After that Fred elaborates on how such a war may unfold. It is typical Fred who uses his words as swords and it is a delight. A great piece. However, one small detail which needs to be pointed out. It is all about accuracy and CEP, or Circular Error Probable, and how this accuracy was growing, while CEP was shrinking over decades from Counter-value posture of strategic nuclear forces of USSR and the US--meaning blowing the shit out of well-sized targets easy to hit, such as cities--to Counter-force when accuracy of the delivery systems increased dramatically and the necessity to strike large area targets (to trade effect for low accuracy), which cities naturally are, diminished. Today modern ICBMs can deliver MIRVs with accuracy measured in tens of meters and that is enough to hit a specific military formation's camp, production plant or the area of the ICBM silo. So, suddenly, the collapse of such a country as the US hinges not on wiping out a number of urban areas such as NYC or Chicago--that is easy and counter-value weapons such as Poseidon do exist and are being perfected, but on something much more sinister.
Today, the misery and collapse on any country could be visited upon by merely shutting down its electric grid, blowing all of its nuclear power stations up, with all what it entails, and taking out key bridges and dams with few other key command and control installations and the country will collapse. Civilians still will die, but not in high tens or hundreds of millions, but something on the scale of 10-20 millions at the start and after that... well, enter what Fred describes. So, it is still debatable what is the best way to die--by being counter-valued upfront or through horrors of famine, urban warfare, lawlessness, cold and illnesses, many of them incurable, which will follow a counter-force scenario. So, it is an interesting question to ponder. Or, as Comrade Sukhov, from the immortal Soviet Eastern White Sun of The Desert, answered the question on own death:
Q: So, do you want to be finished off right now or do you want to suffer first?
Sukhov Answers: It is preferable, of course, to suffer first.
So, these are our options and Fred excellently described Sukhov's choice--to suffer first. Meanwhile new generation chooses Pepsi or whatever the fvck the "current thing" is. Who knows what is better.
I, however, disagree with Fred in one thing. He writes:
Journalists are not stupid, running to well above
average in intelligence. You could form a large chapter of Mensa by
raiding newsrooms in Washington. However, with a fair few exceptions,
they are not intellectuals, not contemplative, not studious. They are
high-pressure fact-accountants, competitive, comfortable under tight
deadlines, aggressive, combative, quick but shallow. This can be a
serviceable substituent for stupid.
I have to correct Fred here: stupidity is not defined by IQ metric alone. Real intellect is defined by self-awareness and understanding of own limitations, which, in the end, is a moral category. The world is filled with all those "through-the-roof IQ" and "Mensa level intelligence" failures and losers, who never achieved anything in their lives--I personally know several of them. US main-stream media "journalists" fail every metric in a framework which values knowledge, competence and truth. Life is complex and so are the outcomes. Other than that small note, the piece by Fred is superb and he nails it when he writes:
They don’t know America, and they don’t much like it.
I see nothing intellectual about that and may add only that they know nothing about Russia, China, the rest of the world, about war, peace, culture, morality, common good, people in general and the list goes on, and on, and on. So much for "intelligence" of ignorant hacks.
Basically, this whole panopticon is akin to asking China to influence China's crucial military ally whom huge chunks of China's security depend on to act counter to Russia and China's national interests just because petulant and ignorant children in Foggy Bottom want so. This, folks, is the "level" of the US "diplomacy", which for the last 20+ years provided us with a panoply of amateurs who in normal country wouldn't be allowed to run a 7-11 convenience store or even mow the lawns in any self-respecting middle class Home Owners Association. Yet, here we are--the bunch of State Department chicken-hawks, war-mongers and neocons desperately try to repeat their failed "strategy" of 2014 hoping yet again that Russia will bait and will "go in" and will tie her resources in 404 which Russia doesn't want or need and thus will allow neocons' "plan" to deal with China without Russia to succeed. Good God, they ARE that stupid.
I have news for J.D. Vance--there is a whole issue with the US education starting from K-12. They do not teach there, as it is done in normal countries, the relation between cause and effect. That is why the US lost its all post-WW II wars, lost its economic race to China, arms race to Russia and effectively produced "elites" which constantly humiliate their own country by their ignorance, incompetence and bizarre behavior. Read an acerbic piece by Fred Reed about the art of governance. They don't teach real governance in the US. Fred has a point, in fact, many of them.
The reality is catching up with Washington. West will have to pay for a mess which it created in 404 in 2014. Russia is NOT taking this freak of a country on her balance and it was the West which precipitated Russia's ultimatum and the issue today is way bigger than just the Ukraine. It is about Russia breaking off with the West on Russia's terms. Those in the West who would have second thoughts--they are welcome to Moscow if they have something to say of substance. If not, too fvcking bad, it's West's problem and they should go back. As Saker noted, Russians are "snow niggers" for the West and Russians, overwhelming majority of them, are just fine with that. This is the fact the combined West should internalize. Russians don't give a damn. Except when they do, but for that Russia has Defense Ministry and damn good Armed Forces.
Speaking of which, some details have been revealed about modernization of good ol' Udaloys (pr. 1155) and, as you might expect, all of them will get 3M22 Zircons in addition to other weapon systems and full update of electronic suites (in Russian).
There is an interesting "slip of the tongue" in this video that Admiral Nakhimov will actually get a navalized version of S-400, albeit media state that Nakhimov will retain Fort-M (S-300FM), but then again, it is not long now for Nakhimov to get to trials.
About learning proper lessons from war. Patrick refers to my work (that is not the reason I refer to his piece, I quote him periodically) in this superb piece and to Fred Reed's succinct and always sardonic description of US military since Vietnam War.
The last sentence is the most important one. Now recall my three years old "issue" with operational "planning" by RAND's very own Ochmanek and group of air power experts. That is until he himself admitted, two years later, in 2019 that NATO has its ass handed to it real war against Russia and China. Recall my main question then, in 2017:
Russian definition of the best air-defense in the world is very simple: our tanks at enemy's airfields. This obvious truism implies something much bigger than mere air operations, it requires a serious battle-space integration across all domains (damn, do I sound like a Pentagon bureaucrat) and, yes, those proverbial ground forces which, actually, have a very effective troops' (voiskovaya) air defenses which the US armed forces never encountered in their modern era. So, in general, Armstrong's piece is great and gives excellent historic introspective. A must read, as one would say.
Meanwhile, 6th international (32 participants from Russia, Belarus, Israel, Iran, Vietnam, China, you name it) army games Army 2020 opened yesterday in Russia and Russians greeted everybody with a ballet. No, not from Bolshoi or Mariinka, but primarily Western, Southern and Central military districts and ballerinas were charming and elegant. Primarily T-80s and Msta-S self-propelled gun. Just enjoy, nothing better than T-80s dance to Swan Lake and Nut-Cracker.
The full ballet performance you can easily find at the Army 2020 Youtube channel. Meanwhile, the first full day of competitions, tank biathlon, saw Vietnamese kicking ass being clinical on targets on their (only China brought her own tanks) T-72B3s and that means a really hot contest, I am sure Chinese and Israelis will have something to say about it, apart from Russia and Belarus. You see, if the world could only fight in such "wars".
Difficultto argue, because in terms of what really matters, that is tangible economic results, Trump has very little realistically to show for it. As Ron Unz continues:
For foreign policy reasons, I had strongly
favored Trump both in the primary and in the general election, but I
hardly regarded him as a thoughtful vessel for the positions he claimed
to espouse. To put it bluntly, he struck me much like a
highly-opinionated construction worker, angrily spouting off on politics
in his local neighborhood bar, being right on some matters and wrong on
others, but with none of his views based upon any deep understanding of
the issues. I suspect that even many of Trump’s strongest supporters
have gradually come around to a similar appraisal of their idol.
So did I, but hopes were dashed really fast and as Fred Reed in a moment of utter sheer brilliance observed about Trump he was First Transgender President, Trump Became Hillary. Trump simultaneously became also W and in terms of foreign policy, which in reality matters for the United States way more than it is traditionally credited with, Trump became a neocon in a sense of fanatically following an aggressive dogma and "weaponizing" US economy. So, the world learned fast that the economic war was declared on it and it started acting or, rather, counter-acting and most important strategic move was, inevitably, to slay a holy cow of America's economic "development" (or otherwise) of the last 70 years or so--the US Dollar.
This is what Trump and people on the American "top" do not recognize, while the US still remains an economic powerhouse:
1. American Deindustrializtion hasn't been stopped while Reindustrialization requires a volume of the investment (money) which simply cannot be printed anymore nor could US treasuries be viewed anymore as a trusted instrument, because...
2. A main pillar of these treasuries--the US military power and ability to control the empire, apart from being grossly inflated to start with, diminished greatly in the last 20+ years and continue to decline because...
3. The actual size of the US economy is much smaller than those proverbial $22 trillion and China outproduces the United States by a great margin in many critical fields and catching up in others. As an example, one of many, the US commercial shipbuilding doesn't even register (0.35% of global tonnage) in this industry, never mind nauseating mantras about US being "largest economy" in the world--it is not, China is. One can review Chinese commercial shipbuilding here, or can review who is a real mover (a hint--they are a gas station) for satellite-constellations in space.
4. Removing, or bypassing, US Dollar as the only global reserve currency--the process which is ongoing and accelerating as I type this--inevitably will cut the US economy "to size" and will accelerate the process of "landing" greatly, hopefully not crash-landing which may force desperate US "elites" unleash a global conflict.
Trump's trade wars are a good indicator of desperation and these wars only accelerate dedollarization and there is nothing the US can do about it short of unleashing a global military conflict, as I said earlier. Some people in D.C. think about it.Iran's SWIFT snafu is just the latest in a row of the geopolitical and economic prescriptions which do not work and, in reality, harm the United States itself. Well, Trump is correct in one thing for sure--if not for the United States China would have never become what she is today and for that, as the saying goes, United States has only itself to blame. In the end, if not for the way the US treated Russia in 1990s there would have been no fundamental rethinking of Russia's foreign and defense policies. But here we are. Trump merely, rephrasing Clausewitz, continues American aggression by other (economic) means and we are in the brave new world where nobody takes American words and promises seriously anymore. In related news, last week:
The first "no shit" moment is when Erdogan figured it out that there is a war in Syria, namely in Idlib (in Russian). What do ya know, and I thought that Idlib was fully engaged in civilian construction of sports arenas, 5 star hotels and autobahns, instead of housing Al-Qaeda related and other terrorist outlets supported by none other than Turkey. Now that SAA got to Idlib and started clearing this Syrian territory from this jihadist filth, Erdo-dude suddenly felt the pain. Of course, he did--his Neo-Ottoman aspirations tell him that removing Assad and biting off a substantial piece of Syria's territory are imperatives, if not, of course, for those nasty Russkies and those Kurds, who those Russkies may suddenly find very instrumental in containing Turkey's expansionist agenda.
Is Erdogan bluffing preparing for a full blown war in Idlib? Possible, but as a former military I need to consider worst case scenario that he does not and that he will decide to go in full force. Russian VKS already sent the message couple days ago when bombed the shit out of Turkey-supported "freedom fighters" who, accidentally, are now armed with manpads and it will be now a matter of time before some civilian aircraft will be brought down, who knows where. But Erdo, as vocal as ever, understands that he stands to lose a lot if Russia will get involved, and she will get involved, fully on Syria's side in Idlib, because the list of those losses is really large and it is large namely for Turkey--so, some kind of ad hoc arrangement might be worked out, possibly with Friday evening's call between Putin and Erdogan, but it doesn't change the strategic outlook in which jihadists of all colors must be annihilated. This is not negotiable.
The second "no shit" moment is a piece the Vice President of US National Foreign Trade Council Richard Sawaya penned for The Hill in which he concludes that:
While repeating same tropes about US "democracy" and Russian "aggression" in Ukraine, Sawaya, nevertheless, arrives to this sad (for the US) assessment:
Another (DASKA provision) would prohibit U.S. companies from engaging in transactions of
Russian sovereign debt denominated in rubles, which would effectively
stymie any U.S. company operations in Russia. Though presumably
intended to hurt the Russian economy, in fact, the measure would
sanction U.S. companies to the benefit of their non-U.S. (read Chinese)
competitors. Nearly 3,000 U.S. companies that operate in joint ventures
with Russian firms could be forced to exit or shutter operations. More
broadly, in the global economy with its complex network of multi-country
supply chains, ever increasing U.S. sanctions cause U.S. companies to
be regarded as unreliable partners.
As many Russians repeat ad nauseam: yes, we are culpable in "meddling" in your (US elections), yes, we are dreaming about capturing Ukraine, yes, we are the ones who are responsible for every evil on Earth, please, keep the sanctions on. Russia already reduced her holdings in US Treasuries to a minuscule $9 Billion (as of today). It is obviously clear that Russia doesn't see the United States as any type of partner nor is interested in broader economic relations with it. While many, including Russia's own liberals, made fun of Import Substitution program and predicted its failure in 2014, they are not laughing anymore in 2020 and some are panicking. Enough to recall Siemens turbines affair. It is nearly impossible to explain to political "scientist", stock broker or banker that the nation which produces state-of-the-art weaponry or energy technology will have little trouble developing and producing own high pressure pumps for pipe-lines, liquification equipment or high-power turbines, among many other things. We can see results already today and that means only one thing--continuous shrinkage of imports from the combined West. So when Sawaya says this:
U.S. sanctions, as pressure tactics, demonstrably fail to achieve their
intended objectives. To date, Russia’s conduct in Ukraine has not
changed. As one observer put it, the sanctions were meant for Moscow but
hit Houston. DASKA’s energy provisions would take collateral damage to
new heights.
He needs to understand that Russia doesn't care about Houston, nor about "collateral damage" to US economy. Why should Russia care? Russians are keenly aware of the simple fact that there is NOBODY in D.C. to have sensible and productive discussions with. Zero, zilch, nada. Under any circumstances it will be a waste of time and effort. Such an outcome was totally predictable and US political class understood this too late. They really should improve their understanding of the surrounding world. I doubt they will. In fact, opposite is true--as Fred Reed defines it, enstupidation hit an overdrive.
Insurrection? Not really. Insurrection is an uprising against authority and what have happened in D.C. on the 6th was not an uprising. It was a peaceful demonstration turned somewhat violent with the help of some provocateurs. It was easily dealt with and what matters here is that overwhelming majority of people who came to Capitol had no intention to "rise up" and be insurrectionists whatsoever. They came to demonstrate. I already demonstrated what real insurrection, evolving into insurgency, looks like. It is understandable when some bimbo from CNN throws BS terminology around, but to expect that from Andrew Bacevich, a former cadre officer. Yet, here we are:
No, it was not "insurrection", that is why it ended relatively peacefully with, let's be honest, very few, however regrettable, victims and resumption of the work by Congress. Few scary moments and PR humiliation US Capitol (and US in general) endured as a result of that, bar some dramatic footage, produced zero effect in what Bacevich himself defines as:
Ours is a broken country. Fail to acknowledge that and the Great
Insurrection of 2021 may be a mere precursor of worse things to come.
Yes, we know that and many do acknowledge this fact, but it doesn't make some pure hooliganism an insurrection. Let's use adequate terms. Now, if that wasn't enough, let's get to the issue of "freedom of speech". I will reiterate:
1. What is known in US as a "big-tech" is not and never was a "big-tech"--these are social network companies which produce nothing more than code, which is uploaded into their servers, which are produced by REAL tech companies, and the only product Facebook or Twitter produce is a wholesale exhibitionism, sexual and psychological disorders, and vast streams of BS. That is why I, personally, do not have FB, Twitter etc. accounts.
2. All this so called "big-tech" are nominally private companies. And don't give me this crap about them suppressing all others, well, boo-hoo. They are private companies and the fact that their monopoly (not really) hasn't been broken is the issue for POTUS and US Congress. Here is what I wrote when answering to one person at Colonel Lang's site yesterday re: this "freedom of speech".
Are Google, FB, Twitter, what have you, conduits for DNC ideology and policies? Absolutely, they are despicable, but it was society, users, customers who made them such. They also made sure that they are what they are in terms of influence. And US government didn't do a squat about it. So, what do you expect, that such DNC dumpsters as WaPo or NYT will start printing my articles? No. They have their own standards, however pathetic, dictated by their owners and that's that. My question here is next: where IS any real conservative platform, in a larger sense, ranging from own social network infrastructure to serious print press. What passes in the US for "conservative" media are as conservative as I am Chinese. If the President of the United States conducts his "policies", or, rather lack thereof, through private BS internet resource such as Twitter and Fox News is a neoliberal neocon cesspool, pretending to be "fair and balanced", what do you expect? US media are controlled top-bottom by a moneyed class and they will not allow any serious conservative thought to be represented, especially among generation which is, frankly, dumb and has an attention span of a fish, being unable to get their eyes off their phones.
Hey, "conservative" billionaires and the so called "patriots" with money, where is your initiative, where is you love for "freedom of speech", when you cannot even have an alternative platform developed? Forget platform, there are no good level conservative thinkers among you. In fact, I doubt there are many truly bright people out there in what passes in the US for a "conservative" movement. So, don't whine--you had a chance, you blew it, as did DJT who did nothing really to change anything in affairs which really mattered, even if considering a very real sabotage from establishment. The impotence on unprecedented scale. All talk, no actions. Now "big tech" shuts those who they do not like? Sure. Did you expect anything else? Now, with all those terms being thrown around casually, we better wake up and see that media hysteria changes absolutely nothing in Washington Consensus and that, should I have had my own platform I would have shutdown very many "lefty" ideas, because many of them, ranging from institutionalizing a sexual perversion to a radical anti-white racism, deserve to be thrown out of the political debate, as destructive and extremist. That is what being adequate means. As for GOP, it is by far more disturbing spectacle than impotent POTUS. But I am on record: if Democratic Party and its policies are clear and present danger, at least they talk about this openly, GOP is a bunch of cowards and traitors and as such they preside over the destruction of the country. Whigs, rings the bell? That's the adequate term.
I have news for Mr. Trump--Russia is not in the "arms race", she is doing her absolutely own thing and is not intent on bankrupting herself maintaining 11 CVNs, a truck load of very expensive expeditionary forces and using them to meddle (that is unleashing wars) in affairs of countries which are NOT a threat to national security. I have to go with RT's reasonable proposition:
Yet, there is a critic in the White House, who apparently thinks little
of these accomplishments, which the Trump administration showcases at
every opportunity. His name is Donald Trump.
And if Fred Reed was first to point out that Trump is a first transgender POTUS, I may go further and state that Donald J. Trump is a first Schrodinger President, exhibiting wave-particle duality and capable to exist simultaneously in several states. This is where my descriptive and analytical, however feeble, abilities abandon me completely and I am forced to look at all that in a complete bemusement. I never was capable to be proud and abhor the same thing simultaneously, even after I dedicated a lot of time to reading Michio Kaku, Brian Greene and other wonderful quantum physicists. But jokes aside, Colonel Lang gave a grim assessment of this whole FUBAR:
My issue is not with this BS. Expected from Kagans' clan. My issue is with this: a star-studded Washington, DC think-tank. If, as RT claims, it is "star-studded" why don't we look at who those "stars" are. I am not going to discuss any military (lack) of expertise among Kagans (this pseudo-strategic scam is founded by Kimberley Kagan) but apart from being fanatical neocons, they not only qualify as war criminals (and we are yet discuss this issue), but have General Tommy Franks assessment of Douglas Feith as the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth(c) fully applied to Kagans in terms of warfare. So, who are those stars in this org? Let's see:
General Jack Keane (US Army, Retired), Chairman, Institute for the Study of War; President, GSI, LLC
Dr. Kimberly Kagan, Founder & President, Institute for the Study of War
The Honorable Kelly Craft, Former US Ambassador to UN and Canada
Dr. William Kristol, Director, Defending Democracy Together
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Senior Council, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP
Kevin Mandia, Chief Executive Officer & Board Director, Mandiant
Jack D. McCarthy, Jr., Senior Managing Director & Founder, A&M Capital
Bruce Mosler, Chairman, Global Brokerage, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Retired), Member, KKR & Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Dr. Warren Phillips, Lead Director, CACI International
Colonel William Roberti (US Army, Retired),Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal
The only persons of any military background I can see here are General Petraeus, General Keane and Colonel William Roberti. I don't know who Roberti is, but there is another General on Staff of this ISW--General James Dubik. The rest of it, as is expected, a bunch of useless credentials (from Ivy League fraudulent humanities programs) loaded "scholars", many of them from Ukraine, take a gander, and people who wouldn't know the difference between LGBT and BTG. So, why don't we try to define military "stardom" in appropriate terms. Indeed, who is a real star, militarily-speaking, on what merit this "stardom" is bestowed on military people? I can tell you upfront: winning campaigns, wars. Napoleon may have been a complete ass-hole as a man, but there is no denial that he was a military genius and kicked so much ass in his life that no matter how one may not like him, there is no denial--he is a military star. Alexander Suvorov, who bears the title of generalissimo and even owns (to his name) a part of Switzerland, not to mention being a Count of Holy Roman Empire and Prince of Kingdom of Sardinia. He became a military star and got all these titles and awards not because he was a nice guy, but because he won of all his campaigns.
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov was an overweight and one eye blind (he lost the eye in wars in Crimea) but he is world renown because this is the guy who defeated Napoleon Invasion of Russia in 1812. Is he is a star. You can bet your own ass on that, because in 1814 (he died by then) Alexander I and Russian Army triumphantly entered Paris. The spirit of Kutuzov was with Russian Army and Czar. How about Eisenhower? Well, guess who got Order of Victory from Stalin? Many complain that Ike was not this or that, but guess what--he ended up sharing a victory with likes of Zhukov, Konev, Rokossosvsky or Vasilvesky, giant military stars of truly historic proportions in their own right. And nobody can say that Ike didn't deserve it. Want to see a true military leader? Read Ike's letter before the D-Day written in case the landing fails--the man takes all personal responsibility for such a failure. This is a sign of a very big man and military leader of historic proportions. It also inspires an admiration for a man.
Is Monty a military star? Sure. So is, undeniably, Chester Nimitz. It was also ever diligent Omar Bradley who was behind many operations of the US Army in Europe in 1944-45. All this is understandable, you can even credit Erich Von Meinstein with brilliant military leadership and military art practitioner of a highest level. Even a devout Nazi Walter Model was a man of a major military talent (when at the top of his game) and has a record to back it up. I can continue to list many international military stars who left an indelible mark on military history, strategy, operational art and tactics. In their lives they were often very successful scoring major victories in campaigns or winning campaigns against the first rate peers.
Now let's take a look at ISW's "stars". We will start with General Jack Keane. The guy literally lives on FOX news as "analyst" of Russia.
The first question which pops up is this? Since when this general has become a "star". Many generals commanded many soldiers in their lives but that doesn't make them a star. It is HOW you command and what is your record which matter. And here is the point which I made above--and it is universally agreed upon--what are the campaigns which Keane won? What are his merits as battlefield leader and strategic and operational commander? Very many people in armed forces all around the world serve 37 years and even longer. I can give an example, Vice-Admiral Oleg Golubev, a graduate class of a year later than mine from our naval academy, is already 41 years in service. He is deputy commander of Northern Fleet and, most likely, its future commander. He has under his command a firepower which can wipe the United States off the map in a single salvo. Like this:
Many people serve long terms in Armed Forces all around the world. Also, very many people go through hot spots, military campaigns, operational and combat zones. But last time I checked, Vietnam, where General Keane started his career was not exactly a success. After beating the shit from a third-rate utterly incompetent and outgunned Saddam's "fourth largest in the world" Army, the US got bogged down in Iraq, destroyed shitload of real estate there and after that concluded Afghanistan War with... well, we know what. I look at General Keane's bio and still cannot find a single entry with won wars, campaigns or, at least, notable battles. Keane is, certainly, a TV star, he certainly provides a lot of talking about Russia and her Armed Forces but I doubt General Keane understands how Russian State operates and how Russian Armed Forces are integrated in it on a doctrinal level. No US General has any experience with that because no US military man, none, zilch, nada ever fought in defense of his or her homeland. It is simply a different culture which most people in the US, including current top bras, cannot grasp.
Then we begin to look at another "star", General Petraeus. I, honestly, cannot remember Petraeus for any military accomplishments other than a fucking mess in Iraq and a "brilliant" command in Afghanistan debacle. Of course, he was appointed the head of CIA but is primarily remembered for screwing Paula Broadwell. Just to give some perspective, Marshal Rokossovsky (that is one of the brightest military stars in history) was rumored (mostly false) to have a romantic extramarital affair with a famous Soviet movie actress Valentina Serova.
And while those were primarily rumors, when Stalin got a report about Rokossovsky's alleged affair and was asked (and this is not a legend, it is a fact) what are we going to do about it, Comrade Stalin? After all, people's favorite, one of the greatest military leaders etc. Not a good example, et al. Stalin, after a second of contemplation responded: "What are we going to do, what are we going to do? We are all going to envy Comrade Rokossovsky."
You may say what I am getting at? Very simple--modern United States doesn't have military stars in the top brass, because it lost all of its modern wars (with the exception of Grenada) while providing not only shameful propaganda of own accomplishments, where there were none, but covering up one humiliation after another, including utter strategic and operational ineptness of US "military stars" who lied constantly to public about losing yet another America's ill-conceived military adventure in the lands which pose zero threat to the United States. When even CIA outlet such as WaPo cannot take it anymore of this military stars' BS and has to publish this:
One has to ask the question, are these people like Keane, Petraeus and likes any good other than self-promotion and spreading BS for the sake of MIC profits? We all know the answer, not everybody just wants to say loud--no, they are not. Not only they are not good military leaders, they are ignorant ones and when I see them bloviating on Russia and Russian Armed Forces I cringe. They parade themselves as political clowns good only for lobbying of anyone's interests as long as the pay is good. Where are you campaigns and wars won? None exist.
One user posted a link to a lecture by Dr. Philip Karber to West Point Cadets in 2018 about Russia's capabilities.
Even today, four years hence this video is dated but also gives some insight in how mislead and how speculative "experts" in the US are even in a relative non-publicity of the West Point's confines. I can repeat what I repeated many times (Patrick Armstrong also says it all the time): your intel is not good, in fact, you all don't know shit about the subject you are talking about. The last excrement from ISW (what wars do they "study" there?) is a decisive proof of a complete loss of not only any situational awareness which was always shaky but a complete confused state when it comes to Russia. It is really cringe-worthy to read and watch these "stars" from the fraudulent BS narrative mongering "think-tank" who parade own ignorance, if not malice, publicly covering their real war-mongering goals with sophomoric pseudo-military psychobabble. Face the facts--you are not that good, and the US military history is dwarfed by the scale and tradition of Russia's military accomplishments which are rooted in defense of Russians' motherland and the only thing left for Keane or Petraeus is to watch and as Stalin stated: "You are all going to envy." And that's the secret to your impotent anger. That's what losers do. If RT thinks that this ISW is "star-studded", they better ask Margo Simonyan to visit Russia's Academy of General Staff--they will explain to her what real military stardom is.
