... the draft-dodger in chief being obsessed, as are most US politicians and military, with Iran.
... Pentagon and a bunch of amateurs with political pseudoscience degrees think.
To be sure, the United States did not register a knockout punch against the Islamic Republic, but to continue the boxing metaphor, it did win on points.
If anyone has any doubts about this approach (a euphemism for covering up humiliating losses), allow me to remind you this:
During the Paris Peace talks to end the war in Vietnam, Col. Harry G. Summers Jr. told a North Vietnamese colonel, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." After pondering the remark, the colonel replied: "That may be so. But it is also irrelevant."
This is exactly how the US views WAR. That is why it loses. One-liners such as "victory in war is determined by achieving political objectives of said war" are not enough for making conclusions on matters of strategy and especially so--operations. So, if some uneducated neocon moron who built his career in deep recesses of Pentagon's political fairy tales office, talks like this--know then, he is coping. But then again, US Ivy League humanities degree mills are an insult to real education in history, international relations and ... well, credentialed idiot Kroenig will not understand basic things about war, a real one.
... because you are a political whore and not military professional.
BERLIN — Germany must prepare for a Russian attack by 2029 or even earlier, the head of the German army told POLITICO. "We have to be prepared ... We must be ready to fight," Lt. Gen. Christian Freuding, Germany’s army chief, said at the ILA aerospace show in Berlin. He said that there is broad allied consensus that Russia could attack NATO territory before the end of the decade.
This degenerate wouldn't be allowed to command a company in the Russian Army.
Meanwhile,
MOSCOW, June 12 — RIA Novosti. Moscow does not want a war with NATO, said the Commander-in-Chief of the Joint Armed Forces of the alliance in Europe, Alexus Grinkevich, on the sidelines of the International Aerospace Exhibition (ILA) in Berlin. "I studied the intelligence very carefully. Russia does not seek conflict," he quotes as saying Financial Times.
Somebody has to tell this German imbecile what the US Military, without which Germany is nothing but a pip-squeak, thinks. But if he wants to fight Russia, sure. Germany asks for stone rearrangement for a long time now.
And that is not random, of course.
Pakistan, April 27 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow, where both leaders discussed regional tensions and ongoing efforts to restore stability in the Middle East. The meeting focused on diplomatic developments linked to stalled Iran United States negotiations and broader security challenges across the region. Putin expressed hope that the Iranian people would overcome what he described as a difficult period. He also emphasized that peace remains a shared priority for regional stability. During the discussions, Putin stated that Russia would continue to support Iran and other regional countries in line with its diplomatic interests and long standing partnerships. He highlighted Moscow's role in encouraging dialogue and maintaining communication channels during periods of heightened geopolitical pressure. According to Russian state media, Putin also mentioned that he had received a message from Iran's Supreme Leader. He further praised the resilience of the Iranian population amid ongoing challenges.
But, obviously, Araghchi met Vladimir Putin not for the exchange of diplomatic pleasantries but to discuss mechanism of fixing the political results of a now obvious military defeat of the US and Israel. It is always a critical phase of any war. And when even this moron states obvious:
Iran "humiliates" the United States, which does not know how to get out of the war. This was stated by German Chancellor Fradrich Merz, n-tv reports. "The Americans, obviously, do not have a strategy. At the moment, I don't see what strategic exit path the Americans will take, especially since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully — or very skillfully not doing them," he said. According to the head of the German government, the Americans are being subjected to "humiliation by the Iranian state leadership, primarily by these so-called Revolutionary Guards."
One has to inevitably arrive to the conclusion that the US simply ran out of military options because grand and military strategies are all about resources which the US doesn't have. NYT today declared Trump a hostage to Iran. One of a very few times when I agree with this tabloid.
You know, POTUS.
Oil Prices Surge Despite Record-Breaking Strategic Reserve Release
Yes, yes.
... Donald Trump is God's gift to humanity. As it turned out he DID stop the war between Iran and Pakistan.
Here is yet another one "the war is coming" piece, now by Glenn Diesen on RT. It is symptomatically titled: Russia-NATO war over Ukraine is becoming increasingly unavoidable. In it, Diesen does what all political "scientists" do--speaks about the subject of which he has a very vague understanding--war. Make no mistake, taxonomy is provided by Diesen.
Sure, there is one problem--it is this first C which political "scientists" have huge problems with understanding. I start with this:
NATO and Russia certainly now appear to be heading towards war in Ukraine. Every meeting, phone call, and summit result in a commitment to the statement that there is “no alternative to the Minsk Agreement.” The Minsk Agreement identifies two conflicting parties, Kiev and Donbass, and the first action to be taken was identified as immediately establishing a dialogue between them to work out the constitutional changes that would grant autonomy to Donbass. Yet Kiev has stated in no uncertain terms that it will not talk to Donbass and thus not implement the agreement, and the NATO powers have demonstrated that they do not intend to push it into abiding by it. If the agreement is rejected and no alternative is established, then war becomes the only possible outcome.
Diesenl fails to understand that Moscow created Minsk Agreement for it not to be implemented. It was created to precisely freeze the conflict and allow Russia to complete relatively calmly the process which is the title of my first book: Losing Military Supremacy. The Myopia of American Strategic Planning. From the get go Russia knew that there was nothing to talk about with both West, let alone 404. Russia needed to rearm and to mobilize, which she did to a large degree due to:
1. Not "liberating" the rest of the 404;
2. Being able to contain the West, not least through steady reintegration (a fully unexpected variable in operation of a return of Crimea in 2014) of LDNR's forces and now economies with Russia's.
I wrote about it long time ago (more than 3 years ago) in the article titled: Russia as a Cat. And now about the definition of the "War". Diesen, evidently, cannot define clearly what war NATO and Russia are going to fight "over Ukraine". So, I'll try to answer.
1. NATO's war against Russia IN Ukraine with full blown mobilization of forces on the level of military districts and services, forming of Fronts in 404, Baltics etc. OK. Just two days ago I elaborated on this contingency in the piece symptomatically titled Never in the Ballpark. There is nothing scarier than Ph.D in political economy or science waxing military-strategic. To avoid elaborating yet again on this issue I will quote (yet again) a former senior officer of Russia's General Staff Colonel Vladimir Trukhan: "We don't even sweat about NATO". I'll give Diesen a hint--it has everything to do with the first and the most important C. I have a whole second book describing what this C is. I am writing another one on that too. NATO big honchos are not completely suicidal yet. They may become such, but for now this scenario is not likely.
2. NATO pushing 404 into war by means of attacking LDNR and providing it with a "military aid" (by means of supplying some old military junk and some ammo) in a desperate attempt to lure bear out of his lair. Sure! If Diesen means this war, well--even in this war NATO has zero resources and negative escalation dominance unlike Russia who may open Voentorg again and once the North Wind will begin to blow who is to say that it will not stop in Kiev? Not that this shithole is of any use for Russia. But if Diesen writes about this war, then sure. But that will not be the war between NATO and Russia, it will be the war between LDNR and 404 supported by NATO by such means like sending (ooh, scary) 600 SAS people or providing targeting and recon for 404. Absolutely, this all goes without saying.
NATO will sanction Russia war in LDNR notwithstanding and the split between Russia and combined West is a fait accompli. But because Diesen doesn't understand the nature of this first C, he continues to completely mislead his readers and provides not an analysis but a crude propaganda pamphlet. Nobody wants the war--a real one--because if the war between NATO and Russia starts, number of the Western nations will cease to exist as operational states, and Brussels and D.C., especially Pentagon, are keenly aware of that. And yes, NATO cannot assemble a required force to fight Russia no matter how desperately it will try and that is what I wanted to explain in my next post on Salvo Model and force size but had to respond to this ridiculous piece about war and Capability--a thing which is taught in military academies and requires a set of skills and knowledge which are beyond the grasp of political "scientists". Meanwhile, the probability of 404 attack on LDNR remains high but we knew this from the inception.
The surrealism of everything happening on the strategic axis US-Ukraine is sometimes so much off the scale, that I am forced to simply shake my head in disbelief. Get this, one of the "greatest" military leaders of our generation and, certainly, the greatest eater of the men's ties, former Georgia's President, Mikhail Saakashvili just disclosed some wowser of a news. And believe me, I almost had hernia from laughing when reading Georgia's Defense Ministry account of the Russian-Georgian War of 080808, and the Ministry was headed then by this guy. So, Saakashvili speaking to a funny Ukrainian TV channel Ukraina 24, disclosed:
Translation: According to the politician, ex-CIA director and ex-head of the US Central Command David Petraeus called on the Kiev authorities to attack Donetsk and even prepared a plan to take the city. At the same time, Saakashvili did not specify exactly when Washington planned to implement this idea. “I remember there was a moment when they could take Donetsk. I’m not saying this on my own behalf - General Petraeus <...> sent me a long SMS then, I was in the north of New York, on some kind of holiday. He says:" A, B, C, D, D "- it is written down the points why now is a good time to go to Donetsk," Saakashvili said. According to him, Petraeus insisted on the need to seize Donetsk, justifying this by the fact that the security forces could cope on their own.
Saakashvili then insists that he has shown this "plan" (LOL!!) to Poroshenko but Poroshenko didn't express any enthusiasm. For you to understand why I am so shell-shocked with this news, I'll explain.
1. David Petraeus:
Alright, so, here is the guy who graduated every single top military school in the United States, was the top of the top, creme de la creme of military brass and, if that hasn't been enough--he ran CIA. You know, THAT allegedly "intelligence" organization which is always on top of the events. Nah, I am screwing with you. So, here is the guy who should understand the issue of combined arms operations and allegedly should have a good insight by 2014 into the capabilities of Ukrainian Armed Forces, military forces of emerging LDNR and, since he ran CIA, should have some insight in Russia's military capabilities. Right? Well...
2. Donetsk. The size of population of Donetsk-proper is 930,000+, metropolitan area--2,000,000. In general, it is a large city, mostly concrete.
This factor alone should have prompted Petraeus not to plan anything, against the background of Ukrainian Army being totally corrupt, underfunded and extremely badly trained, with many higher-ups in it already lacking in terms of modern war-fighting being stuck with the Soviet Army's combat manuals and TOE of the late 1970s-early 1980s. So, if Petraeus thought that this force is capable of capturing a huge city without the air force, which was immediately "grounded" (well, look at the map) and, as time has shown, was no match to Russia's C4ISR which was providing LDNR's armed forces in real time, how could this guy (again, CIA Director) not know what he was dealing with? Was (is) he that incompetent? Was he so oblivious to the fact that any serious attempt by Ukraine to "take" Donetsk would have resulted in a horrendous bloodshed and a complete annihilation of the Ukrainian Forces by Russia? Was he THAT ignorant, we are taking about the former head of CENTCOM and CIA?
But above all, isn't it strange that he was SMSing his, obviously risible "plan", to a known psychopath who was thrown out of his own country? What was he expecting? Remarkably, Poroshenko most likely already knew then that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were already in dire straits. Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo have shown that Ukrainian Armed Forces were in no shape tactically, operationally and strategically to undertake any serious operations and were no match to a much more determined and skillful forces of LDNR. A bunch of neocon think-tanks continues today to "study" that war based on Ukrainian narratives, myths and urban legends, not to speak of "opinions" of pseudo-experts, some of who also predicted that in 2008 Georgian Army will "roll over" Russians, because Georgians were partially equipped by Israel and NATO, and were trained by US instructors. Boy, you all know how that thing went. But Russia and her Armed Forces of 2014 were very different form those forces which in 2008 wiped the floor with Saakashvili's Army. They were much more advanced. If David Petraeus didn't know that, it only confirms my worst suspicions about the way US military-political top thinks. Because, let's not beat around the bush here, fighting Russians, even when they are merely "militias" of Donetsk is a completely different game than whatever the United States ever encountered in its military history. George S. Patton's ignorant bravado about Russians notwithstanding. They just don't learn.
The world is a strange place and I am a pretty strange man in this world, all things considered, since I have a luxury (not afforded to many) to experience, as it turned out today, twice, two opposing sides in a huge geopolitical spectacle of the 20th and 21st centuries. Once one considers my background, this experience, or rather experiences, do look like a good place from which to start writing an interesting story. I am totally aware of this place and that is what I was doing since 2014 openly in public. For anyone who read my Runglish throughout the years they should (if they don't--then I failed them) get the whiff of my profound hatred for war and rejection of the military porn. I could write a good military porn fiction but I abhor the every minute of this writing, in fact, I abhor the very thought of me writing some military porn with fictional wars and all those big words such as "pincer movement", "armored columns", "close air support", "engagement envelope" and, God forbids, "attrition rates" or "fractional exchange rates".
I, however, wrote two years ago this book in which I explained why I am scared shitless by America's military hubris and incompetence of her political elites, because they may get us all killed because they have no fvcking clue about modern war and how it is fought. So, I had to suffer through simplification of math for people to understand that the math for the US is simply not there anymore and the US cannot win the conventional conflict with such powers as Russia or China and as a result will sustain conventional defeat and will escalate towards nuclear threshold. Remember?
Such avoidance starts with understanding the nature of military power and of its application. This becomes absolutely crucial in such cases as the demolition of Saddam Hussein’s Army by a coalition led by the U.S. Armed Forces in 1991. If whatever lessons of the Battle of Lepanto in the tactical and operational senses are inapplicable for the Battle of Midway or the Falkland War due to a massive technological gap, the same could be stated about the “lessons” of the First Gulf War which, generally, devolved into a turkey shoot of the vast undertrained Iraqi Army, which enjoyed no operational Air Force nor even a remotely capable Air Defense to speak of. In fact, any lessons from that war could and, in fact, did provide a baneful influence on the state of mind of many Western civilian and military leaders. Hubris and gross misinterpretation of the results occurred despite many professionals describing in depth the Iraqi Army’s dramatic lack of capability, ranging from low quality of leaders and personnel, over-centralization of command, lack of ability for strategic assessment, lack of modern battle management means, not to mention gross technological inferiority.
As the latest events in Ukraine have shown the main danger for the United States could be America's desperate desire to get what it wanted since 2014. Namely seeing Russia getting involved in Ukraine openly big time. Always think twice what you wish for, especially for operatives in US State Department and organizations such as CIA, who only know how to handle a small fish and even that they cannot do right, those wishes may come true. As Russia has demonstrated it in April this year, if the US really wants Russia to get "involved" in Ukraine, she can have equivalent of two combined arms armies, two fleets and couple of VKS "fleets" ready to take on Ukraine within couple of weeks. While annihilating Ukrainian Armed Forces, together with neo-Nazi Kiev regime, Russia would do the unthinkable--she would parade both the United States and NATO as militarily impotent paper-tigers because they would be able to do exactly nothing to "help" Ukraine because everyone wants to live. This is precisely the reason Anthony Blinken visited Kiev this week and told Kiev behind the scene to "dial it down", amidst the fluffy tropes about US concern for Ukraine's "soverinity" and "security". As I say all the time since 2014 in this blog, math is not there for the US and NATO. It wasn't there in 2014, now it is not even close.
Enter Scott Ritter with his piece today in RT. I hate military porn, Scott managed to read it three times. He is certainly much tougher than me to endure this and not to get aneurysm. I would:
An American war hero teamed up with a former NATO commander to write a novel about the final days of US global hegemony. The result is a plea for a common-sense policy that seeks to avoid an end game as tragic as it is inevitable.This is a review of a novel. I feel that I need to make this point up front, lest people read too much into what I have to say about it. It is a work of fiction – and an admirable one at that, extremely readable and possessing a narrative that grips you from the start and holds you until the end. It is also highly believable, even when one factors in the need for elements of fantasy in order to keep the plot streamlined and the length reasonable. Reality can be complicated and messy. ‘2034’ is a novel. It is not real.
Scott writes about this book. It came out in March this year.
‘2034’, by Elliot Ackerman and Admiral James Stavridis, takes us to a world that is but 13 years removed from ours. It is one where the United States no longer possesses military supremacy but continues to act like it does. Where China’s economic and technological strengths have been used to craft a military capable of strategic power projection. Where Iran has emerged as a major regional power, and India is positioning itself for a global leadership role. None of the underpinning conditions that make ‘2034’ work as a novel exist today. But when examined in terms of historical continuity, using 2008 as a starting point, continuing through today, and then projecting into the future, every scenario painted in ‘2034’ is not only plausible, but probable. ‘2034’ depicts a world gripped by a multi-polar reality, where an America still operating on unipolar assumptions struggles to find its feet. Two terms appear often in the novel: ‘hubris’ and ‘overreach’. Everything that happens in ‘2034’ is borne of those twin concepts, where a former unilateral superpower finds itself challenged by regional powers no longer willing to accept American hegemony, and the overreaction to this challenge results in global catastrophe.
As you all may know, and I am on record for years, the United States is (always was) nuclear-biased country. It is the only country which used nuclear weapons, and it is the only country which came close to serious consideration of a use of such weapons in conventional conflict. Recall that Truman authorized moving nuclear weapons (without triggers, though) to Guam in 1950. "Just in case". So, it is totally conceivable for the US to go nuclear in case of sustaining serious losses in a conventional conflict even in a war with a nominally inferior conventional power. With global power? Russia doesn't need to "project" her power against US, she can defeat any conventional force in Eastern Europe purely conventionally and, God forbids, destroy human civilization with her nuclear arsenal. Ritter notes this:
None of the adversaries depicted in ‘2034’ had the ability to project military power globally like the United States. But then again, none needed to. All they needed to focus on was being able to project superior military power into a defined region. In short, a multi-polar world is beyond the ability of the United States to dominate militarily, and any continued effort by the United States to do so can only lead to conflicts which the United States is no longer guaranteed to win.
Well, today the "ability to project military power globally" against the background of the ongoing real revolution in military affairs means merely exposing your forces even in staging areas and rear to serious attrition. Here is how Iran did this.
Ritter concludes:
Thirteen years goes by in a blink of an eye. ‘2034’, the novel, explores a plausible outcome should the United States continue to incorporate hubris and overreach as the driving force behind its relationship with the world. It is not an outcome any American should endorse, but it is an outcome that is inevitable should America’s relationship with the world not change.
If that is the point of the book, it is all for the better. I still will not read it, but I am grateful that Scott Ritter did it (three times) and the fact that this book is based around the same set of strategic ideas I write about for many years, makes me feel not so much vindicated as hopeful that people of such a rank try to be realistic and militarily reasonable and only add to the choir of voices which calls on the US to face a reality and adjust its behavior accordingly. In fact, it may even work for the US benefit. Obviously, the US State Department and US utterly incompetent think-tankdom never read Bismark about the art of possible and have no concept that real international relations are not always a zero-sum game. But who knows, maybe a sheer volume of voices will get through, especially when S-500, A-235 and 3M22 become fully operational, like this year.
In his latest, Dr. Roberts makes a valid point:
I totally agree that confrontation can turn into the full out war very quickly, especially considering an appalling lack of competence and excessive supply of arrogance and stupidity of current administration. But Washington was misreading and misjudging Russia for the last 20+ years at least, in reality--much longer. But that is the whole point, both Lavrov and Putin are on record when warning about "Ukrainian statehood" in case Ukraine decides to go all the way, especially under the pressure from Washington which needs war in which Russia will be involved. Washington DOES NOT have military resources to do anything with Russia in Ukraine. In general US troops in Europe, in whatever configuration, are merely targets for Russia, let alone if Washington does commit its feeble military resources "in support" of Ukraine. Yes, this could turn ugly very fast and this will create a danger of of an escalation towards nuclear threshold because the United States cannot win conventionally.
But then again, I am on record for years that the US is increasingly desperate and feels its marginalization, both economically and militarily, in Eurasia. It is ready to do even unthinkable, once one considers the mental state of the US "elites", to hold on to whatever is left of the American Empire. In this case, what is left to mitigate this insanity is Russia's calm but firm posture and I can guarantee that Russians conveyed to the American side what it may expect if it continues on this path. Russia DOES posses escalation dominance and people in Washington know that Ukraine armed forces will be obliterated but think that it gives Washington a pretext to isolating Russia from Europe. What can I say, Russia completed her reorientation towards Asia, so, it is up to Europe to decide what it wants to do. But Russia WILL resolve the issue of Ukraine now and if the United States will stand in the way, well, God help us all. In conclusion: I disagree that Trump really wanted to improve relations with Russia. In his view, it was merely a tactical maneuver, an obverse Nixon's China policy of sorts. Russians didn't buy it. Russia and the United States today are in irreconcilable positions and no dialogue is possible with current US "elites" for a variety of geopolitical, economic, historic and, importantly, moral-ethical reasons.
