Tell Me Who Your Heroes Are....

I thought it was over, but NO....sexual pervert imbecile, Muslim Brotherhood aide to War Criminal Hellary and this sewer gets a documentary? It is a complete mad house........

New documentary provides an emotional look into Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin's scandal 'nightmare' 

"Promising" political career means one thing--amoral, lowlife scum getting in the position of power. There is only one emotion--to take a shower after looking at this shit. These are the "heroes" of today, morality and decency be damned......

150th Motor Rifle Division And Much Much More Military Power Related-II

So, let us review some of the fundamental ideas which Vitaly Shlykov advocated for Russia's "military reform" which, in the end, resulted in a disaster that required urgent intervention of....drum roll...none other than President Vladimir Putin, that is a man, whose appointment of Anatoly Serdyukov to the Defense Minister position precipitated that disaster in the first place. But first, we need to point out positions where Vitaly Shlykov was correct. 

1. He, certainly, was correct about the necessity to reform Soviet Armed Forces, which were massive and, effectively, existed in overkill mode insofar as the numbers go. Yet, while correctly pointing out in his What Killed Soviet Union. The General Staff And Economy the fact of Soviet military and intelligence failure to correctly estimate (by inflating) NATO's military potential, Shlykov went overkill the other way--he "informed" Gorbachov that Soviet General Staff overestimated NATO's mobilization potential 50 to 100 times. 

2.  Well....that's about it. 

Yes, those were the times of Perestroika (correctly dubbed Catastroika by Alexander Zinovyev) and ascendance of highly idealistic, if not altogether naive and uncritical to the point of folly, views of the combined West and Vitaly Shlykov's ideas on war and military reflected it fully. In fact, they influenced them in the most harmful way possible. Here I need to make a confession. It was then, late 1980s when I also, together with very many of my peers, exercised the idea of possible re-formatting of the geopolitical order after the collapse of the communist ideology into some sort of a cooperative environment in which reformed USSR would take its proper place and fears and hostilities of the Cold War would be the thing of the past.  But that was me, at that time senior lieutenant of Soviet Armed Forces, who still thought that surely the Colonel of GRU must know more than me about the war. Boy, was I wrong. By 1992, two years after I left the service for health reasons and scarred by the events related to Nagorny Karabakh, there was nothing left of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and former Soviet Armed Forces were in the process of disintegration. It was also the time of mindless economic, military and political so called reforms (in reality, annihilation of anything perceived as Soviet) which would bring upon peoples of Russia a suffering and humiliation not seen since the first days of the Great Patriotic War. This would become the time when history would be taken away from Russian people. 

One of the major, if not the most important, premises, on which demolition of what used to be Soviet military was based was the idea that the victory over Wehrmacht in WW II was won by the enormous purely military losses and despite, not thanks, to Soviet highest military-political leadership. A popular "trupami zabrosali" (overwhelmed the enemy by throwing corpses at it) meme became extremely popular among "liberal" post-Soviet "intelligentsia" and all kinds of "fighters with bloody Soviet past". All kinds of revisionist crap, akin to incompetent propaganda BS by turncoat Victor Rezun (aka Suvorov) filled the void of military science. Indeed, the logic went, if USSR collapsed, together with ideology which supposedly held it together, then everything associated with it must be wrong. And it was then that the revision started. Vitaly Shlykov led the charge with his 1988 Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn (International Life) famous article The Armor Is Strong (Bronya Krepka). 

"Посеянные в те годы семена «науки побеждать» числом, а не умением нашли благодатную почву в консерватизме советской военной мысли застойного Периода, наследие которого еще предстоит преодолеть. Броня крепка, стереотипы прочны, отходят от них иные с трудом".(c)

The seeds of the "science of winning" by numbers, not by the skill,  sown in those years (he means WWII period) found a fertile soil in conservatism of the Soviet military thought of the zastoi (stagnation), whose heritage we are yet to overcome. The Armor is strong, stereotypes are rigid and some people abandon them with difficulty. 

Shlykov went further in the same article and stated: 

Stalin and his immediate military surrounding always tried to hide from complex and incomprehensible for them variety of qualitative characteristics of the military might of states with different social structures behind the thick wall of numerical superiority over the enemy. (c)

I know, the hindsight is a 20/20 vision, especially considering the time when Shlykov's pieces were written, but it is impossible to ignore such absolutely sweeping generalizations from a man who inserted himself into the discussion on one of Russia's most important, existential, issues and who started to built his conclusions based on cliches which had very little to do with the realities of the Great Patriotic War. There is no denying that Red Army was sustaining abhorring losses at the start of the war. Wehrmacht losses inflicted by the Red Army at the end of the war were no less massive. Yes, the issue of large tank units is valid, the same as, to a certain degree, the issue of Red Army's prewar purges. But today, when most of the archives are opened, it becomes absolutely inconceivable to accuse Stalin, let alone Stavka in "hiding" from "qualitative" characteristics of military might when, in reality, if not for Stalin and his "military surrounding" the victory of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War would have been inconceivable. 

Admitting almost miraculous survival and recovery of what essentially can be termed Stalin's (and Beria's, Vannikov's and many others) economy doesn't make one a Stalinist. In the end, it was this economy which provided not only quantity but the quality of weapons which ensured the final outcome. In the end, Soviet tanks as a force turned out to be simply better than German ones and so were, in the end, Lavochkin or Yakovlev fighters which were at least on par with what Luftwaffe could field and they were produced in quantities which ensured, from the skies of Kursk Battle and massive air campaign over Kuban, Soviet dominance in the air. Not without Allied help with US providing P-39 Cobras which were flown by none other than Pokryshkin and Rechkalov brothers--all, together with Ivan Kozhedub who flew Lavochkin aircraft, top Allied aces by far.  But the question here is why the issue of numbers even came up at all? By what means Vitaly Shlykov was going to fight the greatest and most advanced military force in history, fresh from its....drum roll....lightning victories over French and British Armies and subjugation of Europe? Here we are going to make a small detour to elaborate on some basic operational facts and they will involve a little bit of mathematics (rather, simplest calculus). Welcome to the world of Osipov-Lanchester differential equations.   

dA/dt = -βB

dB/dt = -αA

Well, as it is usually the case, the original 1915 essays by Russian mathematician M.P. Osipov "Estimation Of Victims Of War" went unnoticed in the West, but Lanchester's work in the same field did get noticed. Today Western world knows those equations as Lanchester Model or Laws, while truly educated people call it Osipov-Lanchester equations. Before I get accused of abstract approach to a war or playing "percentage" war ( I had exchange on this issue with incomparable Colonel Lang) I want to make a disclaimer--I am no military nerd who views the world through the prism of dry numbers. Far from it, I am keenly aware of a chaotic and too often very human nature of war in which command ability, heroism, sacrifice and skill are as, if not more, important as technological and operational dimensions of a war. 

To Be Continued...........

P.S. Do not run for cover yet. I will explain how this simple math works. 

On US Missile Defense In Poland And Romania.

Today, in Sochi, Vladimir Putin held the meeting with Russia's security council where the activation of US missile defense sites in Poland and Romania was discussed. Well, the larger issue here IS NOT much touted (or, rather, marketed) missile "defense" shield--that is not an insurmountable problem at all and, shield or no shield, all necessary targets will be destroyed in case of conflict. The problem here is different--Russia is worried about the use of launchers for very different, other than anti-ballistic, missiles. We are talking about the first strike weapons, which are medium and short range missiles. These are not "defensive" weapons.  These are first-strike weapons. The piece from US News & World Report to which the link is provided is very vague in describing Russia's real concern. Here is a piece in Russian and Putin's quote from Russian President's site:

Второе: это явное нарушение Договора о ракетах средней и малой дальности, потому что пусковые установки, которые будут размещаться после введения в строй РЛС в Румынии и Польше, могут быть легко использованыдля размещения ракет средней и малой дальности. Причём это переоборудование происходит в очень короткие сроки, и для нас с вами этобудет действительно незаметно, что там происходит. Мы даже не сможем это контролировать. И это дополнительная для нас угроза.  

Translation: Second: this is an obvious violation of the Short And Medium Range Missile Treaty, since these missile-launchers which will be deployed at the sites in Romania and Poland upon activation of the Radars there could easily be reconfigured for short and medium range missiles. This reconfiguration of the launchers could be done in a very short time and for us it will be impossible to see what is going on there. We will  not be able to control (used as "monitor" semantics) it and this is an additional threat to us.   

The first question which should be asked here is this: is United States really planning to go as far as to deploy these short and medium range missiles? By now, for anyone who didn't spend last 15+ years under the stone (or stoned) it is increasingly clear (and I know that it is painful for many true American patriots to swallow and I understand them) that making any kinds of treaties with US is a waste of time and paper. Current US power "elites" are not trustworthy. They are also incompetent and increasingly irrational. So, the answer is, yes, absolutely. It is in the nature of the beast which combines in itself massive military-industrial-media-political complex interests with pathological inability to learn. Thus the question becomes a purely military-technological one. 

I am not going to go deep into the technological and tactical nature of the issue but I, certainly, can testify to the fact that Putin's words about finding a solution are not an empty bluster. In the end, the issue here is in numbers and the essence of US shield in Europe which is, indeed, anti-ballistic in its nature (for now) and is based largely on naval technology of Aegis and Spy-1 radar. 

   

Deveselu, Romania Air Base, yesterday.

 
Here is one of the latest developments in Russia which may give some insight in what is already in store for these sites, if, God forbids, things go hot between NATO and Russia. I am talking for now about conventional high-precision response. These sites, of course, are simply incapable of intercepting hyper-sonic maneuvering blocks of latest Sarmat ICBMs, as an example, nor of Iskander's Mach=7 and maneuvering missiles. But possible appearance of the short and medium range missiles is already being countered, among many other things, by the start of production of missile corvettes Project 22800 Karakurt in Crimea. I already mentioned these brand new ships in one of my Mosquitoes related threads.  At least 18 of these corvettes will be built and, I assume, they will be equally distributed between Baltic and Black Sea Fleets. Adding here 6 brand new SSKs (Project 636, NATO--Kilo) and already deployed two Project 21361 Byan missile corvettes at the Black Sea, and three brand new Project 11356 Frigates, we are talking, roughly, 100 Kalibr missiles in the first salvo from the naval bases and patrol zones in the Black Sea which are well within both the range to Devesulu Air Base where the launchers could be (or will be) located and well within the Air Defense zone of Russia's Air Space Forces' units based in Crimea. This is the most likely scenario against Romanian site, since Iskander's missiles have the range of 500 kilometers--it is more than enough to address the threat of the Polish missile installation from Kaliningrad District but is not enough to do so from Crimea against Romanian installation. 

Once the first salvo is launched from the Black Sea, the "mopping up" of remaining missile launchers and missile-defense (or air-defense) installations could be done by the salvo of X-101 missiles launched from deep within Russian territory by strategic bombers. It is a nightmarish scenario which will see many, not just NATO, but specifically serious American casualties. The escalation will follow and what will be its dynamics is unknown but it doesn't take a military professional to understand that it will be bad. What should also be understood that Russia will not attack first unless attacked. Evidently this simplest fact is beyond the grasp (or otherwise--deliberate calculations) of NATO, whose demoralization and slow rotting away can only be delayed, not prevented or reversed, for a little short while. But it seems Washington is hell bent on creating a situation when things may get out of control. The only difference today with the Cold War 1.0 is the fact that Russia does possess massive conventional stand-off capability. In fact, real military professionals in US do know that NATO can not win conventionally anything in Russia's immediate vicinity. This fact doesn't sit well with many in Washington, the same as the fact that no one in their own mind and with even a hint of competence in Russian elite will trust any US worthless "guarantees" anymore.

And here is the deal. US Dollar is a currency which today is supported by nothing but trust in US military power. Once great industrial empire, which was responsible in late 1940s for well over 60% of global GDP (measured in real numbers of manufactured goods) is gone. De-industrialization continues apace and we all live on the top of colossal financial thermonuclear bomb, which will go off inevitably. Once it goes off, the US financial markets will be done de jure, not just de facto. The only thing which prevents many from dumping US treasuries--the main instrument, together with printing press, of financing US as a nation, from collapse is US military, or rather what it supposed to be capable of conventionally. Nobody is interested in nuclear option. US military is sure as hell capable of turning conventionally a lot of third world countries and whatever passes there as armies into dust. But Russia is not third world and neither is China (but China is a separate case). Well, frankly, US military power wasn't faring that well, to put it mildly, as of lately. And then, of course, Syria happened and the whole hell broke loose precisely because of understanding (or, in most cases, sensing) the simple fact that there is another military power which fields very comparable, to put it mildly, conventional military capabilities. This is a clear and present danger, a massive threat, to US status as the owner of global reserve currency, which rests on US being conventional military superpower. The less US produces, the more is the share of military factor in the "trust" in US economy and financial system. It is also a threat to a livelihood of US 1% who did develop addiction to viewing themselves as militarily, hence financially, untouchable.

Consider this. Prior to the Soviet collapse and well into the 2000s, unless everyone talked about nuclear annihilation, which was understood as unacceptable by all sides, the whole notion of conventional response at US proper was seen as a fantasy at best. The only stand-off weapon, Soviet long range submarine-launched cruise missile S-10 Granat capable of long range conventional strike...well...all efforts were made not to allow this weapon  to be properly procured. Things changed since. The appearance of X-101 missiles with ranges exceeding 5,000 kilometers, to Kalibrs (with the range of 2,500 km.), to new cruise missiles whose range is reportedly up to 10,000 km--we are talking here the change of military paradigm since suddenly the conflict could be conceived (it doesn't mean that it should) within purely conventional framework. But that is what the US wanted all along for the last 25 years at least--all of this desire based on perception that no peer-to-peer power will match US conventionally in a foreseeable future. Yet, the shock was and still remains so great that Caspian Flotilla was mistakenly named a fleet. Obviously, Caspian Flotilla is just that--operational unit, while Fleet is, by definition, is operational strategic unit. Deploying such weapons--it is being done as I type it--on nuclear submarines, such as Oscar-II SSGNs, brand new Yasen-class SSGNs or perspective SSKs with air independent propulsion make conventional precision (emphasis on precision) strike on US territory a reality. This is a bottom line, anyone who says otherwise is full o' sh.t amateur or being totally in denial. It was none other than general designer of Bulava SLBM Yuri Solomonov who in 2008 predicted that US will offer in some form to get rid of nuclear weapons based on perception of own advantage in high precision weapons. Solomonov made a mistake in only one sense--that the offer will be made openly. In reality the US was moving into conventional paradigm for quite a while now, enough to take a look at really rundown state of US nuclear deterrent. 

Suddenly, US is facing a conventional mid-life crisis. Those damn russkies not only have the most advanced nuclear deterrent in the world but have beaten US at its game of conventional high precision weapons. Now, what is going to happen is very simple. If US deploys medium to short range missiles both in Poland and Romania, the production of TU-160M2 strategic bombers will be greatly accelerated, 5th generation submarines will also be put in production as a priority, plus new.....Well, I will abstain from all those Russia-strong scenarios for a simple reason, I live in the US and my American friends, colleagues--decent and wonderful people--are as dear to me as my friends and even some relatives in Russia. For me any notion of US and Russia getting into the open conflict is blasphemous. I tremble at the thought that some moron in high corridors of power would make a stupid mistake. But it matters today that such a moron (or morons) exist mostly in US corridors of power. In this case, for all those fat cats who never served a day in their life and who try to provoke Russia day and night it is going to be a good reminder that, should they do a stupid thing, they will experience exactly what people of Serbia, Iraq, Syria or Libya experienced--destroyed property, killed relatives, horrific injuries. The only good thing about it, though, will be the fact that the world will have a chance to rebuild and go on living without fear of radiation poisoning, after hanging those who brought such a calamity to their own nation and I don't mean Russia.  As for Europe...who needs their opinion.