "intellectual" elites in the United States are not capable to do it, they are simply... stupid. Now I said it.  

Mission Is NOT Accomplished, But It Is Getting There.

A Lesson In Delusion.

This morning I stumbled upon some paper from Major Amos Fox who was (is) a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS. This couldn't have come at more opportune moment, against the background of Ukrainian National Security Council (SNBO) big honcho (and war criminal) Alexandr Turchinov (aka Bloody Pastor) promising his troops to take Moscow (in Russian). So, the acquaintance with Maj. Fox's fairly fresh paper titled: Battle of Debal’tseve: the Conventional Line of Effort in Russia’s Hybrid War in Ukraine was a lucky coincidence. It also goes back to the very beginning of this very blog where the importance of OODA Loop and situational awareness were underscored in the series of posts.  

My task here is not to review Fox's paper but stress, yet again, the importance of a solid grounding in reality when dealing with war, since as famous truism goes--one can not make correct decisions based on a wrong information, let alone lacking a solid knowledge. When one reviews today some US institutional reactions to the outside world--be it  ad nauseam Russiagate conspiracy pushed relentlessly on unsuspecting public by corrupt US media and political establishment, or be it a virtual world of Wall Street economy--one can not fail to notice this disturbing, dangerous and continuous (in fact, accelerating) departure from the reality. I am not going to elaborate on that now, but with all my due sincere respect for the US Armed Forces, I was literally floored by what I started to read. Especially when Fox provides a rationale for the study of the Battle of Debaltsevo:

It is the most recent major battle of the Russo-Ukrainian War, where the significance is that the battle reflects the collective conventional lessons learned by the Russian army throughout the conflict.

It seems that people in the West continue to live in a bubble of a complete disinformation when it comes to the so called "Russo-Ukrainian War". If this kind of a confusion is permissible for a housewife watching CNN or NBC, the same exhibited by a military professional is, frankly, dangerous since the failure to understand the nature of the conflict (war) is the first and most important strategic blunder which usually leads to the loss of a war, which is bad enough, but what is worse--this confusion may lead to unleashing the war. Vietnam and Iraq come to mind immediately. While there is no doubt that Russian Army learns from the conflict in Ukraine and Russia does support Donbass Republics and their militaries, Russia is not and never was a warring side in the so called "Russo-Ukrainian War" which is a figment of imagination of the West' propaganda-pushers and globalist ideologues. Should Russia have been involved in the "Russo-Ukrainian War", Russia would have had by now a huge pain in the ass in form of most of Ukraine, which would require a huge flow of Russia's resources in order to keep this largely hostile and ungovernable territory under control--a perspective which is not in Russia's interests and Russia explicitly refused to pursue such an objective. 

By now, it is an axiom, not even a theorem that US "intelligence" organizations are simply ignorant, despite their major resources dedicated to Ukraine and a constant flow of information from the ground. One also gets a better understanding of the dynamics of a civil war (and that is precisely what it is) in Ukraine once all propaganda trash is removed from serious political and military considerations behind combined West's instigation of a bloody coup in Kiev. While Fox makes some correct references within operational framework, he completely discards main Russia's reaction to the West's "plan" for Ukraine which was to use her as a ram against Russia. In this sense, Ukrainian civil war must be viewed within the framework of geopolitical clash between the United States (and her European vassals) and Russia--a reality, which many in US desperately try to hide despite overwhelming empirical evidence of US intelligence and other government organizations and personas being directly involved in the Ukrainian catastrophe. The war in Ukraine is not between Ukraine and Russia--this hypothetical war would last a week or two and would result in a complete annihilation of Ukrainian Armed Forces and a collapse of a Kiev regime. This war is, at least was, between US  powerful neocon (globalist) lobby entrenched in American institutes of power, and blessed by then US President Barak Obama, and Russia. Viewing this war outside this framework does not provide a proper strategic angle and, in fact, obfuscates real objectives of the sides, including on the operational level.  

But what about actual military part of Fox's paper? Here we immediately run into the myth of Gerasimov Doctrine and of hybrid warfare yet again.

Russia’s hybrid warfare is deftly articulated in what is known as the Gerasimov Doctrine. Pundits argue whether Gerasimov’s ideas encompass a new mental model of warfare or a new approach to warfare, but Russian action indicates the efficacy of the Gerasimov Doctrine in driving Russian operational art, planning and tactical action

I wrote a short piece on that "hybrid warfare" crap a year ago.  I by no means fancy myself a military "thinker" or "theorist" but that is what I wrote:

I don't know how this idiotic term came about but whoever invented this label should have known better. The reason for my irritation is simple--all warfare is "hybrid" by definition and widely known in narrow military-analytical circles as Gerasimov Doctrine is nothing more than further development of, to a significant degree, Marxist view on the warfare. Warfare is more than just application of military power and is fought in many fields simultaneously. Yes, you know all those fields such as propaganda, operations of influence, strategic diversionary operations, info operations, famous Soviet "maskirovka", economic warfare and on, and on, and on.  

An idiotic meme invented in the deep recesses of US military-entertainment complex. Charles Bartles, from the same Fort Leavenworth's Foreign Military Studies Office, gives a retort to this completely superficial "theory" and stressed:       

Of note, there is a general consensus in Russian military circles that hybrid war is a completely Western concept as no Russian military officer orstrategist has discussed it, except to mention the West’s use of the term, or to mention the West’s use of hybrid warfare against Russia.The Russian military has been adamant that they do not practice a hybrid-war strategy. Moreover, there have been many Russian commentaries that state this concept is nothing new, that the aspects of hybrid war mentioned by Western analysts have been practiced since warfare began.

In my piece on the so called "Gerasimov Doctrine" I listed a number of major wars, from earliest to latest times, which would otherwise be known not as Napoleonic Wars or WWII but as "hybrid wars". But it seems now that for many the understanding of a war as a combined effort across the whole spectrum of state's activities (military, intelligence, political, diplomatic, economic, ideological, cultural etc.) is beyond the reach. Why, then, such a desire for doctrine-mongering and creation of purely mental structures in the West when it comes to war? Some of Fox's sources used in his paper are dated by 2016, yet he still repeats yet another myth:

The Russian army, like many armies in recent years, eliminated divisions and aligned its expeditionary capability in its brigades and regiments.

The  statement is false since evidently very few really paid attention to the fact of a massive roll back of Serdykov's "reforms" in Russian Armed Forces, which, among many things saw the return of thousands of forcefully "retired" Russian officers back to service and return of Russian Army to a division structure on the most threatening strategic  axes (directions)--Western. Despite Fox constantly referring to Donbass Republics' military forces as "Russian Forces", despite being supported in some important respects, those forces emerged primarily as people militias in the time (mostly throughout 2014) when Russia's response to Ukrainian events was largely situationally driven. While there is no doubts that some Russian special forces and intelligence officers are on the ground, as well as there are so called "vacationers", it is impossible to close eyes to a massive flow of Russian volunteers to Donbass. Most Russian men served in the armed forces. There are NO regular Russian Army units in Donbass, however, despite constant, unfounded claims and pure propaganda BS being perpetuated as a fact in the West. Fact is, many in the West do not even understand the simple fact that Russia is not a party to Minsk Agreements. Yet, even from the vantage point of 2016, when it became fairly clear what forces (political, military and intelligence) were involved in Ukraine, the myth of "Russian Forces" being in Donbass continues to be used, courtesy of such organizations as ISW (Institute For The Study Of War) whose "analysis" involves such neocon "pearls" as this "report".  

There is nothing wrong with Major Fox preparing his paper and it is not his fault that he has to draw from the pool of tailored "facts" or open fabrications. But that is what kills, in the end, the whole purpose of supposedly academic research into something which provided a major political and cultural shock to the US. So, after reviewing all facts on the ground, one has to ask the question, especially when one considers US monstrous military-political think-tankdom, well-financed and promoted--what would it take for this so called "analytical" machine to face the facts on the ground? How many more wars need US to lose before all this pseudo-academic environment, which generates an astounding amount of pseudo-analytical trash based on hearsay, suppositions, "faulty" intelligence and down right incompetence (such as "reports" of Ukrainian military, aka "strongest Army in Europe"), will admit simply that they are not good at what they do and long ago live in the world of delusions? I doubt they will, precisely because they suck and would rather lie to cover this up. But then again, if not for Russians Hillary Clinton would have been POTUS, right?