The Coming Of Zircon.

As Interfax reports (In Russian), the first launch of a brand new hyper-sonic missile Zircon (3M22) from the sea platform will happen in the Spring of 2017. The missile, upon completion of trials, will be deployed on both surface ships and subs. Initially those will be both Russian Navy's Nuclear Missile Cruisers Admiral Nakhimov and Peter The Great, and all Yasen-class (project.885) SSGNs, and their follow up Husky-class SSGNs. 

I am not going to lie, I am impressed with the speed with which Zirkon is coming but then again, it is a revolutionary weapon which will change the naval paradigm and most people with even rudimentary understanding of missile weapons can appreciate the fact that even a single missile capable of M=6 and the range of somewhere between 400 and 1000 kilometers is, basically, not interceptable by any existing naval air-defense system. Russia invested a lot in it. A salvo of such weapons will, with a very high probability, ensure a defeat of an opponent. Zircon is an ultimate Sea Denial weapon, albeit, depending on the naval views it can be construed as a Sea Control one. But, considering the philosophy behind Soviet/Russian anti-shipping missile development, Zircon is a Sea Denial weapon which fits perfectly into the Russian view of A2/AD. Russia's A2/AD starts in what is known as DMZ (Remote Sea Zone) and it is this edge (aka Kromka) where platforms carrying this weapon will have to counter any effort to undermine Russia's security. Zircon also, undeniably, is the part of Russia's conventional strategic containment  and ocean deployment of the latest Russia Navy's SSGNs armed with this missile will serve this purpose. It will be fascinating to observe the change in naval thinking in the coming years.

On The Issue Of "Moral Equivalency".

It seems that at this stage the only thing which worries US political and media class is the issue of (self)righteousness or, if to put it in "scientific" term--the issue of moral equivalency. Bullshitters such as Bill O'Reilly of FOX News Channel just cannot exist in the world where they and the United States are perceived less than holy and infinitely righteous. Since such world view is preposterous, especially against the background of US unleashing hell, which resulted in millions innocent people dead, maimed, displaced, in the Middle East and supporting jihadists for decades, the only thing which remains for these lowlifes is to start lashing against others. Who is the prime subject among these "others" for such an exercise? Of course, it is Russia. In the case of O'Reilly's interview with US President Trump it was Russia's President Vladimir Putin.  President Putin was called by the sewer which is US media and most of political class many things: a thug, a war criminal, what have you. Now, O'Reilly found another definition for Russia's President--he is a killer now. 

The phenomenon of this anti-Russian and anti-Putin campaign is not even in the fact of an extremely low intellectual and, especially so, cultural level of people who claim to be American political and intellectual "elite"--this is a well known fact by now. The same goes for visceral Russophobia of US "elites", especially of the so called "conservative" (cuckservative) strata of this elite. It is, for example, very easy to understand why US so called "left" hates Russia. The reasons for this hate are in the open and pretty much well-defined. With people like O'Reilly, however, it is a bit different. What is remarkable in this Russophobic desperate hysteria is the fact of how it is difficult to contain racial and cultural hatred towards Russian people because these were Russia's actions which in the last 20 years really helped, however unintentionally, to expose already crumbling "holier than thou" edifice of US status as a "shining city on the hill". There is also a barely hidden and barely contained complex of inferiority which has its roots in history. A Major one of them is the fact that US never had an actual nobility. Yeah, yeah I heard this all before, such as that George Patton was descendant of some nobles, well, there is one problem with US faux-nobility, United States never had a monarch and the court which are the two main prerequisites for a genuine nobility. US political founding is antithesis to all that. 

For many power and influence (and money) are very desirable objects but once attained, many develop an urge to get a step "higher", to become noble. Well, this is impossible in the United States unless someone is wedded or married into the nobility, such as was the case with Grace Kelly. But then again, this was a nobility of not American descent, which simply doesn't exist, no matter how one tries to twist facts with all kinds of simulacra such as "New Aristocracy", "Old Money" and even such preposterous meme as Camelot etc. Emulating nobility? Sure! Becoming one? Absolutely not, unless married or wedded into it. And here is the deal, Russian nobility which arose in 14th Century, while disrupted by Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, never stopped being a part of Russian history even during Soviet times. It is difficult to completely disrupt an immense political and cultural influence of nobility among which are Count Leo Tolstoy or noblest of nobles Czar Peter The Great, just to name a few. Yours truly, himself being of poor Russian nobility's lineage (mother's side) studied in the same naval academy and later served with a direct descendant of one of the huge Russia's noble military names. I cannot divulge his name for pure PerSec and ethical reasons but it is suffice to say that his noble relative is a major historic figure and features prominently from Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica and even Viscount Bernard Montgomery admitted him being the world's "ablest single commander" between...well, I leave you with a puzzle if one wants to solve it. In other words, Russian history to a very large extent was formed by Russian nobility, US history was not. The idiosyncrasies of Russian Noblese Oblige never disappeared even in the Soviet times, which is easy to understand when even the regular Soviet (and now Russian) public school Russian Literature curriculum was dominated by Russia's nobles from Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to Turgenev, to name a few, whose object of study were Russian people and  nobility, and the way they interacted. Those idiosyncrasies, modes of communication, behavioral matrices of nobility not only did not disappear but were re-appropriated and endured both in USSR and Russia. Generations of Soviet  (and even many contemporary Russian) girls would associate themselves with Natasha Rostova or even Anna Karenina and that is a part of the explanation for well known femininity of Russian women. In his 1961 (I have an original edition)  What Ivan Knows That Johnny Doesn't, Arthur Trace (a graduate of West-Point himself) went on to compare "humanities" curricula of Soviet and American public schools and showed a startling abyss which separated Soviet and American education systems. As short review of his book states:

This profoundly disturbing book is a comparison of American and Soviet school curricula and textbooks. It proves that the sciences and mathematics are not the only subjects in which our children lag behind. By the time the American fourth grader has learned to read 1500 words from his typical classroom reader, a Soviet student in fourth grade will be expected to read at least 10,000 words and will be ready to plunge into history, geography and science. Why does Ivan at the age of nine have a reading vocabulary so much larger than Johnny's? Could it have anything to do with the fact that from his first reader on, Ivan reads Tolstoy and Pushkin and Gogol while Johnny follows the adventures of Jerry and the little rabbit that goes hop, hop, hop? If a Soviet student undertakes to learn English as his foreign language - as 45 per cent of those in the regular school do - he will study it for six consecutive years starting in the fifth grade, and he may well have read more literature in English by the Tenth grade than an American student will have been assigned by the twelfth grade.  

From 1940s through 1980s Soviet and especially today's Russian students were and are educated within the framework of continuous, uninterrupted Russian history in which names of Marshal Zhukov and Yuri Gagarin not only coexist with the names of Prince Kutuzov or General Raevsky of an ancient noble line but complement each-other. In the end, many strategic operations of the Red Army in WW II were named after great Russian generals of 1812 Patriotic War all of whom were, well, nobility. Such as famous Operation Bagration named after Prince Bagration.  Even in Soviet times Russian people were afforded a deep look into the splendor of Russian Court. Visiting State Hermitage could be a life changing experience for anyone, once the scale of achievement is grasped. Even in the radical times of early Soviet Russia a lot what was accumulated and created by Russian nobility  has been preserved. A lot has been restored later. It is incredibly difficult to  explain to the average Joe how come that those barbaric Russians derive from the country which even today leads US in public education, is the home to Bolshoy and Mariinsky Theaters, exhibits art collections which occupy the very top of fine arts' world. Those "barbarians" come from still one of the best read nations on the earth, very many of them actively visit theaters, and classic music concerts. It is difficult to explain, indeed. The same as it is difficult to explain, to those who have very little knowledge of Russia, the grace with which many Russians, from average people to the political top take a barrage of insults hurled at them by US "elites". As I stated before, it is inconceivable to see any rank, even retired, Russian officer calling for "killing Americans". Or Russian politician calling US President a thug. All that is the result of many centuries long cultural conditioning, which, of course, has been overlooked (deliberately or not) by US resident Russia "scholars".              

As Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in 1837 about Russia and United States: There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world’s attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing…. The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.

However wrong Tocqueville's assessment is from our today's vantage point, he predicted one thing right--a geopolitical rivalry based on seemingly vast eschatological differences between Russia and the United States. The rivalry which was not initiated by historic Russia. The message has not been lost on American elites. The results are in, the same as a jury--"a shining city on the hill" today shines no more being itself in a deep trouble of carefully designed narrative of own superiority being destroyed in a front of our eyes when facing a reality. "Democratic Ideals" mutated today into the regimes change by a subversion and a sword, into the war crimes, into dramatic economic and cultural decline domestically. While things were going well it was possible to pretend that "End Of History", including in a moral sense, is near, and that real morality could be substituted with ideological memes for mob's consumption. It didn't work out this way and once the sense of self-proclaimed moral superiority began to escape the American media and political class, whose ethos Richard Pipes described as "commercial", a thin veneer of culture was peeled back and the plebeian nature of  American political milieu has been revealed completely. There is nothing noble there, be it the spread of atrocious lies about new US President or calling foreign leader a killer or a thug. American obsession with Solzhenitsyn, as an example, is easily explained from this point of view--he gave US Russia which is a perfect fit for self-proclaimed moral superiority. Money can not buy class and that is what almost completely (with some notable exceptions) is lacking in modern American "elites". Russia has it and she can back it up with an incredibly rich, however difficult, and powerful culture, as in behavioral matrix, which is not to insult anyone unless you are ready to back it up with actions--this is a noble thing. Tocqueville's reference to America of 1837 reads:

           One has freedom as the principal means of action

Today, when one observes a behavior of people like Bill O'Reilly or Mitch McConnel, or John McCain one can easily expand Tocqueville's statement with "freedom from decency, culture and truth" a precise combination of factors (or lack thereof) which brought about a situation in which United States can not claim any moral high ground. I applaud President Trump for having a decency and courage to point this out to the face of a professional BSer with the psychology of a bellicose small man who feels, if not grasps, his moral inadequacy and a background in which there is nothing noble.   

UPDATE: two real American patriots weighted today (02/07/17) on the issue I raised in this post yesterday. 

Pat Buchanan and Philip Giraldi. Worth reading. 
 

ASW As A Cross To Bear.

Both The Sunday Times and The Telegraph leaked yesterday a "fodder" which sure as hell must create some kind of (British) public reaction for whatever end, presumably increase in financing of armed forces. Among the list of failed technologies "serving" with the Royal Navy both newspapers point out one, which, in their mind, is the most "dramatic"--the fact that, and I quote:  The Navy's Type 45 destroyers are so loud they can be heard 100 miles away by Russian submarines, it has emerged (c). My first reaction to all that was....so, what?  

Here is a T-Shirt imprint by Royal (Netherlands) Navy, namely its old timer namesake of the class of diesel subs,  HNLMS Walrus.  

There is a reason this imprint depicts a Dutch Walrus munching on CVN 71 Theodore Roosevelt. This meal for HNLMS Walrus happened at JTFEX 99 naval exercise where Walrus did here dirty deed by breaking through Roosevelt's ASW screen unnoticed and simulated attack on US Navy's most prized possession--Nuclear Aircraft Carrier. This simulated "kill" of US Navy's carriers was not one off. The list of submarines, including Soviet and Russian ones, breaking through ASW screens of Carrier Battle Groups is too numerous to post it here but let us review other situation. The year of 2003, Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Poland's then President Aleksander Kwaśniewski were "fighting" a naval war (exercises) on board of Russian Navy's Missile Cruiser Marshal Ustinov together with  nuclear cruiser Peter The Great, who headed KAG (Ships' Strike Group). ASW was an element which was exercised and, should this have been a real war, both Russia's and Poland's Presidents would have been dead. One of Russia's Baltic Fleet's project 877 SSKs broke through Peter The Great's ASW screen unnoticed and "sunk" it. BPK (Large ASW Ship) Admiral Levchenko's (part of a group's ASW screen) salvo of  ASW torpedoes at Flaming Datum as well as a salvo of depth charges anti-torpedo screen, all happened post-factum. That is, in real battle Peter The Great would have had several torpedoes making sure that it (she, he??) wouldn't make it back to the base. As some American ASW veteran officer described the essence of Anti Submarine Warfare: it is akin to a guy who was hitting himself on the head with the hammer only to feel relief and better when he stopped doing so. In Soviet (Russian) Navy anti-submariners were looked at as a people who had no life. ASW is HARD!

Here is why my reaction was "So, What?" (accidentally, my most favorite jazz piece of all time from Miles' immortal Kind Of Blue). The tactical truism is: in simplified modern Surface Ship against Submarine tactical setup (engagement), Surface Ship's chances of survival such an engagement are approaching zero. Submarine will "hear" this ship long before this ship will hear this sub. That is why, in layman's lingo, surface ships move often within groups and use all available means, from patrol ASW aviation 'on call", to own ASW helicopters to make sure that they are beyond the salvo ranges by the submarine. Other submarines are also used as ASW assets. It also has to be stated that modern subs (and ships) are not limited to merely acoustic means for detection, tracking and developing firing solution against their "victims". All kinds of means, from MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detectors), to gravity and thermal detection and tracking methods are used. Here, as an example, are the photos of System Of Detection Of Wake (Systema Obnaruzhenya Kilvaternogo Sleda) MHK-200 Toucan--a standard feature of Russian project 971 Shuka and project 945 Barracuda SSNs.     

The profile of modern naval battle is extremely complex, and the fact that Russian subs can "hear" Type 45 Destroyer 100 nautical miles away is realistically....drum roll--nothing special. Yes, since the late 19th Century surface ships were using all kinds of means for reducing their physical fields (aka for fanboys as "stealth") from visual, to acoustic, to magnetic, to thermal to radio fields. There is a reason why modern submariners self-assertively state that in naval service there are only two types of ships: submarines and targets. Yes, it sounds arrogant but has a ring of truth to it. Royal Navy, of course, may try to reduce the acoustic signature of its Type 45 destroyers as it probably should be done. But it has to be understood that today, with the revolutionary development of missile technology and surveillance and intelligence means, one will be hard pressed to envision a scenario in which modern sub, carrying modern anti-ship missiles, will be forced to really close the distance for a torpedo attack on the enemy's surface naval ship. I wrote about that in my Damned If You Do series of posts (still not completed). Modern surveillance systems such as Russia's Liana and means integrated into it allow for almost real time theater situational and tactical awareness and with it the ability to provide real time targeting data, including for subs, for a missile salvo from the ranges at which it will be very difficult, if possible at all, for surface ships to do anything against the attacker.  But in the end, no matter how good or, as in the case of RN's destroyers, how bad the acoustic signature of a surface ship is, a submarine will "see" it way before a ship can "see" a sub. And that is the naval truism du jour. I wrote this on the run after I read the news. Reality, of course, is much more complex but I will try to return to it soon.

A Letter to Federica Mogherini.

Here is EU's "diplomacy" big honcho, Federica Mogherini, does it again: parades herself as a clueless delusional hack. In her today's  interview to Corriere Della Sera (in Italian) she (yet again) demonstrates the depth of the rot and impotence of EU and its structures. Using Google Translate it is not difficult to grasp Mogherini's take on the latest events in the world, including Russian-American relations:

"What does Europe in front of the new Trump-Putin Russia and a strong board, winning in Syria, a friend of dictators in the Middle East? "I would have some doubts about the actual strength of Russia, a country undermined by the economic crisis. Its internal difficulties are well disguised as an international political and military dynamics. Europe has no interest in a Russia weak and in crisis. I am very concerned by what is happening in Ukraine. Very serious, because it continues to violate the principle that borders must not be changed by force. However, Europe and Russia have worked and are working very well together on many issues such as the Iranian nuclear dossier. But on other issues, such as Afghanistan or the peace process in the Middle East I am not so sure that the agendas Trump-Putin dovetailed. " 

I have some news for Mogherini when she speaks about Russia (see above underlined). I do consider the possibility of Mogherini being asleep for the last 17 years and being awake only in a duration of the last couple of days, but to be THAT stupid and ignorant (and disingenuous, of course), one has to really put some effort in it, or remain asleep.  So, I have to write a letter to her.  Here it is:

Dear Federica, 

in the times of fast-speed internet and unobstructed global flow of information, it is really difficult to "disguise" virtually anything, let alone "internal difficulties" of such country as Russia. Especially when one considers, that Russia and Russians enjoy today benefits of freedom of speech and of information which are beyond the grasp of most Europeans who are living in Orwellian world of political correctness and of the newspeak. Western in general, and EU media in particular, are a laughing stock of the world and are supremely incompetent in the same way as EU's political class is incompetent. As any country, Russia does have difficulties but those are not only not disguised, especially considering Russia being saturated with Western "observers", ranging from media to espionage types (both foreign and domestic), but are in the open and for the last three years served as a fodder for Western "media", who not for once predicted Russia's demise.... which never came. 

It is reasonable then to assume that these, supposedly "disguised", difficulties were not as life threatening as was stated, and that EU media, diplomatic and intelligence observers failed miserably in assessing the actual, real state of the affairs. As per "disguising" those obviously well exposed "difficulties" through international and military "dynamics", one has to understand that, using the words of great British historian, Corelli Barnett: power of the nation-state by no means consist only in its armed forces, but also in its economic and technological resources; in the dexterity, foresight and resolution with which its foreign policy is conducted; in the efficiency of its social and political organization. It consists most of all in the nation itself, the people, their skills, energy, ambition, discipline, initiative; their beliefs, myths and illusions. And it consists, further, in the way all these factors are related to one another.  

While EU's combined GDP is larger than that of Russia (hers is about the size of Germany's) all points listed by Barnett Russia has, all with a plus sign. That is why Russia is a superpower influencing global dynamics. EU, other than GDP, has none of what Barnett talks about. Today EU is a geopolitical midget with demoralized population, with catastrophic demographics and being in panic retreat against waves of Muslim immigrants. EU represents today a reincarnation of Sodom and Gomorrah, European men have been completely emasculated under the constant assault of feminists and sexual deviants. European armed forces are pathetic. European Churches are empty or being destroyed altogether. The whole notion of power has been reduced in Europe to a collection of the post-modernist gender-neutral memes. The campaign of suppressing any critique of governments and of Brussels useless moronic bureaucracy is in full swing. On every point which ever defined and defines real power and influence Europe fails miserably. It increasingly becomes nothing more than a relatively small peninsula of a giant Eurasian landmass with only two things going for it. One, being a depository of a treasures of past European civilizations, second, having, for now, more or less large GDP providing a good standard of living, again, for now. But even here, a massive change is coming, because this model is unsustainable, especially against the background of European institutions' impotence and total collapse of morality and civilization sustaining values. Yes, Federica, that means you and your "diplomatic" organization too. You are simply not in the same league, not even close, with Russia's diplomats who would "eat" you and your "colleagues" alive, because unlike you, representing Brussels' bureaucracy, Russian diplomats are not only better educated, they represent real interests of their nation. 

Here, I have to conclude my letter with response to what I marked in red in your quote. Dear Federica, it is the other way around. It is Russia who is not interested in Europe as EU, especially when it is not going to survive. Russia is not interested, other than as the market for Russian goods, in Brussels' bureaucracy which is dumb as fuck and can ensure only two things: either completely run Europe into the ground or, maybe, finally precipitate the uprising of those remaining French, German, Italian, Dutch nations who must erase this globalist order in order to survive as independent nations and cultures. With this, Federica, I want to wish you and EU bureaucracy a faster moral and financial bankruptcy and disappearance from European mind, whatever is left of it today anyway, as a long and torturous nightmare disappears with awakening into the nice sunny morning. But I don't hold my breath for that and you may relax before finding Europe as merely a geographic appendix to a place where the new economic reality is emerging as I type this. Stay safe and learn how to shoot (just in case), you may need it. But above all, try to wake up first.  

Ciao.    

  

Aww, Isn't That Cute?

Now government of Germany is having a lucid, even if the only one so far, moment. Federal Republic Of Germany finally figured out that Kiev junta maybe is not what it was portrayed before in Germany by this (among many others) very Suddeutsche Zeitung, which now, finally, discovered evil plans of Ukraine's Government. All previous three years  Germany lived in happy self-imposed ignorance of the nature of Kiev's neo-nazi junta, all three years Germany viewed a cabal of criminals and openly murderous nutjobs who run Ukraine as a legitimate subject of international relations and closed its eyes on atrocities which were and are committed in Donbass on the orders from Kiev. What happened that suddenly official Berlin saw through Poroshenko's plans and came to the correct conclusion that it is Kiev which is "deteriorating situation to a great extent in order to stop the US President from easing sanction on Russia"? Let me get this straight: Berlin understands now that Kiev is ready to start a war to not allow President Trump to lift sanctions from Russia? But wasn't it Germany in general, especially through its media which would make Goebbels blush, and Frau Kanzlerin Merkel in particular, who gave legitimacy to this collection of war criminals in Kiev and who went out of their way to impose sanctions on Russia? If my memory serves me right, it was Germany, especially its Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who played a crucial role in escalating Kiev events to what they became today--a geopolitical catastrophe in progress right in the middle of Europe. 

Germany (together with US) was one of the main drivers behind the process of Ukraine's collapse, it was Germany and its imbecile political and media class, who wanted to see Ukraine in the so called Western Fold. Well, guess what, Germany can have it now and that is why such a "sudden" attack of the common geopolitical sense. It is precisely because Germany and, with it, EU can have and will have this explosive, rotten, corrupt and destabilizing for EU (which is not experiencing its best moment as I type it) element. In the end, Germany wanted to assert itself as a great power, using Ukraine, and "assertion" it did. Considering "intellectual" level of Germany's ruling class, Germany failed miserably, as was expected. Now, when real multi-polarity became a reality, especially with Trump's victory and West's sanctions on Russia provided so much needed impetus for Russia's re-industrialization and continued modernization,  one has to ask the question--what Germany and EU are about to face when dealing with their (together with Obama) Ukrainian creation? The answer is very simple: they, not Russia, will have to pay for the mess they created. Let Germany deal with it, let it show a leadership in facing Kiev's neo-nazis whom Berlin so actively supported from the get go, let Germany (and EU) face consequences, including the loss of a very large part of Russia's market. Frau Kanzlerin better start finding some explanation for Germany's business community why it will never again be able to have niches it enjoyed in Russia prior to 2014. Hey, Ukraine could be a good compensation, right? 

UPDATE: as WSJ reports NATO decided to "shelve" plans to meet with Ukraine regarding European Missile Defense. Not to "provoke" Russia. In the same time, doesn't Frau Kanzlerine have elections to attend pretty soon? As we all know, wars create a problem of refugees and we know how "well" Germany handles these types of problems. 

Ah, Yes. As Was Predicted.

On this blog too, from the get go. But then again, each time I hear Ph.D in economics from Harvard, I cringe. Well, I cringe from Ph.Ds in political "science" too, from any Ivy League madras.

So, Russian economy is not in tatters, eh? 

Have to hand it to Forbes, McCain's photo with caption looks great. Remember me thanking this old hack with pushing for France not to sell these two floating Mistral-class coffins to Russian Navy? 

As for Serdyukov and his handlers...well,Mistral embarrassment will be with them for a long time. John McCain, meanwhile, should double his efforts to prevent Mistrals' delivery to Russia--there will be many Russian naval professionals who would thank him for that.   

But what do I know, really. Wait, this was my first post in this blog (wink, wink). Does McCain even know how much good did he do for Russia? I am not being facetious.

Does United States Have Enough Currency?

No, I am not talking about good ole' greenback, which could be printed by US FRS and Mint (coins) thus flooding the world with papers and inflation. Hey, beats dealing with it domestically and why, when inflation could be exported to some other locality. I am talking about real hard currency which exists beyond the virtual world of Wall Street indices and blown out of proportions, grossly exaggerated US GDP figures. I am talking about the hard currency of the real military and economic weight--a geopolitical hard currency. It is this currency, which rules the world, always did, always will. Donald Trump's victory changed geopolitical calculus dramatically and underscored a titanic scale of changes world is coming through now. For starters, it became (as was anticipated with Trump) OK to ally with Russia to fight this ISIS filth. These are great news but let's slow down a bit and look at even larger picture. Even before President Trump's Inauguration a bunch of the US foreign policy "experts" started to float the idea that now, that Trump is a winner, United States might do a "trick" on Russia, or, go full Nixon-Kissinger in order to regain Russia as an ally in US struggle with China. There are three problems with this plan, though, especially as seen from Russia and by that I do not mean the only source of US "knowledge" about Russia--a collection of US sycophants from Moscow's uber-liberal Parnassus--but from people who deal with facts:

1. It is simply inconceivable for any foreign policy realist to consider Nixon-Kissinger "opening of China" (understandably, as a counterweight to the Soviet Union at that time) any sort of a success. Speaking frankly, it was this very policy through which United States initiated and then accelerated the growth of her own economic and, to a degree, geopolitical competitor. Now, with China's nominal GDP being larger than that of the US, not to mention the actual GDP which is in manufacturing--here, the gap is huge and continues to grow--how can one in his own mind consider this any kind of success or a viable geopolitical concept? We all know the results of this "success", which, in large part, is responsible for deindustrialization of the United States--the very factor which, among very few others, defines nation's geopolitical weight. Russia's professional analysts know the real situation in the US economy. And that is why Russia's leadership, at least at this point, is not convinced at all that this game should be played. Let's face it, China as an economic entity is worth for Russia not simply more, but on the order of magnitude more than the United States.

2. For some reason, many people in the US who offer this bizarre triangulation with using Russia as an ally for the US in her struggle against China, still reside in late 1980s-ealry 1990s thinking that Russia is simply still enamored with the US, her standard of living and culture. This simply has no bases in reality anymore. Russians, unlike it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, are simply not interested in US anymore. Other than Russian traditional fear (justified completely) that some nut-job in US will start a war with Russia, the appeals of US "democracy" and liberalism faded dramatically and overwhelming majority of Russians merely go about their daily business and live their lives. The US in Russia today are viewed mostly from the point of view of a threat--a dramatic departure from 25 years ago when United States were viewed as an ally and a friend, those sentiments disappeared pretty fast. Russians' "going about their daily business" involves a lot of bread and butter issues and here United States are not even in the first ten of Russia's main trading partners but, as you may have guessed it already, China, sure as hell, is. Thus the irresistible and highly warranted question arises: what's in it for Russia? What can possibly United States offer Russia economically, when economic dynamics in Eurasia offers Russia a host of incredible economic opportunities?  

3. The reason this blog was started. It is a huge one, a defining one--Obama's Administration and its cabal of neocon war criminals is responsible for what even during Cold War seemed inconceivable. United States, her paid for, encouraged and supported proxies, Ukrainian neo-nazi junta, spilled the blood of Russian and Russo-phone civilians in Ukraine. I stress it, not military--military is expected to face death, but civilians. Russians do not forget easily these things and it was here where a huge obstacle exists culturally--US political class as a whole simply has no grasp of what a spilled blood means in international relations. This factor is tectonic and can not simply be dismissed. That is what behind statements by many high ranking Russian officials when they admit that repairing Russian-American relations will be a long and arduous process. Truth is, today Russians simply do not trust the United States, period.

Both Russia and the United States need to repair their relations and a lot of good will come out of it, but considering Russia as a possible Nixonesque "counterweight" to China? I don't think that the United States has enough geopolitical (and financial) currency to "buy" Russia. Yes, the discussion on new geopolitical structure involving US, China, Russia and, eventually, strong regional players must start today and this is possible with new Administration, but Russia is not for sale in any, even the most sophisticated,  geopolitical game as a "counterweight" or as a mercenary. The game has changed and so did Russia, China, United States and so did the world at large. We either start to negotiate with each-other or we will perish all under the ruins of the old world.  

UPDATE on a long way to normalization of relations.