Boston Globe Is Right On The Money.

I write constantly about the parallel universe in which US main-stream media live when dealing with, well, just about anything and, especially so, Russia, but some of the brain farts produced by a bunch of hacks working for US media machine do deserve to be singled out. Here is a today's pearl from Boston Globe:

Putin’s Russia is a poor, drunk soccer hooligan 

Granted, mind you, that it is Scott Gilmore's "opinion", which usually implies that a rag which publishes "opinion" may or may not endorse it. All of it--mostly smoke and mirrors. I would have skipped the review of usual mental excrement of aggression and outright lies by another ignorant hack with degree in nothing and having no applicable skills to benefit society but one phrase caught my eyes. 

"According to the International Monetary Fund’s most recent data, the Russian economy is approximately the same size as Australia and slightly smaller than South Korea. As an exporter, it is now less important than Belgium, Mexico, and Singapore."  

It is only natural for a graduate of such madras as London School Of Economics (that is the "school" which barely touches reality in any meaningful way) to refer to IMF, an organization directly culpable in creating number of economic crises globally, as a reliable source of info on Russia. Indeed, what can one expect from the organization which excludes Russia from the list of advanced economies but includes there Lithuania.  

So, let's catch our "opinionated" boy economist and diplomat on pure lies. For that we will go to... IMF. Here is the the IMF data on Australian and Russian economies and, as Mr. Gilmore suggests showing Russian economy to be, and I quote:"the Russian economy is approximately the same size as Australia"(c).

 Here is Australian IMF data 2015-2016:

  

And here is Russia's for the same time period:

Anyone with a common sense, forget good understanding of the economics, which is not really a science, knows that absolute GDP measured in constant dollars is a misleading number. That is why anyone with the brain--from serious economists who abhorre all those BS monetarist, detached from real life, theories to serious intelligence and analytical organizations, use much more (still inaccurate) accurate metric--GDP based on PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which does reflect what is, so to speak, real depth of the economy. Even a brief look at PPP comparisons between Russia's and Australia's economies show a peculiar number which tells us that, rephrasing our "specialist" and "diplomat" (a diplomatic tour in Indonesia surely makes one competent on Russia, wink-wink) "the Russian economy is approximately three times the size as Australia", in reality--much larger. Well, if we also concentrate on the last underlined row at the very bottom of the both tables we will see that shares of Global GDP based on PPP also relate to each-other as approximately 3.1 to 1 in Russia's favor. 

But all these numbers, which clearly show Mr. Gilmore to be what he really is--a frustrated BSer and a liar with no clue on the issues of real economies and power--do not reflect what real economy IS from which REAL both economic and military power derive. I wrote about this many times, I will repeat it again--Number of Enclosed Technological Cycles. This metric puts most of current monetarists out of their misery and suggest to them to go and do something really useful and contributing to society--such as tending cows on farms or working 5-axis CNC at some manufacturing plant. Let them try their pathetic "theories" in real life.  Now that we understand that this piece of "opinion" in Boston Globe is pure propaganda and that Mr. Gilmore is as qualified to speak on Russia as I am qualified to perform open heart surgery, we may concentrate on the issue at hand and here are some news that even Bloomberg people begin to take note. 

Russia Retools After Crash as Post-Oil Economy Takes Shape 

While Russian economy's recovery from both internal issues (and there are plenty of those, to be sure) and sanctions takes time and effort, retooling is ongoing and to a certain degree it influences global processes. As could be seen, while such "industries" as finances were contracting in 2015, the actual manufacturing was and is still growing. 

Most remarkable is the growth in machine-building sector which continues to grow at a very respectable 5+ % and it is there, together with broadly defined chemical industry and some other fields, where real power is manufactured. 

I like Ozzies--mostly simple folks, hard working, generally decent people, obviously suffering from the same malaise which afflicted whole of Anglo-sphere, but still--the guys and gals I would like to get together for a beer and talk about life, I did it before. So, I do not want any Ozzie who reads this blog to take anything personally. But here are the facts. There is no denial that Australia is a highly developed nation with extremely high standard of living but even the brief look at the Australia's GDP structure betrays what can only be described as total deindustrialization--only 21% of Australia's economy is industry. Compare this with 36.3% of Russia's share of industry in her GDP, with agriculture it rises to 40.3%. That is, in purely percentage expression Russia produces almost twice more than Australia. In absolute numbers? I would go on a limb here and will say that Russia's industrial (that is manufacturing) sector is much larger than Australia's whole GDP in whatever iteration it is going to be looked at. Consider these simple facts: 

Russia produces civilian jets from R&D stage to full production (including avionics, composites, aggregates what have you), Australia does not. Russia produces a variety of space vehicles, from parts of the International Space Station to different rockets. Australia does not. Russia produces own microprocessors. Does Australia? Never heard of it. Russia is a manufacturer and operator of only other truly global position system--GLONASS. And the list goes on and on, and on. Russia produces railway rolling stock, both on her own and in cooperation, such as with Siemens, including some cutting edge heavy pullers. Both Russia and Australia export crude, steel and other low processed products, but here where commonality ends. As it should when one compares a nation with 150 million population to one of barely 23 million people. 

And then comes this sensitive issue of Russia maintaining the second most powerful military of the world. This is where all those "economic" comparisons and indices break down completely. Russia can produce and does produce state-of-the-art submarines, fighter-jets, air defense complexes and other extremely hi-tech things. Obviously, graduates of London School Of Economics together with their professors, whose world view of hi-tech is limited by the latest model of iPhone produced in China, have no clue what goes into all that but I do. Research & Development, Design, then manufacturing and procurement of such weapon systems as S-400 or fighter-jet of SU-35 type, as an example, require academic, scientific, industrial and other resources which are beyond the reach of overwhelming majority of nations, can not be merely expressed in some economic numbers. A single state-of-the-art SSGN of Severodvinsk-class, project 885 (Graney-class) requires a cutting edge industry to be designed and produced: from advanced materials, advanced radio-electronics industry, scientific and academic school, research institutes,  shipbuilding industry with highly trained personnel to a modern machine building complex capable to build everything from radar and sonar to combat information control systems (combat computers), to nuclear reactors to...the list is colossal and currently there are only two nations in the world capable to completely on their own do so, and you may have guessed it already--these are Unites States and Russia. The rest of the world is not even in the same league when dealing with quality and quantity of these kind of systems.  Moreover, working in these industries requires a constant inflow of specialists with extremely high level of STEM education. These people are taught at top national colleges and universities and those are, believe me, world-class and tough to graduate from. And then, there is national military educational system. Guess where Russian system of military education is in terms of reputation and quality? Granted, of course, that one should discard all kinds of propaganda crap.

Lack of knowledge, however, doesn't prevent Mr. Gilmore from sharing his "insights" on military issues by stating:

"According to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Institute, Russia’s defense budget is still less than China, and Saudi Arabia. It is roughly on par with India, France, and the United Kingdom. And it is nine times smaller than the Pentagon’s budget. The fact is, if it wasn’t for Syria, the Crimea, and some ageing warheads, Russia would get as much global attention as Slovakia or perhaps Wales" (c).

I already elaborated on the issue of military budget's size but the pearl about "aging warheads" is really something. Obviously, yet again, they don't teach anything of related to the reality in London School Of Economics but last time I checked, Russia possesses the most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world which ranges from the latest SLBMs Bulava carried by the state-of-the-art newest SSBN of Borei-class (3 hulls completed, 4 are being built) to a whole range of other both conventional and nuclear deterrents ranging from brand new RS-28 Sarmat ICBM, railroad complexes Barguzin to newest long-range cruise missiles of Kalibr and X-101 (102) class. One has to ask then, why Boston Globe gives a word to a guy who obviously is driven by feverish Russo-phobia and is utterly incompetent in just about any field he mentions in his drivel passed as an "opinion". It is an "opinion", alright, and it carries the same weight as my opinion on the issue of proctology or gynecology. The only difference between me and Mr.Gilmore--I do not speak on the subjects I have no clue about. I, as well as many other normal people, consider this to be uncultured and arrogant. But Gilmore is not alone here--he is a typical representative of North American so called "intellectual elite", which is neither intellectual nor elite but whose "opinions" are pushed on unsuspecting public as a noteworthy analysis. 

Make no mistake, Russia is no angel here either, Russia has her own share of "specialists" and "intellectuals" who do exercise their freedom of speech in all kinds of media outlets. But what is also true, and it is especially true for Russia's establishment media, Russians are on the order of magnitude more aware and knowledgeable about US (and Canada) than it is the other way around. Sure, one may see an opinion piece on the US which will be less than flattering (and often deservedly so) but it will not be filled with hatred towards American people, let alone with open bullshit and outright lies presented as a fact. In this sense, visceral hatred of North American "educated" class towards Russia and Russians is unique and borders on a paranoia and a very popular liberal delusion that thoughts may create a reality. But as old Oriental proverb goes: it will not get sweeter in the mouth by repeating the word sugar one hundred times. Russia is not going to collapse from depicting her as what she is not. Russophrenia is a cruel illness.

We all know that US "journalism" is dead. Hence the rise of the alternative media. Today this US "journalism" field is populated by ego-maniac hacks who decided that they are the ones who have the right to manipulate rather than inform and they seem totally content with the fact that most of them are human and professional failures in any human field which requires talent, knowledge and dedication--activities which lead human to what we all live for in the end--the pursuit of the truth since there is no happiness without it. Moreover, they get paid, often very handsomely, for spreading the lies and BS and in this case Boston Globe is right on the money--it delivered what it was paid to do: an opinion of a plumber on gynecology. I, meanwhile, am off to Russia, which, as we all know, is about to collapse and is crude drunk hooligan. Hey, that's partially true, Russians suck at football but, boy, they sure as hell know how to put up a fight.         

Parts Of Moscow. Sure Looks Like A Third World City;-))

 

State Department=Mini Peace (Minipax).

I wanted to write some thoughts on the issue, but then read Moon Of Alabama and concluded that most what I wanted to say was already said in much more appropriate English. The only thing I would add here is that we all are witnessing a complete and utter degeneration of current US "elites". Recall my post on Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice. It seems that utter ignorance and sheer lunacy are becoming a defining feature of these "elites". So, here it is--a full text from Moon Of Alabama. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Know-Nothing "Diplomats" Prepare For Hillary's War On Syria

There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria’s Assad

WASHINGTON — More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.

Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.
Back to the piece:

The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”
...
The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials — many of them career diplomats — who have been involved in the administration’s Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus. While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.
...
The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not “advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia,” but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?
These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

• "Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
• These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
• To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious question.

The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

[T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department’s rank and file have chafed at the White House’s refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria.

How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?
It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".
All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)
The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.
Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

"Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely. "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy," he said.
Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced. It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.
The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this  Turkish change of mind.
The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

Armata, Costs And Reality. Again....

When Main Battle Tank T-14 Armata debuted at Moscow's Victory Day Parade in 2015, let's be honest, it created a global media furor. No doubt, together with praises, a truck load of doubts was also dumped on Armata and the main of them all was the issue of costs. Few people argued with the fact that it is the most advanced tank in the world today, but what price? Initial speculations were that the cost will be so high that Russia as a whole may go bankrupt and dissolve after producing 5, 6....8 Armatas tops. Of course, how could it be any other way when "Russian scholars" (mostly from uber-liberal think-tanks, a euphemism for NATO shills) said so.  

Well, realities on the ground, however, are such that 20 Armatas are already serving with Russian Army's regular tank units and undergo what is called "troop trials", a term somewhat related to IOC: Initial Operational Capability. This is after a year since debut at the Red Square. To add insult to injury, or rub the salt into the wounds, of all kinds of Western Russia's ever ignorant "military experts", the CEO of famed Ural Vagon Zavod (Ural Train Cars Factory--yes, Russians love their military technologies pass as train cars or baby food) Oleg Sienko in his recent interview to National Defense magazine confirmed what many suspected all along, that Armata is exactly three times less expensive to produce than Abrams. That means only one thing: if to believe Abrams' (or Leopard's) cost to be $8.62 million, then Armata is $2,87 million. So, does it mean that Russian Army will receive planned 2300 Armatas by 2025 (initially it was stated to be 2020)? It sure as hell looks like it.      

               

Will there be delays, rescheduling, adjustments etc.? Absolutely! It already happened due to economic and geopolitical circumstances.  No state-of-the-art technology ever was procured without that and it is quite normal. But there is no doubt that Russia, yet again, was able to complete a full cycle--from R&D to procurement--of the cutting edge military technology which in the West would have cost....cough...F-35. This technological gap with the West will continue to grow, especially so if Putin will finally make a decision which a whole nation waits from him now. If not, somebody else, not Putin, will be making those decisions but that is a separate matter and a discussion. Meanwhile, Sukhoi T-50 (aka PAK FA) is getting ready to hit serial production in 2017, with new T-50 specific engines to be installed starting from 2018. 

It is not only inevitable but warranted to observe a somewhat peculiar reaction of Western MSM on a stream of real news from Russia. Behind this reaction (Russophrenia) is their never realized but, oh so palpable, "secret" desire to see Russia implode economically and Russians starve and crawl to the West on their knees. Yet, Russia somehow makes more money exporting grain than she does exporting weapons and now is world's leading exporter of wheat, still builds nuclear and diesel ice-breakers, produces micro-processors, launches satellites, builds nuclear power stations and, generally, is not willing to get scared. I guess this costs factor and ability to produce one of, if not the world's best weapons in quantities that deter any aggression is a huge part of the answer. In Russia it is always Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum and rightly so--this is reality of Russia's history.

What Is Strategy? No, Really, What Is It.

For those who read my blog consistently for the last 1.5 years this shouldn't present any difficulty--it is a system of measures for attaining political objectives of a war, campaign (both military and, why not, advertising) or even a test. I like Daniel Larison, to whose blog I have a direct link, but he doesn't like me since I constantly point out to the fact that if one wants to make a difference in US disastrous foreign policy one should start to point out WHO runs it or...speak in broadsides. That involves appropriating a famous neocon "method" of ad hominem but with one very serious addition--use of an actual serious academic argumentation. For example, if I say that Marco Rubio is mama's boy who compensates for...being mama's boy (plus, of course, being on the payroll of Israeli-first Adelson)--it could be easily proven that his, or, as an example, Speaker Paul Ryan's, views on foreign policy are nothing more than wet dreams of lawyers or political "scientists" who didn't spent a day in the armed forces nor have any clue of outside world. Easy. The only thing which drives them is a necessity to look tough and cool--like Speaker Ryan who simply lied about his sports' achievements.  You see, being macho is really big deal in Congress where very few ever served in armed forces, let alone saw combat or serious operations, which were dangerous to their lives. 

Now, Daniel Larison writes another excellent piece in The American Conservative and this piece, yet again, makes an argument within the confines of American perception of the outside world and war, but this cannot be changed since, as I write throughout this whole blog for the last 18 months--it can not be changed until all those Ivy League boys feel an intensive heat from explosions, feel what kinetic means first hand and, in general, experience the fear, sweat, exhaustion, smell and desperation of the serious military service. Nothing is going to change until those people get a very clear idea that their decisions may have a very serious consequences for their very own dears like being....blown to smithereens. Especially so against the background of US political "elites" literally living in La-La Land insofar as military power goes. The closest those people ever have been to real military is, probably, when given rides on some military technology and watching movies and reading late Clancy's BS. Now, mentally, fly into Kremlin and ask yourself a question: do Russians know that most of US "elites" sincerely, truly believe that US is militarily exceptional? Not only Russians are aware of that, their awareness is a part of their geopolitical and military calculus. 

Much of US foreign policy arrogance (and failures) is based on the fact of decision-makers being completely oblivious to real issues of war. In current American political world where appearances are more important than substance, the image of modern Russian Armed Forces may create such hysterical reactions:

  

You see, just mere purposeful and to a good end (killing ISIS and US supported "moderate terrorists") use of Russia's Armed Forces creates a near aneurysm reaction. Fact is, Russia has no intention to humiliate anyone, let alone US military to which Russian Armed Forces have professional respect. But Russians know that every performance of Russian Armed Forces (which were presented always as hordes of primitive barbarians in the "West"), be it on the Red Square during Victory Day parade or delivering precision guided munitions against ISIS animals, inevitably creates among those who set current US foreign policy against Russia a sense of, how to put it politely, insecurity. Reason? I mentioned it not for once--a sacred belief that US and NATO can conventionally defeat Russia in her vicinity based on Hollywood. Well, it can not. So, does demonstration of Russian conventional military prowess become a part (an element) of strategy to deter war? Absolutely, if it wasn't the case, both Putin and Russian General Staff (which knows a thing or two about war) should have been fired. As Sun Tzu, or Clausewitz, or Delbruck, or whoever (maybe even George Friedman of STRATFOR;-)) said it: the best way to win the war is not to fight it, especially against the opponent whose political command has barely any idea what they are dealing with. This is also a great strategy, that is a system of measures to attain political objectives of the war, and I may add, without fighting it. Today's decision on "deployment" of the whole....4 NATO battalions in Poland and Baltic States against Russian "aggression" surely testifies to the fact that the message was delivered and understood. The rest--let PR and media people deal with that. As long as the appearances are good and Russians feel intimidated;-)  

         

James Holmes On OODA.

As some of you may have noticed I don't take The National Interest magazine seriously--most of its publications are wet dreams of "professionals" from political pseudo-science and technophile amateurs who love those big guns and sexy planes. But once in a while even TNI publishes a very good piece which is worth paying attention to. Recently it was an excellent piece by Lieutenant Colonel Davies and now it is the piece by James Holmes, a Professor of Strategy from Naval War College:

       War at Sea: How to Win (And Lose) a Littoral Battle Royal  

I want to remind you all, that I started this blog by going into the nature of Colonel Boyd's OODA Loop and how it is being discarded by most US political and military "elites".  Holmes also goes into this issue and argues with late Admiral Cebrowski--the father of the Net Centric Warfare. While doing this, Holmes references one of the greatest contemporary naval minds, Captain Wayne Hughes (and others) with his Mesh Network In Littoral Operations.  

This is an extraordinarily important discussion, which may not generate much in terms of comments--people simply do not like math and fairly complex (not really, wink-wink) constructs but I want to stake this discussion for the future since view it as the most important issue of modern naval combat, which already is having a major strategic implications, with tectonic geopolitical ramifications. While discussing technological dimension of war is very important (and it is fun for many), its operational and human dimensions are no less, if not more, important. So, here it is. meanwhile, if someone wants to refresh some basic facts related to Boyd's OODA Loop--welcome to  Sand Castle Geopolitics, where I go in some depth into the OODA issue as applied to geopolitics. 

             

Admiral Gorshkov In Base

 

It Was About 25 Years Ago.....

That Soviet firm Melodiya produced Alexey Rybnykov's greatest masterpiece Rock Opera Juno And Avost--a Russian Orthodox Melodic Intoxication, songs which became prayers. It suddenly dawned on me again today. Paris in 1988 packed its best venues demanding more and more and The Theater Of Lenisnky Komsomol performed week after week for adoring sold out Paris crowds. Today, quarter century later--it seems that this anthem (a closing theme of rock-opera) to lovers, man and a woman, suddenly is as relevant as ever. Hallelujah to beloved couple............Hallelujah to love......Hallelujah to all future children....we will respond with smile to the hatred........

  

And The Bird Is Out.....

And she is a beauty!!

  

This is a major development not only for Russia, with MC-21 already having 175 firm orders and 100 options from Russia's airlines, but also for global market. This jet is a direct and powerful competitor at the most voluminous market of mid-range aircraft with anything out there available today. In this roll out, MC-21, named after legendary Soviet/Russian aircraft designer Alexander Yakovlev (initially, the plane was known as Yak-242), is equipped with Pratt & Whitney engines--this configuration will be used for promotion in the international markets. Russian versions will be equipped with newest PD-14, which will be in series production by 2018. 

MC-21 is a remarkably thoroughly Russian-made plane with a very high percentage of localization--from avionics to composites, which constitute 40% of aircraft air frame, including all-composite wings. A lot could be said about all that, but what must be said is that it is a milestone and a massive comeback of Russian civil (commercial) aviation which about 10 years ago was all but "buried" by all kinds of "experts".                 

This aircraft has a massive export potential but for now it must be oriented towards Russian  market.

                  

   

Now, onto flight tests and certification. This aircraft is badly needed in Russia. As they say--Godspeed.