Follie De Grandeur Or Why Bundeswehr Will Remain A Joke.

It is a truism by now that Western media (with some very few exceptions) are nothing more than a collection of hacks or straight forward imbeciles who live in their own created and paid for by handlers universe which does not correspond to reality in any way. US (so called main stream) media are bad, a sewer, really, but German ones--that is a special case, those gave a fabricated lie and Josef Goebbels a bad name. Here is why. Today, Berlin's daily Der Tagesspiegel published a piece by its Brussels' correspondent Markus Grabitz titled:  Steht die Nato vor dem Aus? (Does NATO Stand Out? Or, most likely, Is NATO Over?)  

Google Translate does the job and the piece is basically nothing but reflexive peeing into own pants by what in Europe passes as "intellectuals"  and is full of myopia so characteristic of the EU's political (and media) class. It would have been an absolutely average and useless piece if not for this and I, with the help of translator, quote:

Does Europe still need NATO?Without NATO's protective shield and its deterrent effect on potential attackers, the security situation in Central Europe would dramatically change. The Baltic States, Poland or Hungary would not be able to defend themselves against their Russian armies with their national armies. The Bundeswehr would not be able to do this in its present form. The German economic power is, of course, three times the size of the Russian economy. In an extreme case, Germany could afford a military equal or even superior to the Russian. This would, however, be many times more expensive than today's defense expenditure. The collective defense in NATO is not only more secure. It also saves money. All NATO countries together are more than 25 times superior to Russia. Basically, no military expert believes that Putin would dare to deal with NATO. This assumption is, of course, based on the fact that the alliance makes its alliance guarantee credible: in an attack on a member, NATO would defend this country with its concentrated force.

I literally had to rub my eyes and pinch myself to make sure that I am not dreaming and  reading what I am reading. My issue was not with geopolitical delirium and historical ignorance literally saturating this whole piece--it is expected from German media. My issue was with two phrases highlighted in red and blue and the reason for my reaction is solidly justified--this is how those EU imbeciles, from the top down, think. I will start with the "blue", which will explain why "red" is also a testament to a complete bankruptcy of EU ideology and real politics. I will start with the plane I observed not for once over Baltic Sea, including their "simulation" of the attack on our ship. This jet fighter was Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.  United States produced many good fighter jets in its history--some were good, others were outstanding fighter planes. Starfighter was a piece of shit. Everything about it was bad, USAF abhorred it and, as it is often the case, unloaded this piece of flying crap (or aka in Italian Air Force--a flying coffin) onto Luftwaffe. You think Germans were happy with this plane? Hell, no! They lost...drum roll..116 pilots in this machine in the peace time. But guess what? Germany was told to jump and the only thing Germany was allowed to do was to ask: "How high?" And high jumping Luftwaffe did until flying this POS became so dangerous and so scandalous that this fighter was basically grounded. By that time Luftwaffe lost 30% of its Starfighter force. 

      

This scandal was partially due to Lord Ismay's favorite truism that  NATO (that is US vassaldom) was needed  "To keep Russians out, the Americans in, and Germans down". And, boy, did they do "keeping Germans down" thing to the fullest. Part of this "down", apart from brainwashing of Germany's "elites" and, as a consequence, a general population was in denying Germany any ability to have a viable aerospace industry. Make no mistake, Germany was allowed to have its own weapon systems' development, such as armored forces, or naval shipbuilding but no real aerospace. Participate? Yes. Have own indigenous civilian and military aircraft? No. Yes, it is true that today Germany houses a number of integration facilities for Airbus, aka Airbus-Germany and employs there 48 000 people but this are civilian aircraft and it is not a fully enclosed technological cycle. In the end, the main "thinking" for Airbus planes is done in Toulouse. Engines for those aircraft are altogether a different story. But military aviation? This is a whole other story and there is a reason why. 

Currently there are only TWO aerospace powers, nations, in the world who can provide a complete enclosed cycle for a top notch, cutting edge military aircraft from extracting the ore to design, R&D and full production cycle of all components of such an aircraft, especially its avionics and engines. Do I need to name these two nations? Anybody who would  suggest that China is in this league would have to strongly reconsider. Chinese, for the lack of better word, desperate desire to get hands of Russia's SU-35 is easily explained by long time inability by China to develop world-class jet engine and avionics for its fighters, very many of which are nothing more than knockoffs of Russia's venerable SU-27s. But at least Chine has a cycle (and a shitload of money), it does produce her own military aircraft, Germany does not, even if to consider a cooperative European effort with Eurofighter Typhoon. In the end, even the Eurojet EJ200 engines used in Typhoons are a cooperative effort based on Rolls Royce design.  So, in order for ambitious Germany to get armed forces "equal" or "even superior" to those of Russia, Germany has to start with military aviation and here Germany is no contest since Russia's military (and civilian) aviation experience dwarfs that of Germany by several orders of magnitude. 

Currently Luftwaffe has at its disposal 123 Typhoons (a very good fighter) and 89 Panavia Tornado, roughly half of which has been cannibalized for spare parts and eventually failed to deploy as part of NATO Syria force. So, if we are to consider what Germany has to undertake to even equal Russia in military aviation format we may start with stating that currently Germany has about 200 (maximum) combat worthy aircraft against Russia's Aerospace Force's. How Germany is going to close the gap in several hundred combat aircraft between Luftwaffe and Russia's Air Force, which deploys some of the world's most cutting edge combat aircraft remains simply a mystery to any sober observer. Russia's PAK FA (T-50) has its IOC by the end of this year. Russian Air Force took a delivery of hundreds of newest SU-30/SU-34/SU-35 and MiG-29SMTs since 2009, about 100 of a monster of MiG-31 will complete its modernization to BM modification by 2018. We are not talking about couple hundreds, the gap in modern (I underscore, modern--that is a whole shebang from glass cockpits to cooperative engagement capabilities) combat aircraft between Russia and  Germany is more like 6-7 hundred. All Russian military aircraft are produced domestically. German? But, of course, Germany doesn't have own AWACS capability, Russia does and her latest A-50Us are marvels of signal processing and radar technology.  With all due respect to German engineering genius but designing and building a Mercedes, stuffed with a bunch of electronic toys invented not in Germany (GPS is built and controlled by US) is one thing, building modern Aerospace (emphasis on space) force  is a completely different shtick. After all, Russia Aerospace forces use their own GLONASS for their high precision weapons. Russia's MRI machines may not be as good as that of Siemens but they are good enough to have Russian-made processors in them. 

In general, modern Germany barely registers in the aerospace field which is dominated by United States, Russia, China and Anglo-French alliance. So, in order for Germany to "equal" Russia here she needs to build own aerospace industry. Even if to consider Germany's (sometimes greatly overrated) scientific and engineering capability--it would take her about 20-25 years at least and hundreds of billions of...Deutschmarks? If, after those 25 years, Germany will be able to produce a completely indigenous design of even half-decent (not 21st century equivalent of F-104 Starfighter) modern fighter, then the wet-dream of Herr Grabitz may come half-true. But, frankly, I do not see how Germany can match Russia in civilian, forget advanced military, aircraft. The same calculations go into other defense spheres, from making state-of-the-art nuclear submarines and weapon systems for them (yes, Germany does produce decent enough SSKs, some with Air Independent Propulsion), such as long range cruise missiles to the whole S4ISR complex, where same Germany doesn't register realistically either, since does not have viable space program (another trillion or two and about 30-40 years). For that, Germany, as a NATO member, depends completely on USA. So, if someone thinks that Germany will be able to "match" Russia here--one has to really make an appointment with psychiatrist. But that brings us to the "red" part--I dedicated a lot to this topic in this blog and no matter how it is unpleasant for some Germans, Russia's real GDP is about the size of Germany, in reality, when idiotic IMF monetary statistics is discounted, much larger than that of a Germany. It is just that Russian satellites cost less than overpriced and over-engineered BMWs. 

But in the end, with all my deep respect to German people and for their massive accomplishments, some of which I admire myself, it has to be understood that modern economy and modern war is not what German journo hacks think they are. All those indices and wet-dreams fly out of the window once one has to face a very cruel reality in which Germany remains and will remain a large economy and military-political midget, who will never again make any trouble in Europe big time. But by far the most important thing those German media imbeciles have to understand that Russia has no plans whatsoever to "attack" any NATO country, let alone Germany whom Russia can obliterate by purely conventional means, let alone, if, God forbids, push comes to shove, by nuclear means. But the way things are happening now, Germans themselves do a hell of a job turning their country into a third world shithole and they, maybe, are already pass the point of no return. In this case they will have to try to "equal" something more of their own size.  

Military Power In US Marine's View.

A rather interesting and thoughtful piece by Captain Joshua Waddell in Marine Corps Gazette about innovation and self-delusion. Whilst thoughtful and competent, it is also a bitter  piece, which is understandable when one considers the sequence of events in the last 15 years. 

"Let us first begin with the fundamental underpinnings of this delusion: our measures of performance and effectiveness in recent wars. It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the U.S. military’s effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory into operational and strategic success.¹ As military professionals, it is not sufficient to offload the responsibility for these failures, at least in their entirety, to decision makers in Washington or in perceived lack of support from other governmental agencies. We must divorce ourselves from the notion that criticism of our performance is an indictment or devaluation of the sacrifices our Marines made on the battlefield. Like many of you, I lost Marines in the “Long War” as well. It has taken several years of personal struggle to arrive at the conclusions I am writing now."

Translating battlefield success into a political resolution, that is attaining political objectives of the war is what makes a victory and it is hard. Sometimes, it is impossible. Such as was the case in the First Chechen War when Russian Army delivered one operational success after another only to be stopped by Russia's political "top" operating in its own interests, such as interests of Boris Berezovsky whose complete role in Chechen conflict is still not completely revealed. There is no denial of the fact that US Marine or US Army soldier are, on average, better soldiers than anyone US Armed Forces encountered in their "long war" in the Middle East. They are also better equipped, but those are just several among many factors that influence the outcome. Political, ideological and cultural restraints play no less important role in the outcome. Waddlle also makes a crucial observation:

"What makes this necessary, however, is that if you accept the objective, yet repulsive, fact that our Marines died on the losing side of our most recent wars, you cannot then accept that the status quo of the Marine Corps, and the larger defense establishment, is in an acceptable state of affairs. This is further compounded by future forecasts of conflicts with adversaries that are beginning to look like more like peers despite the self-aggrandizing “near-peer” label we assign them.² We allow ourselves to look at our impressive defense budget and expensive systems and throw around hyperbole about the United States having the greatest military in the world. How, then, have we been bested by malnourished and undereducated men with antiquated and improvised weaponry whilst spending trillions of dollars in national treasure and costing the lives of thousands of servicemen and hundreds of thousands of civilians? Judging military capability by the metric of defense expenditures is a false equivalency. All that matters are raw, quantifiable capabilities and measures of effectiveness. For example: a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier that can be bested by a few million dollars in the form of a swarming missile barrage or a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capable of rendering its flight deck unusable does not retain its dollar value in real terms. Neither does the M1A1 tank, which is defeated by $20 worth of household items and scrap metal rendered into an explosively-formed projectile. The Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization has a library full of examples like these, and that is without touching the weaponized return on investment in terms of industrial output and capability development currently being employed by our conventional adversaries."  

I am ready to subscribe to every word in this observation. Of course, wars do vary and, hopefully only theoretical, peer-to-peer war will involve a vast range of combat, varying from local insurgency and guerilla warfare to an employment of very high-tech and very expensive weapons. And here is the point this little blog of mine was making from the inception. US cannot anymore produce weapons which would satisfy basic cost/effectiveness criteria. Let's face it--US weapons, some of them bad, others--very good,  are damn expensive. Some of them are so expensive that they lose any real operational value since even a loss of a single one of them will mean not only a huge monetary loss but a PR and political catastrophe. Many forget today the effect shooting down of F-117 by Serbia's Air Defense Force in 1999 had. It was a bombshell which in a single day made all those authors who claimed F-117 to be totally "invisible" to enemy's radar to change their tune, especially against the background of F-117 being shot down by 1960s Soviet AD system. But in the end, it was a professionalism of Serbian crew which created a public relations disaster in US. Sinking of US Navy's aircraft carrier? This will be a political nightmare which may push US to do the unthinkable. But war is a very democratic affair--the enemy also has a say in it. In the end, pure monetary assessment of military is absolutely stupid and anti-scientific. War is a science and there are ways to make more-or-less correct predictions. 

Waddell doesn't miss (of course) Russia's example:

"This year, the budget for the entire Russian military, the one that embarrassed our national policies in Ukraine and Syria, was 3.1 trillion Russian rubles, which comes out to roughly $42 billion by the exchange rate at the time of this writing.⁶ Even adjusting for the collapse of the ruble (ironically giving the United States, a nation with strategic cash reserves in the international exchange currency, more buying power), their previous modernization budgets roughly meet less than half of the Department of the Navy’s corresponding yearly budgets. This is the same Russian military whom the RAND Corporation has estimated would be unstoppable in an initial conventional conflict in the Baltic States, even against the combined might of the NATO forces stationed there."

Here he repeats the old cliche about Russia, such as Russian forces being involved in Ukraine--there is no regular Russian Army there. If it would have been there, we all would have been discussing the fate of the remnants of the Ukrainian Army which would have been demolished in a matter of days, if not hours. Counter-insurgency is a different matter. I already stated, not for once, that Russian Ruble simply buys more bang for a buck, so to speak. But here is the deal and I also speak about it constantly. Remember Arthur J. Alexander's percentages influencing military procurement? US' Military-Industrial Complex and military-political environment simply has NO pressure produced and applied to them by ACTUAL military threats to the United States which would create a necessary critical mass allowing for producing better and more effective weapons, the same as more realistic operational concepts. It is one thing to fight at your home's doorsteps, totally another--going to the remote neighborhoods looking for trouble. I really doubt that mighty Mexico or ever bellicose Canada would invade and wreck a havoc in the US and that is the key factor. US military-industrial complex can afford to make not only good weapons but a lot of very expensive and lame weapon systems. The failures of those will not result in US being attacked, let alone occupied. Russian MIC can not afford this. Make no mistakes, Russia also produces, once in a while, some lame weapon system but it is a fairly rare occurrence. But it is understanding of this fact which seems to escape many US observers. Russia can not afford to produce F-35 or LCS, not in fiscal terms, I am pretty sure Russia can repeat these two for a fraction of the costs. Russia can not afford this geopolitically, the United States can, and that makes a whole world of a difference.

In general, however, the piece is good, it is written by a competent man, a combat veteran, and this piece is a good demonstration of the transformation and evolution of the views which are happening inside US military. It is worth reading even if for contemplation of the ways warfare is changing while always remaining the same.
 

A Tragic Fate Of Limpopo.

If you are not a Russian (Soviet) who was born in 1960s you wouldn't know the most wonderful mid-1960s Soviet children's' movie Aybolit-66, which was based on a wonderful children's poetry by beloved Kornei Chukovsky. Aybolit is Russian for Ouch, It Hurts. Hence, Doctor Ouch, It Hurts. I remember colossal lines to Baku's Vatan movie-theater of parents and children to the box office to get a magical ticket for this movie event. It was almost a stampede.

   

The story is taking place in imaginary African country of Limpopo (after the famous river and, later, in 2000s an actual province of RSA) which is ruled by ruthless villain Barmaley. Well, wonderful Doctor eventually beats the villain and everybody is happy. It is children's book, and a movie, OK? Well, not until famous Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus got to Congresswoman Maxine Waters and informed her on behalf of Ukraine's PM Groisman that after invading North Korea, aggressive Putin and those Russian thugs now invaded Limpopo and overthrew a legitimate government of Barmaley and installed Putin's puppet Doctor Aybolit. I am not making this shit up!!

 

This already made the news on Russia's all main networks, you can see video here. What can I say? First you have US Senator James Inhofe finding Russia's regular troops in Ukraine thanks to fake photos given to him by Ukrainian delegation. Then you have a bunch of Russia's "experts" even today still basing their conclusions about situation in Donbass on the "presence" there of those mythical stealth Russian regular army units. Now--this. I guess, studying classic Russian children's literature is in order for some members of US Congress. Who knows, next time Russians may commit another horrible crime, such as installing a communist government on the Moon by evil Znaika. 

  

Queens Of The Skies.

I love 747s. Let me wax poetic and sappy sentimental here--you look at modern 747 and feel safe and comfortable. You enjoy those recognizable lines with a distinctive hump, and while in the sky you actually enjoy the flight and expect good things only.  I flew both 747-400s and 747-8s and even despite being relegated by extremely high prices into steerage, doing transatlantic is always a joy. Once this magnificent plane overcame its growing pains and matured she became truly a Queen Of The Skies--a testament to a great American aerospace engineering and her elegant hump is recognized worldwide.

   

Well, they want to stop 747s manufacturing by 2019, albeit 747s run was extended thanks to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Cargo carrier which ordered 20 747-8 freighters. The reason for ending 747s is well known--economy. Well, not really economy but profits. Make no mistake, I get it, airlines have to operate for a profit and 4-engine jumbo is bit too thirsty for their taste, ergo--less profit. But here is my take: between me being stuck in 747's steerage and the same in some two-engine newbie I would rather feel somewhat spatially limited in 747 than in anything Airbus throws at you, or, rather throws you in. I'd rather feel safe and moderately comfortable than comfortable and having just a double, as opposed to quadruple, redundancy. But here are another considerations which go into travel: safety, aesthetics, tradition, class and 747s' latter part of life is a testament to that. Speaking in plain language--I don't want to see these magnificent birds being grounded and, eventually, terminated. Sure, with modern day engineering it is possible to develop a jumbo even with a single engine. Can you imagine an economy on this one? But would you fly on it? I sure as hell would do my utmost to never put my ass in the most comfortable seat they may offer me in this flying thing. A simple truth of modern air travel is that the same as in 1967, in 2017 we still fly air breathing jet-engines. Yes, they are way more sophisticated and reliable than their parents but the engineering truism still remains: a probability of the failure of a complex system is in direct variation with the square of a number of all (mechanical, electric, hydraulic etc.) connections in this system. This is when you begin to appreciate a gentle rumble of all 747's four engines and this allows you to relax a bit at 11 000 meters over Atlantic. 

Now come those crazy Ivans who yesterday said--screw your (super) profits we will stick for awhile with four engine configuration. United Aircraft Corporation and Ilyushin signed yesterday a contract for development and production, starting in 2019, of Ilyushin-96-400M (In Russian). Suck on it, accounting. Not only profits (however important) should be considered when making decisions on how people fly. Soviets and then Russians were always in love with Ilyushin machines, from legendary Il-2 Shturmovik of Great Patriotic War to venerable Il-62s which flew long-distances, including internationally, including transatlantic and over Pacific, to early versions of Il-96s. News of a freshly signed contract were met with a huge outpouring of public joy both for resumption of production of a beloved, albeit deeply modernized, including new engines, jumbo which will be able to carry 390 passengers and for still seeing, in the age of air breather, so loved and so ensuring quadruple redundancy. 

   

This, and, of course, something that makes those magnificent birds so special with their 4 engines, harking back to the times when the long-range flight was an event. Flying over Atlantic, Pacific or over Norther Siberia, where there are no airfields for thousands of kilometers, or over Northern Pole, on all four makes it so much more comfortable emotionally. In our insane world this is worth a lot, way more than some marginal profitability which goes straight into the pockets of airlines' fat cats and stock buybacks. For the rest, there are two-engine work horses. Until we fly on air-breathers and not on anti-gravity drives or by folding space, seeing those wonderful 4-engine machines makes me feel reasonably safe and happy, isn't it what the travel should be about?    

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.