... the nature of war. Some people INSIDE the US military system did understand it but as a system the US military is not designed to fight a real war.
And then, there is this "teeny-weeny" factor of not a single US military man or woman ever fighting in defense of the United States. They simply have no cultural, psychological and spiritual "organ" which knows what that is. And yes, USAF with its confabulated history of "successes" against mighty Taliban Air Force or Iraqi so called "air defense" is not the pool of military professionals from which you can draw a person who can grasp the realities of modern warfare. Here I agree with Larry Wilkerson wholeheartedly.
... any proof of it, mostly the ability to buy out traitors, which, as it turned out most of Venezuela military-political top is, but it is difficult to explain people with "military" background of Trump or Hegseth that there was no any real military operation in Venezuela. But that's Donny for you.
But as expected, I see the inflow of both "concerned citizens" and hysterical individuals in discussion boards on this blog, who push the same agenda that Russia should have done something for Venezuela, some people even invoke the Treaty on Strategic Partnership between Venezuela and Russia which, incidentally, HAS NO CLAUSE about mutual military aid, unlike it is the case of fully allied relations between Russia and North Korea per their Treaty on COMPREHENSIVE Strategic Partnership, which DOES include serious mutual military aid commitment making it a full blown military-political alliance. Comparing North Koreans, who are tough and courageous warriors with Venezuelan military which consist of mostly fifth column having no pride but only price tag--this is a wrong blog to even imply such things.
Per lament of a well-known contingent who continues to view Russia as somehow the power responsible for liberating the combined West, including the US, from a collection of nutjobs by means of defeat of this said West. Nope, I have bad news for you--Russia, unlike the Soviet Union (and even then), will not waste her resources on anyone, unless she sees a real use for her own national interests. For the 12th year I repeat ad nauseam in this blog, that if need be Russia will "negotiate" with the Devil, e.g. Syria, where Russia still maintains her military bases. But now it is the time to openly state what Russian military-intel professionals knew for a very long time--Latin America is essentially a Western Hemisphere's Arab World, all of it is about the price tag. Africa, and some of her leaders have more integrity and principles than what we observed in Venezuela, which is now covered in national shame, they may never recover.
All that being said, nothing has changed factually on the ground: the US military remains obsolete, it cannot plan, let alone conduct real massive combined arms operations, it is only capable of psyops and raids similar to Venezuelan against backward enemies who do not shoot back. So, what's left then? Greenland, where the US will send a military police squad to "regime change" and that will be it. It will also be touted as a great victory. When you lose all your wars, this will do. As per SMO, here is another demonstration to all those UAVs fanboys who still think that UAVs can win war.
Here is Akatsia:
Here is towed Msta.
Artillery, including rocket artillery, remains a critical component in REAL war, especially when considering Fire Productivity and Fire Impact of it.
Trump is an empty suite and hot air balloon, who never controlled any of his administrations which are nothing more than collections of shysters with competing interests. Only cretins from the US pundits' class could hypothesize about some "strategy" and "balances" from such "composition" of Trump's "team", not seeing that the only purpose of Trump's presidency is self-aggrandizing and serving people who own him.
What you witness here is a bankruptcy of the whole acquisition and procurement policy not just in the US Navy, but US Armed Forces as a whole. For starters, it is inconceivable that the ship such as Constellation, carrying a rather timid air defense and strike packages--same ole', same ole' VLS with SM-6 and TLAMs, with subsonic Naval Strike Missile with the range of around 300 nautical miles, cost more than $ 1 billion dollars.
It is a beautiful ship, but it is obsolete on arrival due to a new warfare paradigm driven by the ability to develop firing solution for long-range supersonic and hypersonic weapons 24/7. It is an anathema for the average US admiral and general to grasp a very simple truth. This, $100 million small ship:
Can sink in one salvo both Constellations, and it will have targeting and develop firing solution even before any of the modern US Navy ships can get into range. But here is the deal--for the price of a single Constellation Russia builds 10+ of these guys. Or, about three of these:
These ARE game-changers capable of sinking the whole CBG in a single salvo while staying way beyond the reach of anything CBG can launch back. But then again, unlike SM-6 and SPY-1, 2, 3 ...6, Poliment-Redut, known in its ground-base version as S-350 Vityaz is known for its outstanding real combat performance against every single stand-off weapon in NATO's arsenal. I guess, you get this simple math here, right? These are realities which the US military is simply incapable to face. And so, as they say:
“Sometimes, you’re just better off designing a new ship,” Navy’s former top acquisition executive Nickolas Guertin said at a conference in February. “Turns out modifying someone else’s design is a lot harder than it seems.”
Well, good luck spending another 10 + years designing a frigate while continuing with building unfit for combat LCS and fast becoming obsolete TLAM-carrying platforms such as good but insanely expensive and, as already stated--nearing obsolescence, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Late Admiral Rickover once stated that "The US Navy is used to traveling first class"--meaning the fleet of very large (and visually impressive) ships which today turned into a menagerie of very expensive white elephants good only for blowing up some third rate opposition from a safe distance. Read the comments to the USNI article I linked--they are very instructive. Always remember--it is COFM (Correlation Of Forces and Means) which is in the foundation of modern forces.
Translation:MOSCOW, 26 Feb — RIA Novosti.At a press conference following the talks in Doha, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asked for an explanation of French President Emmanuel Macron's statement about Russian assets."We want to ask our French colleagues to clarify which international legal document allows the use of profits from what you stole," he said.
As you all know, French who for some unknown reason consider themselves a "player" in geopolitics, want to use the profit from Russia's frozen assets to be a part of "peace negotiations". Why Macron and French decided that they will be allowed anywhere near "peace negotiations" remains a complete riddle shrouded in mystery.
Meanwhile, in the news of a butthurt and increasing LOL, they continue to cope)) Look at the dates--they go on, and on, and on, while, unlike F-15 which never encountered any real enemy in the skies or on the ground, Russian Air Force redefined modern air combat and SEAD in REAL combat.
But the BS continues, to paint the picture of utter invincibility of something which never really fought. It is of interest, in this case, to elaborate on Pete Hegseth's totally expected statement to the effect that the US must have the strongest force in the world--he must say things like that. Needless to say, to elaborate on this issue as well as to explain why it is impossible may require a rather thick book, half of which will be bibliography and references, the other half--REAL military history and data related to operations from WW II to today. The US will, of course, remain the strongest Army in Americas and will continue to have a formidable Navy with nuclear deterrent increasingly moving to submarines (granted USS Columbia will come out without already significant troubles).
But other than that, especially considering the experience of the SMO--the largest continental war since 1945--which is already being summarized and generalized, we need to clearly understand that technological dimension of modern war changed so dramatically (in fact--revolutionary way), that, as I state ad nauseam, it is almost impossible to relate the US Armed Force TOE and experiences to it, other than discard wholesale the whole idea behind US military in the XX century. Per XXI century, well ... long long story. Pentagon is not ready for this, but its children will love it (c)
That would apply to these "military experts" in UK who pretend that they are slightly more than terrorists and have a grasp of war and applied geopolitics. Remember this cretin?
The NATO militaries, including the US Army generals paraded themselves throughout the SMO as nothing more than credentialed amateurs, who can operate only on templates created on utterly false premises from history to technology. But even considering the fact that British tabloids are just that, a BS peddlers, one has to ask the question, with CV like that:
What do you expect? Exactly. But when one has no elementary self-respect and NATO armies and fleets are commanded by people with degrees in agriculture, biology or God forbids, journalism, no number of hours in some staff college is going to address a gaping hole in professional military education and integrity which comes with Esprit de corps--a thing beyond the grasp of British military, a demoralized, shrinking lilliputian force which is shown its true miniscule scale by the enemy British loved to hate since 18th century.
Average American politician, top bottom, has zero grasp of warfare. Yeomanry efforts of the Congressional Research Service to fit a colossal complexity of the modern warfare into a few pages of general descriptions of military issues are still not enough to explain some rah-rah Congressman or Senator what they are incapable of grasping and what Sergei Lavrov repeated again today:
Translation: The United States is greatly mistaken in believing that its self-preservation is ensured by the Atlantic Ocean.This statement was made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov in the program “Moscow.Kremlin.Putin" TV channel "Russia 1".A fragment of the interview was published on May 26 in the Telegram channel of journalist Pavel Zarubin.“Washington thinks that its self-preservation is ensured by the Atlantic Ocean, this is also a strong delusion if they are trying to bring the world to the brink of a third world war,” Lavrov said, commenting on the escalation due to the promised supply of F-16 fighters to Kiev.The minister added that for now, the United States is “inciting its European satellites against Russia”, believing that they will get away with everything.
For people, which is majority of the US body politic, who are still enamored with great visuals of the US Navy's Carrier Battle Groups, it is difficult to explain that ocean today not only is not any kind of geopolitical moat but quite opposite--it is a great medium of delivering strike weapons close to the US proper, not to mention the fact that Russia's strategic deterrent, ranging from newest SSBNs to such things as hypersonic Avangards, makes US the deterrent look rather... drab. But then again, what do you expect from people who judge the war through the eyes of Hollywood or degree mills of Ivy League schools of government and foreign relations.
Translation:Gerhard Schröder is in Moscow.According to SPIEGEL information, the talks are about gas deliveries through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.He traveled to Russia via Baku.
Well, not so fast. Even considering Schroeder and Putin's long and friendly relations, the issue is more than just the ability to sustain Germany's economy, which, mind you, decided to kill it completely on its own. Russia didn't elect globalist elites in Germany, Germany did, and the time of excuses is over--once you made your bed, you must sleep in it. There is, of course, a possible twist to this NS1 "issue", which is, indeed, to a large degree technical--one must do maintenance of turbines--but there is a Nord Stream 2. Remember? The one which was shut down by cowards in Berlin under US pressure?
Germany surely can atone for her behavior by finding a spine, since NS2 is already filled with gas and has, surprise, surprise, Russian-made turbines which do not require going outside Russian jurisdiction and can be easily maintained. Get it? NS 1, however, delenda est. Well, for now, anyway, until remnants of Ukraine exist. Which brings us to this ever important issue of "strategery" and promised "offensive" by VSU. Let us go to RUSSIAN definition of OFFENSIVE which sounds from good ol' Great Soviet Encyclopedia (taken from Military one) as such:
Translation:the main type of military operations carried out with the aim of defeating the enemy and capturing important lines or areas.The enemy is destroyed by artillery fire, air strikes and other means of destruction, and attacks by tank and motorized rifle troops.Usually, a multi fold superiority in forces and means over the enemy is created in the direction of the main attack.Before the Offensive, fire preparation of the attack is carried out, and during the Offensive, fire support and fire escort of the advancing troops ..
Simple, isn't it? I can only quote my friend Colonel Trukhan in his assessment of Pentagon's "planning": "they are not going to out-think us". I agree with this and the Pentagon strategy from the get go was based on a completely false narratives and ignorance of Russia and her military thought. The idea from the inception was: by means of constant feed of Ukrainian cannon fodder and with supplies of Western technology, to ИЗМОТАТЬ--TO WEAR DOWN--Russian Army and while prepositioning of NATO forces at the Western borders of Russia. Boy, those generals in Pentagon, obviously, still live with their Al Bundy's "four touch-downs" in high school football moment of having more than half-a-year of prepositioning with impunity superior forces against third rate Arab military. They never, obviously, studied Russian operations, which by far surpass anything US Army ever saw, in WW II. Otherwise they would get a hint that Russians WILL always maintain strategic reserves, not just military, which WILL always allow the swing of any operation--be it offensive of counter-offensive to defeat any combination of forces.
So, now that Pentagon saw itself how real wars are fought and it dawned on it that 90% of Russian forces are held in reserve, those "planners", known for their military "art" from "glorious" Afghanistan "victory", begin to scratch their heads trying to remember that operations (and wars) are planned:
1. Using combat effectiveness when calculating a required force size (наряд сил) for specific objectives. And that is based on great ISR and ability to calculate REAL correlation of forces. This task was successfully FUBARed, traditionally I may add, by all those generals and spooks, who are still reliving their fifteen minutes of fame after beating a three-year old kid in the sand-box in 1991.
2. OFFENSIVE consists of STRIKES. Russian definition of STRIKE is this:
Translation:Strike (military) Strike (military), direct impact on the enemy by means of destruction and troops with the aim of destroying him and achieving a strategic, operational or tactical result. There are strike troops (naval forces), missile, aviation (bomb, bomb assault), artillery, torpedo, and in the case of the use of nuclear weapons nuclear (rocket-nuclear). The time, the order of applying Strikes in a battle or operation, and the use of their results are agreed upon between all forces performing a common task. When performing a combat mission, troops (naval forces) can strike in several directions. One of them, which is of decisive importance for defeating the enemy and reaching the area of the final goal of the operation (battle), is the direction of the main Strike. In the direction of the main Strike, a decisive superiority in forces and means is created over the enemy, ensuring his defeat. A strike group of troops (naval forces) is created to execute the main Strike... In the course of a battle and an operation, the directions of the main Strike and auxiliary Strikes may change. Depending on the nature of the enemy's actions and the timing of the execution of Strikes it can be retaliatory, counter, or preemptive. According to the operational plan and method of implementing strike troops are dissecting, crushing, concentric (applied in converging directions); to fulfill partial (limited) operational-tactical goals, demonstrative, false, distracting.
These are ABCs any junior officer fresh from any military academy knows and which are universally understood and that is why there could be NO "offensive" on part of VSU around Nilkolaev or elsewhere because even when one considers every reserve Pentagon desperately tries to assemble for VSU, including pouring what it can in terms of weapons, advisers and training another 10,000 of Ukie cannon fodder in Poland, the only thing they may hope for is STRIKE by VSU with very limited tactical-operational objectives for, at present time, merely a PR effect designed to cover up Pentagon's sheer incompetence in a face of real armed forces, and in desperate attempt to bite Russians somehow in a barely hidden rage. I know, this is the feeling of a guy who looks at the girl who is way out of his league.
Of course, the other funny thing is that you cannot concentrate forces without being detected and, of course, VSU, even with all Western support, cannot achieve ANY strategic objectives on the front with the length of more than 2,000 kilometers and is reduced to mere limited strikes. But Pentagon's woes do not stop here, apart from shock from the very limited Russian force taking part in SMO, a true revelation for them is a stunning really degree of effectiveness of Russian Air Defense. It is stunning. Even when one considers the fact of, inevitable in the conflict of such intensity, "leakers". We will know the percentage of "leakers" (enemy missiles which do reach targets past Air Defense) after the conclusion of SMO but it is already clear--it is very low. I will go out on a limb here and will "guess" that we are looking at the effectiveness of Russian Air Defense against ALL types of targets: Tochka U, HIMARS, other MLRS in the vicinity of 80-85% at least. Probably, closer to 90%. In aircraft, probably around 95%.
For NATO forces which are being assembled in Europe it means only one thing: levels of attrition of their strike weapons and combat aviation which dash any hope of achieving any meaningful objectives. It also means levels of attrition of the ground forces which no NATO country, with the exception of Germany, has any experience with. So, I guess back to drawing board Pentagon, right? Don't hold your breath--professional jealousy is a strong motivator which is destructive more often than it is constructive. And we observe this destruction of the US Armed Forces in real time. It is not just a "wokeness", however baneful, which kills US military--it is Patton syndrome, when mediocre general who never encountered a serious Wehrmacht force at its peak demonstrated what Atkinson in his foreword to Patton's memoirs described as: "the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would cost the American Army so dearly in Vietnam."
The US continues to suffer from this syndrome now across the board, being mired in its exceptionalist delusion, but it is warfare where this rot manifested itself so profoundly and so dramatically. For the force which convinced itself that it is "the greatest fighting force in history", while losing all of its wars, this trial by tactical, operational, strategic and technological realities could be a final blow before final collapse of its fake edifice.
You can bet your ass on Chinese taking part in those games. There is so much to incorporate in combat training protocols. Right, we all know, Russia is out of troops and ammo, that is what Pentagon tells us, wink, wink;)
Lt.Colonel Daniel Davies asks the reasonable question, while still repeating all those Ukie propaganda tropes about Russia being "bloodied" in SMO and about Holy HIMARS, the title of his piece does raise this issue:Why Do We Keep Listening to the ‘TV’ Generals on Ukraine? He writes:
The answer to this is very simple: incompetence and professional jealousy. SMO and Ukraine, same as Georgia in 2008, and same as Syria, and same as Ukraine now demonstrated a demolition of not only America's best proxies at given periods of time, but uncovered a fantastical thinking by US military about modern war. Most, with some notable exceptions, Western military professionals exhibited a gaping lack of understanding of not only Russia--that is expected from many--but of even basic grasp of economic mobilization scales, operational and strategic realities. 99% of US military officers of any note forecasts and explanations, be that on TV or in writing, not only were and are wrong, they raise the question of professional adequacy.
Davies lists all, oh so familiar, names of Petraeus, Keane, Hodges, Hertling who continue to embarrass themselves as military amateurs in their view of SMO. But they are just the tip of the iceberg, enough to take a look an Andrew Bacevich's personal views and military "analysis" the so called Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (in reality Cohen and Soros' funded org) he heads--one cannot shake the impression that far from being a former cadre officer of the US Army, Bacevich is simply stuck in the realities of America's endless and humiliating military debacles and lacks a solid military education which IS NOT a collection of tactical minutiae but must rest on a solid foundation of the military science. Davies still doesn't provide the definition of "bloodied", but have anyone told US military professionals that any serious operational level document contains what in Russian is called normatives (normativity) which describe ranges in losses in personnel and equipment depending on types of operations ranging from capturing the village, town or city to a head on division size battle with different types of opponent. Evidently American officers never heard of those, despite those being a common knowledge. So what "bloodied" is, then? And what is a definition of "significant"? Davies doesn't answer this question.
The Russians are no doubt bloodied and have suffered significant
equipment loss, but there is no evidence on the battlefield that they
are anywhere near “exhausted.” Most of the artillery promised by the West has already been delivered
and it has not, to date, resulted in even slowing Russia’s advance
through the Donbas, much less stopped it. The HIMARS launchers have enabled Ukraine to strike deep
behind Russian lines, and they have caused severe harm in their enemy’s
rear areas. Nonetheless, even that has not resulted in any observable
reduction in the still-heavy daily barrage of artillery on Ukrainian
positions.
It seems that most of
those US military professionals when talking about REAL combined arms
operations lack even basic understanding of the role of modern air defense, especially of such quality as Russian troop (voiskovaya) AD, which deploys a variety of high end AD systems ranging from manpads to Tor M2, Buk M3, and S-300V4 which already performed extremely well in defending Russian forces preposition and rear areas, including from this very same much touted, and grossly overrated, HIMARS (in Russian). All of those are standard targets for Russian Air Defense, but it seems many US officers still cannot grasp this fact, which is unsurprising, considering the fact that the US Army never fought in modern era under the steady fire impact to the operational depth and simply has no systems which are designed for such classes of targets. Davies continues and admits:
The most important fundamentals of war, the basics of combat
operations, almost all reside on the Russian side. Since the G7, G20,
and NATO Summits, there have been no additional large-scale
contributions of modern weaponry promised to Ukraine. The amount of
equipment to date has been a couple of hundred artillery tubes, about
250 Soviet-era tanks, and a few hundred Vietnam-era personnel carriers.
Cumulatively, all of this gear – including the HIMARS – are not a
fraction of the type of kit Ukraine would need to launch a counteroffensive. The idea, then, that Ukraine could stop Russia’s current
offensive and then transition to a counter-offensive to drive Putin’s
troops back – as Hodges said he believed would happen before the end of
this year – have no valid basis on the ground in Ukraine. But such
optimistic, rosy proclamations that are disconnected from battlefield
realities are not new for America’s active and retired generals for the
past two decades. Take these examples from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
What can I say. The issue here is not What Ukraine needs, but what US and its NATO lapdogs can provide and we already know what happened with the US stocks of much touted, and, naturally, grossly overrated, Stingers, Javelins and M-777. It is a good business for defense contractors in the US who will need to replenish grossly diminished reserves of such weapons, but, for the love of God, can we stop this BS with "take these examples from Operation Iraqi Freedom". I can only repeat what most US officers never heard about, Russian/Soviet strategist Alexander Svechin, who present Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov quotes once in a while:"Each war represents an isolated case, requiring an understanding of its own particular logic, its own unique character". The tiresome comparison of what amounted to turkey shoot of backward, under-equipped, under-trained, under-supplied, illiterate in many instances and incompetently led Saddam's Army, which didn't have even operational air force and air defense, to Russia fighting the best ever US proxy, which for 8 years was supplied, trained and now C2-ed by US and UK officers, is simply risible. But Davies agrees somewhat:
The danger in these types of statements is that they give false hope to
the people of Ukraine, give an inaccurate picture to the American people
of what’s possible, and encourages Congress to continue funding a
strategy that almost certainly will fail. At the very least, it is time
to start viewing routinely optimistic claims by some of our active and
retired generals with more skepticism.
Oh, I think the danger of these statements is grossly understated, because, judging by the stream of incompetent and militarily illiterate baloney US military professionals deliver from each and every media channel nowadays, one is irresistibly moved to the conclusion that maybe those generals and senior officers are not that good to start with? If they do understand, which I begin to doubt now, what is going on and spew their claptrap for propaganda purposes, that totally disqualifies them as honorable professionals, but if they believe their own absurdity and pseudo-operational and pseudo-strategic psychobabble, then we have a problem--they may, at some point of time, try to come into direct contact with Russian Armed Forces and will sustain catastrophic defeat, which, inevitably, will push the United States, which doesn't have modern historic experience with real war, to escalate towards nuclear threshold.
I remain on record: US Armed Forces never fought in defense of own country. The only type of warfare the US military knows is a naval one, where the US Navy maintained both quantitative and qualitative superiority over nearest rivals for a while, in terms of ground war it was always expeditionary warfare, and achievements of the US ground forces have been more than underwhelming. Desert Storm played a cruel joke on the US military and its fighting doctrine and procurement policies, which resulted in a failure in Iraq and then humiliation of Afghanistan. Modern US Army cannot fight and win conventional war with modern "peer" without sustaining losses on the order of 1,000-1,500 KIAs a day and massive loss of equipment, including a very high PR "value" such as combat aircraft or ships. Neither American public nor US political class will be able to deal with it, which will result in a political upheaval and calls for nuclear strikes, which will mean a death sentence to the US as a country .
Those people in the US military who do understand that, they do not have their voices heard, and, instead, we all are treated to nothing more than jingoistic propaganda, outright Russophobia and simple lies by people who by all measurements are not ready to face the realities of the warfare which, quoting Colonel Douglas MacGregor, looks like this:
It is a well-known fact, that today Pentagon has many US officers manning US weapon systems in Ukraine and they do more than that--they collect all possible data on the operations by Russian forces. It is not going to help, because America's problem is much deeper than even fighting doctrine or national strategy, however always flawed and unworkable. It is metaphysical--it is difficult to replicate or respond to Russia's technological and cultural responses to war. You cannot buy this historic experience and warfare culture. It will always be beyond reach. That is why I smile when same people who produced Afghanistan debacle, assure American public that they already learn and apply "lessons" from SMO. They mislead the public because the US doesn't fight like Russia and never did. It never will and it cannot be helped, because in the end it is history itself which is the greatest teacher for those who want to learn. The US military-political class not only doesn't want to learn, it is incapable of learning and the wall of BS surrounding SMO in the US, about which Davies writes, is the best proof of that. Not to mention the fact of best and brightest being removed from the US military for decades.
In related news. Give Americans a credit where the credit is due:
No, I am not a Fox "fan", despite the fact that I watch Tucker once in a while. I just use a snippet, the admission. Yes, US MSM is shit as are people who run them. They do harm people and the country, and the wolrd. They are very "effective" in that.
Do I feel smug at this moment? Come on, I am just human with all my human flaws, can I allow myself at least a brief moment of feeling good about myself and what I do?
1. Olaf Scholz cannot be viewed as a good source of expertise on anything related to warfare, real economy and, especially so, in relation to Russia. He simply has zero qualifications, even when one considers his present post as Germany's Chancellor. What he gets are some reports from a few remaining real professionals in BND and Bundeswehr who told him, I am sure, from the get go, about REAL situation. As the unlucky fate of some Germany's top brass testifies, such as Admiral Shonbach's forced resignation, Scholz was getting more or less reliable forecasting from the very start of SMO. But...
2. Western "elites" are simply incapable to hear "bad news" on anything because most of them are petulant children with the maturity level of high schools teenagers. Enough to take a look at the "levels" of the US State Department or other people from Biden Admin who pretend to run the country. As the result of all that, once the stream of, mostly fake, "news" (a euphemism for propaganda) from Ukraine dried up, reality, including the most important one--on operational and strategic level--began to bite. It hurts, I know.
But recall, that from the inception I warned about a complete delusion about Russia exercised in the West even by people who are supposed to know. Even deeply respected by me as a true, who he is undoubtedly, military professional and, most importantly, thinker is not free from some obvious misconceptions about Russia. Such as Early Warning ABM capabilities. But combined West miscalculated in the most important aspect of Russia--her massive real economic capability which, in turn, drives Russia's huge mobilization, both economic and military, potential. Only now this "message" begins to trickle UP in both Europe and even Washington D.C. I warned about the dangers of this miscalculations since the very inception of this blog and, of course, in here:
It is worth mentioning, that ANY, I repeat it, any intelligence or military institution in the West is not up to the task of understanding Russia's mobilization potential, which the last 4 months demonstrated perfectly. The FUBAR with delusional thinking regarding West's weapons' deliveries to Ukraine and fantastical thinking of civilian leadership of the West combined with crude and unprofessional propaganda from the US military "experts" demonstrate perfectly how incompetent they are. In the end, I warned, that using the framework of Western "economism" in application to Russia is an exercise in futility, because the same framework doesn't work on West's economy at large either.
Beaten to death cliche ascribed to many people ranging from Churchill to Metternich that "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks" is just that--a cliche. In reality, it is just that the West was never really good at understanding of military and economic potential translating into the kinetic action. Let's face it--ALL, without exception, people in the decision making circles in the US know little about the world outside and especially so about Russia--it is a systemic illness of the US body politic as a whole and it is extremely dangerous. I will repeat, again, Russia study field in the combined West and, especially in the US is an academic fraud, populated by pseudo-"academic" shysters with soft Ph.Ds and Russia "expert" community is laughable because of its sheer incompetence, based in low intellectual level.
But, if even Olaf Scholz begins to if not see (I doubt he is that smart) to, at least, articulate some realities which really matter, then it shows a very carefully hidden from the brainwashed Western public, some major tectonic shifts at least in Europe. Europeans, I know some, are waking up to the reality that the US, namely its neocon mafia in charge of the US foreign policy, would like to see Europe burn in continental war against Russia, while the US will seat it out and then, as in WW II, will come in to claim its spoils. Neocons are one trick ponies and utterly militarily incompetent people, but even such a door mat and America's slap bitch as Scholz begins to recognize that it may end really bad for him personally (that's the main concern) and for the country which he and his government so passionately want to finish off as a nation. So, something is afoot and Scholz suddenly beginning to speak as a man who finally had his two-hour briefing on introductory level geopolitics--you know, geography, industries, military and shit like that--is a good indicator of this. So, in this case, it is a positive development.
Well, no shit geniuses. Main explanation (among few others) is the fact that VSU losses are catastrophic and most capable and smartest have been simply killed. It is a Volkssturm phase for 404, and it is accelerating as I type this. But you see, if those who matter would have been learning in their respective programs something of value and really tried, they wouldn't have to deal with this severe cognitive dissonance and they would have chosen a much more constructive and realistic approach to Russia and we all wouldn't be witnessing what we witness today, not to mention listening (reading) to old fool Kissinger's definitions of victory or loss for Russia. How this artifact is still around and is taken seriously by anyone is a complete mystery to me, but then again--at this stage the West needs to "arrange" face saving measures and not get involved with nuclear exchange with Russia as many neocons want.
One of our friends, Simon, decided to criticize me for putting the doubt over John Mearsheimer's both academic adequacy and intentions, which I described in my post yesterday. Here is what Simon wrote.
I do not deny the fact that I also hear Mearsheimer expressing common sense thoughts in the last several years. And the fact that he and late Stephen Cohen made a stand against hysteria of Russiagate can only be applauded and admired. But I never stated that Mearsheimer is a coward, far from it--his common sense position is an indicator of a significant human courage and that too should be admired. But the problem is that Mearsheimer also speaks as a classic American imperialist and one can easily find his verbal threats issued to Australia (the video of that was posted on our discussion boards), not to mention the fact that he has a very peculiar view on the history of the 20th Century. Here it is:
This is his recent, 2018, work of political "science" and it is disastrous in fundamentals. For starters, any "academic" who quotes Fukuyama in his work should immediately be viewed with suspicion in regards to its historical knowledge. But while Mearsheimer tries to figure out "liberalism's" place in the new world, he still thinks that it was Liberalism which defeated Nazism. Well, here is the issue, such view of the history is in foundation of both neocon "tradition" and American exceptionalism. Mearsheimer should accept a simple truth and a fact that it was Western liberalism which gave the rise to both Fascism and German National-Socialism and that "liberalism" exists today still, granted it poisons air with it's putrid gases of decomposition, ONLY because 27 million Soviet citizens died in WW II and in doing so gave a chance to the US to recover from debilitating Depression and saved Western civilization--the crucible of "liberalism"--from itself. It was Russia's contribution which gave "liberalism" another 70 years. But Mearshmeir doesn't bother himself with serious study of warfare.
It was Marshal Zhukov on record who noted in 1945: "We liberated them, and they will hate us for that forever." He was prophetic, while the whole Mearsheimer's historic view, it seems, is built around Anglo-Saxon world saving "liberalism". The fact of him, like those proverbial broken clock, being right (showing the correct time) twice a day is a matter of purely human common sense and the ability to calculate some consequences of escalation, not of his "academic" convictions which are those of a devout American imperialist and exceptionalist--both stances defeated by reality already. In the end, one can even find a rational seed in even the most outlandish manifestos, but American "realist" school is nothing more than a feeble attempt to recognize reality strictly on the American conditions, in America-centric world. Here is a classic US "realist". A card carrying one. And he is very representative one of such school of thought, same as Mearsheimer, who continues to push fully bankrupt ideas of American "realism".
I put quotation marks for a reason but make no mistake--I understand the importance of money for the economy, they are the blood of economy. But here is the problem about which I am on record for many years--unlike tangibles of agriculture, machines, healthcare and education, money, finances that is, whose properties can be described in purely materialistic terms, e.g. "this lathe is 50 years old but it still does the job and does it well", or "this dump-truck sucks, and is about to break, because...", you realistically cannot do this with money.
Whether you like it or not, but money always carry with them a huge baggage of appropriated mythical qualities which are, unlike it was the personal case with Hank Hill who shed his tear for his truck by watching movie about the "death" of a tractor, money and their effect are omnipresent in human culture and are either extolled or condemned. In the end, Judas sold Jesus out for 30 silver coins, money that is, not for the new Ford truck or X-Box whatever the latest model. Remarkably, it is in the times of serious troubles when money lose all its allure and tangibles become more precious than money. What's the point of money when life-sustaining 125 grams of bread in Leningrad in 1942 could be received only by presenting the coupon (card--kartochka) and you couldn't buy it even if you wanted to no matter amount of money. What is the worth of money when your life depends on tourniquet and a vile of penicillin but you need it now to survive and no amount of money can buy you both, rather inexpensive items.
You may say my examples are not precise, sure--I do not pretend to cover all bases. But for years I continue to drive this point home: money are just the medium of exchange and as such they are a derivative, however important, because they either have foundation of tangibles or they don't. Bretton Woods and US Dollar emerged primarily due to a fact that the United States in 1944 was the only country among world powers which not only hasn't been devastated by the War, but, in fact, benefited greatly from the war and in 1945 US economy was responsible for 50% of world's manufacturing in goods. Simple as that, anyone who tells you otherwise--they better get back to school and take a basic truthful course of the history of the 20th century. But now we live in the 21st.
No shit, geniuses. How about you learn for warm-up what is the national power and how it is formed, before throwing our way all these contrived financial psychobabble and translate it into normal human language for the average Joe on the street, that the US economy is dwarfed by China's, that India, for all her problems is ticking up economically and will overtake the US fairly soon, that Russian economy is larger than that of Germany possibly two to three times, that the only thing which matters in the world is how large your economy is and what you produce and how you can defend your resources and sovereignty. And it goes without saying that the United States and its currency begin to fail across the board on pretty much any criteria.
And then there is a power element to all this: Russia's massive resources are defended by one of the best armed forces in the world and massive arsenal of both nuclear and conventional high precision stand-off weapons. The United States cannot realistically fight conventionally Russia without sustaining catastrophic loses and immediately escalating to the nuclear threshold. Hence a hysteria about Ukraine and a complete butt-hurt propaganda about Russia "losing" in 404. This is not about caring about Ukraine, it is in full understanding that the US-established zero-sum game militarily with Russia is an excellent demonstration of how US proxies have their asses kicked starting from Georgia in 2008, to Syria and now, the last best hope of neocons, in Ukraine. Against the background of the US having zero prospects in Syria, having been pushed from Iraq and being utterly humiliated militarily in Afghanistan--the US doesn't seem that mighty and invincible, in fact the opposite is true and the world took note.
The only chance for the US to fight China is on Indian Ocean's SLOCs, where the US Navy still holds the edge, primarily because of its submarine force, but China is building up and will eventually both mitigate her dependence on SLOCs and develop a serious naval deterrent. I don't want to even go into the discussion of the US pretending that it can fight PLA on the continent--this is not even funny. So, there you are. Now Borisov made an announcement that new State Order for Defense (GOZ) will include further robotization and deployment of direct energy weapons (in Russian). Always keep in mind this military aspect--it is what shapes geopolitics.
Russia de facto introduced the gas Ruble, oil Ruble is coming because both Gazprom and Rosneft exited their EU subsidiaries and now have nothing to do with them--let Germany "nationalize" them (I guess one can always use additional office furniture and empty storage facilities) and now EU doesn't have contracts for gas and oil, since, before the latest events, contracts were signed with... and you have guessed it, EU subsidiaries of Gazprom and Rosneft which now haму no relation to either Gazprom or Rosneft. Good luck, EU, negotiating new contracts with Gazprom and Rosneft. I heard Gazprom Bank is a very good bank, and, most importantly, it is in Russia which precludes the repeat of West's standard procedure of robbing others, such as was freezing Russia's currency assets worth in excess of $300 billion. I know, for German "elites" who still view Russians as subhumans (old habits are difficult to get rid of) this whole thing is so humiliating but Europe made her choices. No contracts, no resources. What is the Euro worth now? And this is just the start.
Now, we can go back to what I mentioned yesterday about Hungary and Slovakia becoming this proverbial window from EU in order to somehow satisfy its needs. Well, I am 100% sure both Hungary and Slovakia will be only happy to oblige because they have no problems with doing what is profitable for their countries and do not give a shit about ideology. This also explains the fact that Russians are in no hurry to return about 500 Boeing and Airbus planes leased by Russia's air lines and Russians are really stunned by sheer idiocy of the West which thinks that it can steal more than 300 billion USD from Russia and Russia will not retaliate. Those 500 commercial aircraft cover a large portion of $300 billion stolen from Russia and Russians will have no problem servicing them, because Russia has her own massive aerospace and adjacent to it industries capable to manufacture any spare parts. So, you see--physical economy is a very different game than currency speculation and stock trading, and even banking. It is what you have at hand which matters, not what you project. In the times of troubles this is absolutely true.
In related news, Russia continues to lose tremendously in 404, to such a degree that what's left of Marines 503 battalion of VSU (264 people) decided not to risk it anymore:
And surrendered. Good for them, LDNR will need all manpower it can get to restore Donbass cities and towns. Very many VSU POWs are already working clearing streets and rebuilding on the liberated territories. I mean those who were just grunts, Nazis have a very different fate for them. And this is the primer for Monday.
