Some Interesting Statistics.

 Pretty much no comments are necessary. 

Old Turkey Buzzard, old turkey buzzard flying, flying high...

Yet Another Dud?

Here is the biography of the author, who is praised in The American Conservative for his new book Last Stands: Why Men Fight When All is Lost. Here it is:

Michael A. Walsh is an American music critic, author, screenwriter, media critic, and cultural-political consultant. 

In other words, he is a man who knows about military and warfare primarily from the books and movies. Fine. There is a cultural aspect to the warfare and last stands when everything is lost often are connected to the sense of brotherhood in arms with buddies in the unit and of the esprit de corps, and of simple masculine doggedness, which often manifests itself in extreme circumstances such as war, where defiance in a face of death is well documented. But that is all well-known and books on the warfare and acts of defiance and heroism are plentiful. But Walsh decides to concentrate on such acts, in the words of the reviewer, for: 

A new book takes stock of history's last stands and draws questions about Americans' will to defend their nation today.

Here is where the whole thing goes haywire immediately, while Bradley Anderson who wrote the review continues:

The qualities of which Walsh writes are real, and they are every bit as vital to a civilization as he says. They are, however, virtues that can be cynically exploited by those who have little interest in the defense of the United States against the kinds of existential threats that would inspire American men to take up arms and go willingly to their deaths if need be.   

Wait a minute, what? There is no doubt that US Armed Forces have enough courageous men many of who did perform acts of an incredible heroism, be that men of 2nd and 99th Divisions in Ardennes in December 1944, or the crew of immortal USS Samuel B. Roberts DE 413, just to name a few acts of American heroism in WW II. But we are talking about different times and different circumstances. The truth is, that what Walsh tries to explain in his book, all those last stands, were driven by more than just masculinity-based cohesion of the unit and courage. This is not the whole story and it never was whole behind what Tolstoy--yes, this unremarkable artillery officer, who wrote few unremarkable books, nobody knows about, in which he specifically pointed out to: 

The question that had perturbed Pierre on the Mozhaysk hill and all that day now seemed to him quite clear and completely solved. He now understood the whole meaning and importance of this war and of the impending battle. All he had seen that day, all the significant and stern expressions on the faces he had seen in passing, were lit up for him by a new light. He understood that latent heat (as they say in physics) of patriotism which was present in all these men he had seen, and this explained to him why they all prepared for death calmly, and as it were lightheartedly. 

Yep, this thingy, which usually comes from primarily sense of duty and love for the nation, country, when they are in the grave danger. And here is a thingy, of which I speak ad nauseam--the United States lacks this "thingy", since no American soldier ever fought under the circumstances (not since 1814) of the United States proper being under any danger which comes with enemy's victory and him occupying the country. This distinction is crucial in psychological terms and it was and is being demonstrated since Korean War, because unlike most occasions which Walsh chose to describe, the United States remains impervious to any invasion and a nightmare which follows and can afford to lose interest in wars, which in the American case are all, without exception in the XX Century, were wars of aggression and conquest. 

But then again, Walsh is a... music critic by occupation and expecting prudent and precise view on the history of wars and human condition in them from such a "historian" is an exercise in futility, and Walsh aptly proves it. He decides to review a famous Pavlov's House defense during the Battle of Stalingrad, whose description is drowned in ideological noise, and then Walsh blows in a spectacular manner:

He uses grossly inaccurate, politely speaking, Hollywood BS of a movie as a historic reference point. The myth of Red Army soldiers having one rifle for two conscripts is a purely Western propaganda creation which was debunked so decisively that it is inconceivable that the man, a music critic by occupation no less, who decided to write anything on Stalingrad, doesn't know it. But Walsh, certainly, doesn't. Obviously, Western military "historians" never could understand that the only complain General Vasily Chuikov had in his memoirs was about shortage of fully automatic weapons, which were better for the fight in the rabble of Stalingrad, in famous Rodimtsev Division. But the Red Army fighters all had their rifles and enough munition to fight off the onslaught of the Paulus' 6th Army and its allies. This, so called, "black myth" (in Russian) is yet another demonstration of a deliberate distortion used by the Western "historians" to portray Soviet Union's decisive contribution to the victory in the WW II as merely through piles of dead bodies and rivers of blood. Using Hollywood's grossly inaccurate propaganda as a source for conclusions on a matter of a serious military history arouses immediate question--why music critic by education decided that he can pass any sound judgement on matters which require a serious knowledge and experience within military? I don't know, but that is what general American view on war is--a Hollywood picture. 

Moreover, last stands while having not just your buddies, but your home, your families, you loved ones, your culture is what drives men to perform acts of self-sacrifice in those proverbial last stands when everything seems to be lost. This is not the experience the United States military can relate to, despite having its own share of heroism and sacrifice, but in the end, as, I believe, Chesterton stated--the soldier must not so much hate what is in a front of him, as love what is behind his back. This is precisely why the United States couldn't win in Korea, lost in Vietnam, lost Iraq and lost in Afghanistan, because as this insignificant combat officer noted:       

"But all the general and soldiers of [Napoleon’s] army…experienced a similar feeling of terror before an enemy who, after losing half his men, stood as threateningly at the end as at the beginning of the battle. The moral force of the attacking French army was exhausted. Not that sort of victory which is defined by the capture of pieces of material fastened to sticks, called standards, and of the ground on which the troops had stood and were standing, but a moral victory that convinces the enemy of the moral superiority of his opponent and of his own impotence was gained by the Russians at Borodino…The direct consequence of the battle of Borodino was Napoleon’s senseless flight from Moscow… and the downfall of Napoleonic France, on which at Borodino for the first time the hand of an opponent of stronger spirit had been laid" 

But what does he really know, this loser Tolstoy, he didn't have Hollywood to refer to, because we all know, Hollywood can always "vividly illustrate" just about any bullshit it wants to. That's the entertainment.

I Spent My Hard-Earned $12.99 (Plus Tax)...

On January/February 2021 issue on Foreign Affairs when on Friday visited Barnes & Noble. The only reason I spent this substantial sum of money (this is a price of a half-bottle of Jack Daniels--much more sensible investment) was, knowing that this is a Council on Foreign Relations publication, to preview what victorious Democrats are preparing for America in the nearest future. Boy, I was not disappointed. This volume #100, Number 1 is everything one needs to know about America's decline and mechanisms which drive this decline, if not collapse altogether. The "opening salvo" is Samantha Power's middle school level essay titled The Can-Do Power. America's Advantage and Biden's Case. This is a superb piece in so far as the exhibiting of delusion and lack of any professional adequacy of upcoming America's "foreign policy" establishment goes. Make no mistake, the United States didn't produce competent foreign policy in decades. There are simply no people of knowledge and statue in modern US "foreign policy" establishment capable of sober and professional assessment of both outside world and the internal US political trends to put US "diplomacy" to serve US national interests since nobody can formulate them, least of all American diplomats. 

Re: Samantha Power, who is slated to become a big honcho in USAID in Biden's Admin, is known to a be a sanctimonious uncultured lawyer turned "diplomat" as US Ambassador to UN, who was periodically humiliated as a petulant teenager by then alive and well Vitaly Churkin. 

Power, being uncultured and badly educated product of Anglo humanities sphere, substitutes knowledge, solid assessments and professionalism with hysterical moralizing and crusading spirit based on delusions and outright falsifications. She can check all boxes in the career path of US systemic foreign policy incompetence starting from Ivy League law background, to Pulitzer for falsification of the Balkan Wars and inability to apply personal experiences prudently. This is precisely the set of qualities required for modern American "diplomats" and Power is perfect for the job. 

She opens her piece with a reference to... Madeleine Albright with her "indispensable nation" declaration, granted that even Power admits in her piece that this statement is being "vigorously debated" and goes for the jugular accusing, correctly, Trump Administration in being "incompetent". She thinks that Trump's response to world problems was very bad, which implies that Obama's response to them was very good. Remarkably, Samantha Power, who defended Syria's terrorists at the UNSC and was a part of Obama Admin, on whose watch Libya was attacked, not to mention a bloody coup and civil war in Ukraine have been unleashed by the United States, cannot be taken seriously as a geopolitical analyst--she simply has no background for that. She certainly has a reputation for being unhinged and that's the problem. The case she makes in her piece is an exhibit A of a delusion exercised by US "diplomacy" (quotation marks are deliberate). Power states: 

"For all the criticism directed at US foreign policy is eras past, foreign leaders and public largely retained respect for the United States' willingness to undertake challenging endeavors and its ability to accomplish difficult tasks--a significant but underappreciated cornerstone of American power". 

I agree, in the "eras past", especially on Power's watch as a bullhorn of Obama's radically interventionist and aggressive "foreign policy", the United States achieved absolutely stunning things, which otherwise no country could have ever achieved:

1. The United States through criminal policies in Libya, Syria and Ukraine made sure that overwhelming majority of Russians, while having no quarrel with American people, abhor the United States and viewed it as number one threat to Russia and the world already in 2015. Russians also made sure that they have enough power to annihilate the United States under any circumstances and made sure that "values" which Samantha Power and Democratic Party, she belongs to, profess are prevented from entering Russia by means of new Russian Constitution. 

2. The United States, obviously, performed also an incredible diplomatic feat by making sure that already on Obama's watch Russia and China de facto concluded their political alliance, which, inevitably started to evolve towards a military one. All that while Power was still in UN. 

3. US Middle East policies are altogether is an AIPAC-induced mess, which Power has zero power to change and will do as she told by her Israeli-first masters. 

So, yes, the United States is a "can-do power" because to fuck it up on this truly historic scale one does need "diplomats" of Samantha Power scale of ignorance and zeal. Of course she is not alone, but there is very little difference, primarily without distinction, between Power and, say, Pompeo. 

But Power doesn't stop her attempts to let people forget those bygone "eras" and proposes same ol' routine on repudiation of Trump's "policies" and following what is perceived to be Biden's policies. Again, a difference without distinction. Power states that the United States is a home to 40% of Nobel prize winners and based on that she concludes that the US should show people a way into economic recovery and technical progress. Sure. The problem with this argument is the fact that Power, having American "humanities" degrees, doesn't understand that Nobel Prizes in literature and, especially, economics are a complete BS since are primarily ideologically driven and are in the fields which have relatively minor to outright baneful, such as "economics", effect on human lives. What she doesn't know, of course, is that in the fields which truly matter for serious economic and technological developments, the United States long ago is not a leader, not even close, and in produces as many STEM graduates as Russia, whose population is more than two times smaller. This was in 2016. 

By now Russia accelerates her STEM enrollments while in the United States most STEM graduates are... foreign. If Power thinks, and she does, that one can revive the country through granting non-STEM degrees, such as hers, I have a bridge to sell.  But that is what Power proposes in essence--let's allow foreign students back in the US, since it reflects well on US reputation and is somehow supposed to be related to US... competence, lack of which Power admits while proposing utterly incompetent measures, which allowed China, indeed, to capitalize on by preparing a substantial portion of her STEM graduates in the US especially throughout 2000s-mid-2010s. What Power offers in effect is to prepare highly valuable scientific and engineering cadres for someone else, while continuing to destroy real education in the United States. I am sure the United States is in dire need for Ph.Ds in Diversity, Gender Studies and Political "Science". Can one be more oblivious to the very real issue for the United States than Power? 

Remarkably, Power doesn't forget to attack China--I am not going to judge the merits of such attacks--but if Power thinks that already lost Covid-19 Vaccine race may somehow restore US "competence", she obviously wasted her time "teaching" in Harvard Law School, reproducing the now traditional American incompetence in the international relations field, instead of paying attention to actual trends both internationally and domestically. Remarkably, it was CFR's big honcho Richard Haas who in his twitter on January 6th, 2021, traditionally, over-reacted: 

We are seeing images that I never imagined we would see in this country-in some other capital yes, but not here. No one in the world is likely to see, respect, fear, or depend on us in the same way again. If the post-American era has a start date, it is almost certainly today

Which only strengthens my argument of the last almost a decade. The United States lost its mojo through a series of events, which I describe on this blog for the last 7 years. Also in my books. America is being destroyed and is being driven into the Orwellian world as a result of a systemic crisis which cannot be resolved within current economic, military and cultural paradigm. But that is what piece by Power, and as a whole issue of Foreign Affairs--can you believe this, they gave Francis Fukuyama podium again, Jesus--are a testament to. You cannot fix the American autoimmune disease, including through her increasingly incompetent and malevolent "elites", whose "intellectual" level and self-awareness are those of high school students. In other words, I spent my hard-earned $12.99 for pretty much what I knew already, I just needed the proof. I got it--there is no hope. 

In related news. In a face of political (and criminal) repressions in the US, Maria Zakharova admitted today (in Russian) that there are inquires and requests, primarily from Trump's supporters, about Russian citizenship. As I stated not for once, Russia is more than just superpower, it is also an arc. I predicted long ago that the stream of Western, primarily white, Christian folk to Russia will eventually grow to a river. Current American elites have three properties, they either are insane, or cowardly, or both. These are the people who do conceive of totalitarian society and many crave it, especially on the Democratic side. They do so because they are an urban office plankton, who care only about themselves and are subjected to all kinds of social and psychological pathologies. Such a society has no future and the America of the past is no more. Thus, the threat of violence, civil war, persecution and even mass repressions will drive increasing number of Americans to consider moving to Russia and this is totally understandable.  BTW, for those people who asked, Griezbach family IS in Russia and they are now permanent legal residents and are on their way to citizenship. All kids are with them and are doing great. I could never imagine in my wildest dreams 25 years ago that I will say that: you want real democracy, free thinking, free inquiry and social normality? Russia. That is why it is so hated.

How Things Changed.

This band toured the United States triumphantly. They just wanted to preserve Chicago's great music. And Chicago's music is worth preserving because it is simply great music. They never expected to be called "better than original". They cannot be called just a cover band, they are simply astonishing. Leonid Vorobyev simply wanted to preserve great music. Boy, did he do it. 

America of that time doesn't exist anymore, but its cultural imprint, in the best sense of the word is still out there. So, Leonid and Friends just did it. Plus, when you have Ksenia, boy... Anyone remembers a band Black Russian?

 

What an irony. But then again as I quote late Limonov about modern Russia:"We are Europe now." As I say all the time, only free people can create great art and music is one of that arts. They are more than "cover" band. They do it all and better. 

Yes, they got endorsed by Paicey (Ian Paice) himself. But Chicago is...well, Chicago. 

As I say, only free people create the greatest art.

What A Shock... Not Really.

The shock is not that Biden appointed Vicki Nuland to the position of the Undersecretary for Political Affairs, it is this: 

Biden also announced his plan to name the former head of policy planning at the State Department, Jon Finer, as deputy national security adviser. These are, by the low standards set by the Biden transition, sensible appointments. The same, however, cannot be said for Biden’s nominee for Sherman’s old job, that of undersecretary for political affairs, Victoria Nuland.

It is absolutely shocking to learn that some standards, however low, actually do exist anywhere in the US political top. No way, this cannot be true. And it is not true, the only "standard" which exists at the American political top is ideological purity, professional qualities be damned. Especially in the American so called "diplomacy" which does not exist as such anymore. But even more shocking is this:

As Biden’s undersecretary of political affairs, Nuland will have immense influence over policy and personnel. Progressives in Congress and their partners in the media, think tank world, and among grassroots activists should join forces with the growing caucus of anti-interventionist Republicans on the Hill and vigorously oppose her nomination.

Seriously? There are "anti-interventionist Republicans" in existence? You mean in the party which sold America to the left and to the right and still pretends that it is a viable political entity? Oh, please. Let's admit that the United States of America is run by neocons-liberal-interventionists and that is the only political party the United States has. Republican Party is dead, it was dead for some time, but now its decomposing neoliberal and neocon corpse begins to poison already putrid atmosphere of the American political discourse. GOP is done--it is the party of treason and this is not a political construct America needs to survive. The US needs a true conservative party with a clear national(ist) ideology which cannot be conceived by the America's modern "conservative thought", which is a simulacrum of "conservatism" and has no intellectual staying power nor courage to stand up to a sanctimonious woke neoliberalism of the so called "left". For starters, "conservatives" cannot formulate what American nation is or they simply don't have courage to do so, nor are they capable to overcome rigid ideological and bankrupt economic views, since corruption is at the heart of the American political discourse. Everyone is for sale, it is just the matter of price. Plus, "conservatives" do not know history. Yes, there is this thing in America with the history. I don't know, something in the water, maybe, but there are issues with historical awareness of the US "conservatives",  the issues with cause and effect, let's put it this way. Hence cartoonish and garrulous "exceptionalism".

Note, I again do not discuss the democrats--I am on record who they are and what a deadly danger their policies represent for the United States--this goes without saying. But let's face it, GOP's face is not some "caucus" of anti-interventionist Republicans, but that of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel, late John McCain, and Ted Cruz. I don't think that "return" to paleo-conservatism of Pat Buchanan is the answer either. Pat's ideas about history and those very same important historic causalities are, putting it politely, a very shaky ground for development of a viable political ideology, which can unify forces who do care about what happens to the United States. Such an effort requires a serious thinking, or, rather, rethinking, and while "conservatives" have a lot of people with Ph.Ds in history and political "science" in their ranks, those people are still blood and flesh of the system which produced an astonishing number of neocons, interventionists, exceptionalists and shallow doctrine-mongers who dominate America's governing and so called "intellectual" class. So, who will formulate something, instead of bankrupt tired talking points for GOP, something which may resonate with people on the fundamental level, including those who Trump betrayed? Anybody? If not, then expect radicals and fanatics taking the lead and, please, spare me those "historic" parallels, say with Germany of 1933--Hitler, actually, was a genuinely courageous man, who went through WW I with distinction and finished it decorated with some notable orders usually not bestowed on servicemen of his lower rank. Expecting some Ivy League humanities graduate, whose only difficulty in life was in deciding what type of dormitory to choose, being able to formulate an ideology which can save the country. Right. And I am about to get at Yamaha I have at home and compose something which will make Tchaikovsky's music sound amateurish in comparison. What do you say? Ah, I cannot play and do not know notes--yes, true. But that is just a minor detail. After all who said standards? What standards? Let's compose... 

In related news, the only remaining pr. 941 Akula (NATO: Typhoon) SSBN Dmitry Donskoi (news in Russian), the largest sub ever constructed, will remain in service for another at least 5 years. I think such an engineering marvel deserves to be preserved as a museum once this monster retires. I am sure there will be no shortage of visitors wanting to experience an awe from a probably deadliest weapon humanity ever constructed. The scale of these ships is simply mind-boggling. They are also very graceful-looking subs. 

Here is Dmitry Donskoi in person. I am sure Russia can afford such a museum. I would put it in St. Petersburg. In fact, once retired, I am positive Donskoi will be able to provide a sizeable cash-flow for its own maintenance as a museum. Who wouldn't pay an equivalent of $10 to get onboard. I would.    

A Tacit Admission.

 Military.Com reports today: 

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday on Monday released his vision for the Navy's decade ahead. Citing a long-term competition that "threatens our security and way of life," he said the Navy must ditch platforms it no longer needs to invest in new tools that will be required to deter aggression and preserve freedom of the seas.

There are two major points which, I assume, Gilday had to make, as were supposed to do so Soviet officers when preparing any serious paper. They had to emphasize the guiding and ruling role of the Communist Party, in the US today it is a reference to some security and way of life. I really do not know who actually threatens "American way of life" externally, most of the threats are surely of the internal origin, but I am splitting hair here (wink, wink).  

CNO continues:

"I don't mean to be dramatic, but I feel like, if the Navy loses its head, if we go off course and we take our eyes off those things we need to focus on ... I think we may not be able to recover in this century," Gilday told reporters Friday, ahead of the document's release. "Based on the trajectory that the Chinese are on right now -- and again, I don't mean to be dramatic -- I just sense that this is not a decade that we can afford to lose ground." ...With China and Russia rapidly modernizing their militaries, Gilday said there is no time to waste in pushing ahead with the Navy's plan. That includes necessary investments in public shipyards, dry docks, maintenance facilities and aviation depots that he says are overdue for upgrades.

He speaks about divestment of legacy platforms such as Ticonderoga-class cruisers, dock landing ships and, naturally, LCS. I doubt that the US Navy will be able to beat China in terms of a number of surface platforms, granted China's monstrous ship-building capability, and the only decisive advantage the US Navy will continue to have for awhile over PLAN is, as I said on a number of occasions, US Navy's submarine force which is modern, advanced and extremely capable. But the time is coming when even this will not be enough, especially with China planning to obtain genuine hyper-sonic anti-ship capability based on her surface combatants. For now China's declared hypersonic capability is based on primarily land-based DF-21 ballistic anti-shipping missile. Latest PLAN's destroyers, such as massive Type-055 still carry a Chinese YJ-18, a copy of export variant of Russian 3M54 Kalibr, but even this missile, when in dense salvo, will wreck a havoc with any surface force. 

This brings us to a strategic issue. Russia today can sink any surface force around Eurasia and it depends how fast will Russia decide, if ever, to open access to Chinese to her true anti-shipping hypersonic weapons. It is difficult to forecast. It may become possible down the road, once Russian Navy will begin to field new generation of hypersonic weapons. After all, Russia sold both S-400s and SU-35s to China. But for now, I doubt that Russia will provide China with any Kinzhals and Zircons. Having said all that, it was in the news that Russia begins deployment of a squadron of MiG-31Ks, Kinzhal carriers, on Kamchatka. This means the exclusion zone with roughly the radius of 2,500-3,000 kilometers with the center at Elizovo. That means Russia's anti-shipping capability stretching to the northern tip of Taiwan. This is not counting other supersonic and hypersonic capabilities of the fast modernizing Russia's Pacific Fleet. So, the question is, thus, how Russia will decide to support China in case of military conflict with China. Russia can easily contain Japan. But will Russia provide China with technology, let alone gets involved directly? 

But most importantly, the key issue here is that a surface fleet as we came to know it in the last 100 years is over. Real revolution in military affairs pushed the legacy large platform Sea Control force to the brink of extinction. Any combination of surface forces centered around massive aircraft carriers will be detected, tracked, and, in case of real war, destroyed beyond the range of any type of carrier aviation. Nor exotic and unproven weapon systems such as lasers or whatever else is being envisioned will be able to deal with a swarm of highly maneuverable M=9+ missiles, which can also be made impervious to counter-measures such as lasers, which still require an extremely accurate targeting, granted that such missiles can be detected at all. That in itself is a huge issue. So, Admiral Gilday talks about the decade ahead. So, what's the real plan? To develop weapons similar to what Russia and China have? I don't know. I can see the US developing some sort of M=5-6 hypersonic weapon for land-attack mission but there is a serious doubt that the US Navy will receive a viable, long-range anti-shipping missile any time soon, if ever. A confusion about the role and the nature of hypersonic weapons is well illustrated in (you guessed it) bizarre piece in The National Interest, where the author, now traditionally, has no idea what he is talking about, while peddling same ol' BS of scaled Strategic Defense Initiative and all those, oh so ever "capable" sensors.  

But Admiral Gilday did make a tacit admission of the doctrinal and technological dead-end the US Navy faces today. This also relates directly to US military as a whole and, undeniably, to a country in general. As I state ad nauseam--America's military posture is unsustainable and it was such for the last 10 years at least. Without a deep revision of America's national defense priorities, no papers, especially declaring that America is under some threat, will have any effect. The problem is much deeper than mere a loss in the arms race. One has to ask a question if the country as a whole was lost. And I don't have the answer to this question, at least not yet.   

Why Iron Curtain.

I think the Western Europe should be surrounded by Iron Curtain and its modern "culture" condemned. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. 

John Dillermand has an extraordinary penis. So extraordinary, in fact, that it can perform rescue operations, etch murals, hoist a flag and even steal ice-cream from children. The Danish equivalent of the BBC, DR, has a new animated series aimed at four- to eight-year-olds about John Dillermand, the man with the world’s longest penis who overcomes hardships and challenges with his record-breaking genitals.

This is a sick nation of large number of pedophiles, third wave feminists, what have you, and all this is inevitable result of the so called "left" cultural policies. I am not sure "culture" like that even has the right to exist, because it attacks children and, in fact, institutionalizes psychological pedophilia. 

This is for 4 to 8 years olds. I don't mind watching robot fucking a washing machine in Robot Chicken which, actually, is run under the auspices of Adult Swim (stress: Adult) segment of Cartoon Network. In fact, robot screwing the household device--nothing wrong with that, Bender from Futurama was seriously into the robot porn. We loved it. That is funny. But Danes say, hey, children should be subjected to some sick shit and that, I guess, where the European civilization is going--to shit. In this case, I see no reason for Russia to maintain any cultural contacts with Europe in general. And I am sure the United States, especially after the "victory" by Democrats is heading this way too. So, cultural Iron Curtain is what should be erected separating Russia from West's sickness and perversion. While most English-language comments under the video were mostly about penis, the only Russian-language comment there was:

Мир с каждым годом всё больше сходит с ума... 

Translation: with each year the world becomes increasingly insane. 

It is sad, that very few people were terrified by the fact that this is a show for children under eight. Especially coming from the land which once produced Hans Christian Andersen. Remarkably, Andersen was abused in childhood but now abuse of children in Denmark is not just acceptable, but is being encouraged on the industrial scale. But, I guess, each nation deserves the culture it chooses. I can only imagine who this cultural nurturing of 4 to 8 year old Danish kids will produce in 20 years. Considering the massive scale of modern West's psychosis, opioid and drug abuse, and a complete emasculation of the European man, I have some ideas and that is not going to be pretty. Which, in its turn, necessitates a defense against West's moral freaks and sexual perverts. Iron Curtain--now.