The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Book Review - Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning by Andrei Martyanov
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_538167682

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
ORDER IT NOW

The fact that the US is facing a profound crisis, possibly the worst one in its history, is accepted by most observers, except maybe the most delusional ones. Most Americans definitely know that. In fact, if there is one thing upon which both those who supported Trump and those who hate him with a passion can agree on, it would be that his election is a clear proof of a profound crisis (I would argue that the election of Obama before also had, as one of its main causes, the very same systemic crisis). When speaking of this crisis, most people will mention the deindustrialization, the drop in real income, the lack of well-paid jobs, healthcare, crime, immigration, pollution, education, and a myriad of other contributing factors. But of all the aspects of the “American dream”, the single most resilient one has been the myth of the US military as “the finest fighting force in history”. In this new book, Andrei Martyanov not only comprehensively debunks this myth, he explains step by step how this myth was created and why it is collapsing now. This is no small feat, especially in a relatively short book (225 pages) which is very well written and accessible to everyone, not just military specialists.

Martyanov takes a systematic and step-by-step approach: first, he defines military power, then he explains where the myth of US military superiority came from and how the US rewriting of the history of WWII resulted in a complete misunderstanding, especially at the top political levels, of the nature of modern warfare. He then discusses the role ideology and the Cold War played in further exacerbating the detachment of US leaders from reality. Finally, he demonstrates how a combination of delusional narcissism and outright corruption resulted in a US military capable of wasting truly phenomenal sums of money on “defense” while at the same time resulting in an actual force unable to win a war against anything but a weak and defenseless enemy.

That is not to say that the US military has not fought in many wars and won. It did, but in the words of Martyanov:

Surely when America fought against a third-rate adversary it was possible to rain death from the skies, and then roll over its forces, if any remained by that time, with very little difficulty and casualties. That will work in the future too against that type of adversary—similar in size and flimsiness of Iraqi Forces circa 2003. But Ledeen’s Doctrine had one major flaw—one adult cannot continue to go around the sandbox constantly fighting children and pretend to be good at fighting adults.

The main problem for the US today is that there are very few of those third-rate adversaries left out there and that those who the US is trying to bring to submission now are either near-peer or even peer adversaries. Martyanov specifically lists the factors which make that kind of adversary so different from those the US fought in the past:

  1. Modern adversaries have command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities equal to or better than the US ones.
  2. Modern adversaries have electronic warfare capabilities equal to or better than the US ones
  3. Modern adversaries have weapon systems equal to or better than the US ones.
  4. Modern adversaries have air defenses which greatly limit the effectiveness of US airpower.
  5. Modern adversaries have long-range subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles which present a huge threat to the USN, bases, staging areas and even the entire US mainland.

In the book, all these points are substantiated with numerous and specific examples which I am not repeating here for the sake of brevity.

One could be forgiven for not being aware of any of these facts, at least if one considers the kind of nonsense written by the US corporate media or, for that matter, by the so-called “experts” (another interesting topic Martyanov discusses in some detail). Still, one can live in an imaginary world only as long as reality does not come crashing in, be it in the form of criminally overpriced and useless weapon systems or in the form of painful military defeats. The current hysteria about Russia as the Evil Mordor which is the culprit for everything and anything bad (real or imaginary) happening to the US is mostly due to the fact that Russia, in total contradiction to all the “expert” opinions, not only did not crash or turn into a “gas station masquerading as a country” with her economy “in tatters”, but succeeded in developing a military which, for a small fraction of the US military budget, whose armed forces are in reality far more capable than the US forces.

I realize that this last statement is quite literally “unthinkable” for many Americans and I submit that the very fact that this is so literally unthinkable greatly contributed to making this possible in the first place: when you are so damn sure that by some kind of miracle of history, or God’s will, or Manifest Destiny or any other supernatural reason, you are inherently and by definition superior and generally “better” than everybody else you are putting yourself in great danger of being defeated. This is as true for Israel as it is for the US. I would also add that in the course of the West’s history this “crashing in of reality” in the comfy world of narcissistic delusion often came in the form of a Russian soldier defeating the putatively much superior master race of the day (from the Crusaders to the Nazis). Hence the loathing which western ruling elites always had for everything Russian.

In this book, Martyanov explains why, in spite of the absolutely catastrophic 1990s, the Russians succeeded in developing a modern and highly capable combat force in a record time. There are two main reasons for this: first, unlike their US counterparts, Russian weapons are designed to kill, not to make money and, second, Russians understand warfare because they understand what war really is. This latest argument might look circular, but it is not: Russians are all acutely aware of what war really means and, crucially, they are actually willing to make personal sacrifices to either avoid or, at least, win wars. In contrast, Americans have no experience of real warfare (that is warfare in defense of their own land, family and friends) at all. For Americans warfare is killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above, while making a ton of money in the process. For Russians, warfare is simply about surviving at any and all cost. The difference couldn’t be greater.

The difference in weapons systems acquisition is also simple: since US wars never really put the people of the US at risk, the consequences of developing under-performing weapons systems were never catastrophic. The profits made, however, were immense. Hence the kind of criminally overpriced and useless weapons system like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship or, of course, the fantastically expensive and no less fantastically vulnerable aircraft carriers. The Russian force planners had very different priorities: not only did they fully realize that the failure to produce an excellently performing weapons system could result in their country being devastated and occupied (not to mention their families and themselves either enslaved or killed), they also realized that they could never match the Pentagon in terms of spending. So what they did was to design comparatively much cheaper weapons systems which could destroy or render useless the output of the multi-trillion dollar US military-industrial complex. This is how Russian missiles made the entire US ABM program and the US carrier-centric Navy pretty much obsolete as well as how Russian air defenses turned putatively “invisible” US aircraft into targets or how Russian diesel-electric submarines are threatening US nuclear attack subs. All that at a tiny fraction of what the US taxpayer spends on “defense”. Here again, Martyanov gives plenty of detailed examples.

Martyanov’s book will deeply irritate and even outrage those for whom the US narcissistic culture of axiomatic superiority has become an integral part of their identity. But for everybody else this book is an absolute must-have because the future of our entire planet is at stake here: the question is not whether the US Empire is collapsing, but what the consequences of this collapse will be for our planet. Right now, the US military has turned into a “hollow force” which simply cannot perform its mission, especially since that mission is, as defined by US politicians, the control of the entire planet. There is a huge discrepancy between the perceived and the actual capabilities of the US military and the only way to bridge this gap are, of course, nuclear weapons. This is why the last chapter in the book is entitled “The Threat of a Massive American Military Miscalculation”. In this chapter, Martyanov names the real enemy of both the Russian and the American people – the US political elites and, especially, the Neocons: they are destroying the US as a country and they are putting all of mankind at risk of nuclear annihilation.

The above summary does not do justice to Martyanov’s truly seminal book. I can only say that I consider this book as an absolutely indispensable “must read” for every person in the US who loves his/her country and for every person who believes that wars, especially nuclear ones, must be avoided at all costs. Just like many others (I think of Paul Craig Roberts), Martyanov is warning us that “the day of reckoning is upon us” and that the risks of war are very real, even if for most of us such an event is also unthinkable. Those in the US who consider themselves patriots should read this book with special attention, not only because it correctly identifies the main threat to the US, but also because it explains in detail what circumstances have resulted in the current crisis. Waving (mostly Chinese made) US flags is simply not an option anymore, neither is looking away and pretending that none of this is real. Martyanov’s book will also be especially interesting to those in the US armed forces who are observing the tremendous decline of US military power from inside. Who better than a former Soviet officer could not only explain, but also understand the mechanisms which have made such a decline possible?

You can also get both versions of the book (paper & electronic) here: http://claritypress.com/Martyanov.html

The book is also available on Amazon as a pre-order here: https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Military-Supremacy-American-Strategic/dp/0998694754/

It is scheduled to become available on September 1st.

Get at least one copy and give more to your friends!

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Neocons, Russia 
Hide 308 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. FKA Max says: • Website

    These Russian mercenaries, who had first-hand experiences with/of U.S. military capabilities, seem to have a different opinion. Video sime-stamped to 9 min 55 sec:

    200 Russians Were Killed by US Airstrikes in Syria. Details, Recorded Radio Communications.

    Exclusive: Russian mercenaries in Syria, Putin’s secret army

    Exclusive: Russia’s Secret Soldiers Fighting In Syria

    Video time-stamped to 4 min 55 sec:

    James Mattis I ordered annihilation of the Russian mercenaries

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…
    , @pogohere
    The Truth About the Russian Deaths in Syria

    3-2-18

    Hundreds of Russian soldiers are alleged to have died in U.S. airstrikes at the beginning of February. Reporting by DER SPIEGEL shows that events were likely very different.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html
    , @BLL
    http://eaworldview.com/2018/03/200-russians-killed-by-us-airstrikes-in-syria-maybe-not/

    Try this URL for what most likely really happened, containing exact combatants, places, times and results as well as the hyped '200' + claim. There were 'some' of those mercenaries there, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and apparently none actually participated in the reported fighting. There is also a very plausible explanation why the numbers were 'purposely' exaggerated – by both sides, very ironically.
    , @Stan d Mute
    Wow! So America’s trillion dollar military actually defeated 200 mercenaries? Holy cow, that’s impressive. USA! USA!

    Too bad it can’t stop a horde of mesoamerican savages from invading America..
    , @pyrrhus
    A completely irrelevant contribution to this discussion, regardless of truth...Russia has not deployed any advanced weapons systems in Syria, and has intentionally avoided fighting US "advisors" to ISIS and al qaeda....In a real war, US forces in Syria would have been annihilated within an hour.
    , @wraith67
    Rifles are fine for Jihadis, they're entirely inadequate for artillery. Mattis would be the wrong person to test. Having said that, this was an awful miscalculation of the Russians, and there probably should have been some prior agreements with Kremlin. I'm sure they won't make this mistake again.
    , @aleksandar
    A pretty serious debate.
    Problem for Pentagon trolls : How to hijack the debate to prevent it to go to the core , namely , Russian military superior or equal to US .
    Could be dangerous if the king ( US citizens ) realize he is naked.
    Ok , send an Hasbara to open a completely different debate, about a remote and event not proven " defeat" of russian troops, add the usual " Putin farm troll" storyboard, and as many as similar MSN stories and doing so, neutralize the main debate and change the subject.
    FKA Max has opened the trap.
    Please dont jump in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Sean says:

    No one really knows how effective the latest weapons on either side would actually be in a real war. Winston Churchill furiously denounced and disparaged Chamberlain for pouring resources into making Spitfires instead of the Bolton Paul Defiant, a turret fighter. The Defiant proved to be a total failure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    the Bolton Paul Defiant, a turret fighter. The Defiant proved to be a total failure.
     
    I wouldn't imagine a neoconbonkers/libertarian alliance to go very far...
    , @Sean
    There was a night fighter pilot whose wife and family were killed by German bombing and was out for German blood that while simply flying a Hurricane toward the sound of AA shot down more German night bombers than all the specialized Turbinlite Havocs which were technically novel.
    , @Prof. Woland
    The next 'war' will be fought with robots and drones using swarm / kamikaze tactics. This also includes submarines.

    One of the reasons the US was the first county to really develop effective drones was because it alleviated the domestic political pressure of casualties including airmen who were doing reconnaissance missions, etc. After Vietnam, the anti-war left would gleefully waive the bloody shirt every time an American was killed. Once drones were developed, they had to try and readjust their propaganda.

    There won't be any political pressure when we send in robots. They won't even get any medals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    For Americans warfare is killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above, while making a ton of money in the process.

    This is why I don’t think there’ll be any head-on clash between the US and Russia. It would violate the above principle. American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself. It’s a form of banditry, roving the world in search of the next victim. Parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America are all weak and subject to US whims. That there’s a huge mythology attached to US military prowess is just part of the brainwashing that goes on. It’s been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries. There’s always the risk of miscalculation of course but US politics is mostly show biz so it’s hard to assess what part of it’s warhawk talk is real and what’s showboating.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @myself

    American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself.
     

    It’s been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries.
     
    That is simply the Anglo-Saxon tradition, for a few centuries.

    Secure from invasion by strong enemies, Britain and the United States have most often specialized in fielding ultra-elite expeditionary forces - small armies, honed to a razor's edge, superbly equipped, and configured for quick surgical conflicts against vulnerable and weak opponents.

    For Britain, a good example would be the regular British Army on the eve of World War I, a force of some 6 or 7 Infantry Divisions and some Cavalry Brigades. It was an elite force of long-service professionals, suitable for distant deployment and fighting in the British Empire's far-flung possessions. And it was TINY.

    For the United States, the example would be the "State Department troops", aka the U.S. Marine Corps, pre-World War 2. Same deal as with the British - elite veteran soldiers, rapidly deployable, meant to fight numerous but badly-outclassed opponents. Also a quite small force.


    When called upon to fight grueling, bloody conventional wars against peer opponents, neither Britain nor the United States have been entirely in their element, though both do an adequate enough job. Good enough to win, but at considerable cost.

    Anglo-Saxons do not do lighting wars against peer enemies, we/they grind them down using allies (better termed "patsies") to do the bleeding for us.

    Large naval wars are no problem, but large LAND WARS? - No, just . . . NO.
    , @Bill Jones
    But they won against Grenada!
    , @Paw
    THE USA and The Western world is not facing anything. They speed up faster and faster into destruction end by all means ..As soon as you permit to rule the world by Banks and Corporations, with no brakes , and their lackeys , Hey pronto...They even fight with anyone , who stands in their way , with peace, other nations ,fight viciously with themselves as the Neocons make it faster , like an Express train...
    Now they even find that Trump is Russian and wants to fight the USA...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. NAD says:

    The book sounds right. Russia will not lose this war.

    But war is coming. The deciding factor here is the same as for the Peloponnesian War: Russia will eventually conclude, we have to fight them, they’re not going to leave us alone. Raising the question: Has Russia planned its war to prevent human extinction? US defeat might result in one last thermonuclear paroxysm. Can it be deterred in the course of the war, or disabled?

    Russia has been doing meticulous work supporting decapitation strikes since Soviet times. They will have to cut the head off the US snake if the world is to survive. Destroying C3 is going to be crucial. The US command structure has already dispersed in accordance with its COG plans. That makes counterforce C2 strikes blur into countervalue (mass civilian casualties.) So the US population has a big stake in Russia’s ability to disable communications and control infrastructure. The next defenders of our human right to peace, at home or abroad, outsiders or insiders, should bear this in mind. What needs to be published is technical data on US strategic C3 vulnerabilities. That should be Vault 10. The US regime is criminally insane, and this is the only way to stop it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Few Americans understand the massive, blatant corruption that goes on in the Pentagon.

    For example, the EMALS aircraft launch system aboard the new $13 billion USS Ford does not work reliably, and there is little hope it can improve. Yet the Navy is building three more Ford class carriers! The Navy didn’t even test EMALS ashore until after the USS Ford construction began!

    http://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm

    The Navy continues spending over a billion dollars a year on railguns even though the technology is not useful for weapons.

    http://www.g2mil.com/rail_gun_fraud.htm

    Finally, billions of dollars are spent each year for Navy missile defense even though the SM-3 missile is far too small to reach anything but low flying short range missiles.

    http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm

    I can provide a dozen other examples, like the LCS and LX.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bobbybobbob
    I would like to follow your writing but your website offers no RSS feed or other subscription option. Please consider moving to a modern blogging platform.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    I found your site and some thoughts to be really worthy of paying attention to. It gives more credibility to it that you are a former US military professional. I found some of your views very close to mine too on some key issues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Martyanov’s book might be good and well-researched. However, you don’t need to read it to know one simple thing: the greatest danger of propaganda is that those who pay for it actually believe it. Thus, instead of fooling others, you fool yourself. To add insult to injury, you do it at an enormous cost.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vojkan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @FKA Max
    These Russian mercenaries, who had first-hand experiences with/of U.S. military capabilities, seem to have a different opinion. Video sime-stamped to 9 min 55 sec:

    200 Russians Were Killed by US Airstrikes in Syria. Details, Recorded Radio Communications.

    https://youtu.be/XaeDMOWkCwU?t=9m55s

    Exclusive: Russian mercenaries in Syria, Putin's secret army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eka_Jn9K_HU

    Exclusive: Russia's Secret Soldiers Fighting In Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvW3OBJDVS8

    Video time-stamped to 4 min 55 sec:

    James Mattis I ordered annihilation of the Russian mercenaries

    https://youtu.be/GO7WP7Cbz3E?t=4m55s

    This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    AnonFromTN,

    I appreciate the interaction we had in the other comments thread, but I kind of agree with commenter Wizard of Oz's comment about you:

    You are really going over the top with the number of unsupported assertions you throw in on top of what you know about to make you sound like the hasbarists and amateur propagandists for other countries on UR.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2403171

    You hardly ever cite sources to back up your claims and when faced with counter arguments and counter sources you either dismiss them as propaganda, etc. or say that you have deeper knowledge of the subject matter, because you grew up or worked in the Soviet Union, etc., which raises the question for me how objective or unbiased you actually are or can be when Russia is being discussed.

    I also did a quick search through your Unz Review comments archive and saw that you had commented or tried to comment under three other usernames besides AnonFromTN:

    AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Levelheaded"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Informed"] - https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?CommentOrder=ASC&commenterfilter=AnonFromTN

    Does the TN in your username stand for Tennessee? Are you really based in Tennessee, because I saw this article:

    Fake Tennessee GOP Twitter account highlighted in indictment of 13 Russians

    Twitter suspended the account after it became aware it was linked to a Russian "troll farm." Federal lawmakers last year also acknowledged the account was linked to Russian sources.
     
    - https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/02/16/fake-tennessee-gop-twitter-account-highlighted-indictment-13-russians/345835002/

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:

    During the maneuver, the Russian contractors crossed the Euphrates River near the town of Khusham, breaching what Moscow and Washington have agreed is the dividing line separating their respective zones of authority.
     
    - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-shadow-army-suffers-a-setback-in-syria

    And you just replied: "This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…"

    Please, provide sources to your debunking claims. Thank you.

    Your English is very good, so if you are indeed a Russian "troll farm" employee, you must be pretty high-level. However you need to work on your humor quota... take yourself a little bit less seriously and you will do a better job...

    I guess you guys are back, or at least some of you. I have not been reading and commenting on Russia-related subjects and articles that much, so I didn't realize this.

    The Russian/Putin Troll army was real, but that was back in 2014 mostly. I battled them and dealt with them personally, but they are not around anymore. Their trolling efforts backfired pretty much, because they were not subtle enough and so they turned off many Westerners through their in-your-face pro-Putin propaganda.
    Russians are terrible at trolling, because they don’t have a very sophisticated sense of humor and don’t really understand American culture and sensibilities.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/forum/the-washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-and-disgusting/#comment-1668899

    Russia’s Online Troll Army Is Huge, Hilarious & Already Everywhere

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CussBbmJHzI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. The book sounds interesting. My own observation is that most of the projected U.S./Russian and U.S./Chinese confrontations would involve very extended lines of communication in the case of U.S. forces. I have a high degree of confidence that the Russians or Chinese could be defeated in Chesapeake Bay; not so high for conflict in the Black or Baltic Seas or South China Sea. And failure could only be retrieved by a nuke, carrying a very high risk of escalation to a world-calamity strategic nuclear exchange.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs.
    An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Diversity Heretic
    The book sounds interesting. My own observation is that most of the projected U.S./Russian and U.S./Chinese confrontations would involve very extended lines of communication in the case of U.S. forces. I have a high degree of confidence that the Russians or Chinese could be defeated in Chesapeake Bay; not so high for conflict in the Black or Baltic Seas or South China Sea. And failure could only be retrieved by a nuke, carrying a very high risk of escalation to a world-calamity strategic nuclear exchange.

    On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs.
    An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. FKA Max says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…

    AnonFromTN,

    I appreciate the interaction we had in the other comments thread, but I kind of agree with commenter Wizard of Oz‘s comment about you:

    You are really going over the top with the number of unsupported assertions you throw in on top of what you know about to make you sound like the hasbarists and amateur propagandists for other countries on UR.

    http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2403171

    You hardly ever cite sources to back up your claims and when faced with counter arguments and counter sources you either dismiss them as propaganda, etc. or say that you have deeper knowledge of the subject matter, because you grew up or worked in the Soviet Union, etc., which raises the question for me how objective or unbiased you actually are or can be when Russia is being discussed.

    I also did a quick search through your Unz Review comments archive and saw that you had commented or tried to comment under three other usernames besides AnonFromTN:

    AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Levelheaded"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Informed"] – https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?CommentOrder=ASC&commenterfilter=AnonFromTN

    Does the TN in your username stand for Tennessee? Are you really based in Tennessee, because I saw this article:

    Fake Tennessee GOP Twitter account highlighted in indictment of 13 Russians

    Twitter suspended the account after it became aware it was linked to a Russian “troll farm.” Federal lawmakers last year also acknowledged the account was linked to Russian sources.

    https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/02/16/fake-tennessee-gop-twitter-account-highlighted-indictment-13-russians/345835002/

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:

    During the maneuver, the Russian contractors crossed the Euphrates River near the town of Khusham, breaching what Moscow and Washington have agreed is the dividing line separating their respective zones of authority.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-shadow-army-suffers-a-setback-in-syria

    And you just replied: “This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…”

    Please, provide sources to your debunking claims. Thank you.

    Your English is very good, so if you are indeed a Russian “troll farm” employee, you must be pretty high-level. However you need to work on your humor quota… take yourself a little bit less seriously and you will do a better job…

    I guess you guys are back, or at least some of you. I have not been reading and commenting on Russia-related subjects and articles that much, so I didn’t realize this.

    The Russian/Putin Troll army was real, but that was back in 2014 mostly. I battled them and dealt with them personally, but they are not around anymore. Their trolling efforts backfired pretty much, because they were not subtle enough and so they turned off many Westerners through their in-your-face pro-Putin propaganda.
    Russians are terrible at trolling, because they don’t have a very sophisticated sense of humor and don’t really understand American culture and sensibilities.

    https://www.unz.com/forum/the-washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-and-disgusting/#comment-1668899

    Russia’s Online Troll Army Is Huge, Hilarious & Already Everywhere

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:
     
    Sir, most (with some extremely rare exceptions) American "sources" on Russia in general, and Russian military in particular, are not only incompetent--a defining characteristics of the American Russia "expertdom"--but they are also propaganda-generating machines designed to literally lie professionally. Per specific issue of those "200" killed mercenaries--for anyone who ever served in armed forces the stupidity and absurdity of those claims are evident. I will tell you one thing "my sources" on that are much longer and thicker than BS echo-chamber of New Yorker or any other US "media". No, there were no 200, or 100 or even 50 killed mercs in Syria. Russian FM's number of around 20 is true in the classic case of being in a wrong palce in a wrong time. But you obviously have very vague understanding of an enormous difference between mercs of this mythological Wagner and Russian Armed Forces' cadre officers, NCOs and soldiers. How they fight, what do they use (weapons, tactics, operational art etc.) is, obviously, not your strength. I am not suggesting you to buy or read my book but if you really want to see the scale of BS and brainwashing of general American public on the issue--you may always check other competent sources. I'll give you a hint--overwhelming majority of sources I deliberately used were of American (and UK) origin--not to be accused of bias or propaganda. So, NO--your sources and info from then is bad, in fact--it is utter rubbish.
    , @AnonFromTN
    Well, believe what you will (freedom of religion and all). Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me. As to monikers, I’ve tried some, but found that they are already taken by others, and I was unhappy with Anon (way too many Anons here) and did not like “Brave new world”-style numbers, so I settled on AnonFromTN.

    Now, to the alleged incident. It was widely reported in the Western media and some Russian outlets financed by the West (like Meduza). Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.
    However, Jim Mattis is on record saying he is not aware of any Russians killed by the US forces (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-mattis-russia-us-airstrikes-syria-mercenaries-killed/). Russian Defense ministry also denied this. For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.

    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence. The sources that tried to come up with names of those allegedly killed mercenaries published highly suspicious lists of exclusively Russian-sounding last names (remember, Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic country, where more than 100 languages are in use), which appeared to be copied from a phonebook, with all non-Russian-sounding names omitted.

    Mind you, I wasn’t there, but neither was anyone “reporting” this alleged incident. That’s all I know about it.

    As to the outcome of potential clash between the US and Russian military, I can only cite the cases of several Russian officers who sacrificed their lives in Syria, impressing many in the West (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JcGrvkUes; or about Alexander Prokhorenko, who called airstrikes on himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513911/Trapped-surrounded-murderous-ISIS-fighters-heroic-Russian-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html). On the other hand, I do remember American and British special forces crying on camera after being captured by the Iranians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ne1pvNPuGE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc0FKmrQQA).

    You are welcome to make your own conclusions. I’ve made mine.
    , @Banger
    Just a small point. All major corporate and national powers troll the internet as a matter of routine. I worked for a big-time Washington PR firm when trolling was just getting started big-time and saw how it worked. Anyone with money can do it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Carlton Meyer
    Few Americans understand the massive, blatant corruption that goes on in the Pentagon.

    For example, the EMALS aircraft launch system aboard the new $13 billion USS Ford does not work reliably, and there is little hope it can improve. Yet the Navy is building three more Ford class carriers! The Navy didn't even test EMALS ashore until after the USS Ford construction began!

    http://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm

    The Navy continues spending over a billion dollars a year on railguns even though the technology is not useful for weapons.

    http://www.g2mil.com/rail_gun_fraud.htm

    Finally, billions of dollars are spent each year for Navy missile defense even though the SM-3 missile is far too small to reach anything but low flying short range missiles.

    http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm

    I can provide a dozen other examples, like the LCS and LX.

    I would like to follow your writing but your website offers no RSS feed or other subscription option. Please consider moving to a modern blogging platform.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. roo_ster says:

    A decade or more of pouring money & blood into sand in MENA has had an effect on the US military similar to the foolishness in SE Asia. It has put America 10+ years behind, R&D & deployment-wise, where it would have been.

    And as with the post-Vietnam Reagan rebuild, the US military is seeking to re-arm and re-train for a peer/near-peer adversary. Success in this endeavor is TBD.

    Saker makes some good points, especially with regard to the worthless hyper-violent neocon/globalist faction that has had the upper hand in the US ruling class for the last few decades. That is the greatest source of American weakness and poor decision-making. Removing or gelding it would be of great benefit to Americans and most other nations.

    On the other hand, Saker also engages in self-deceiving fever dreams of his own.

    The Russian people (in present rump Russian empire guise) have as little experience with warfare requiring personal sacrifice as do the American peoples. Chechnya was eventually conquered, but only after blundering and bleeding all over the Caucasus. Ukraine was closer to a vigorous field trial. Russians and others have taken a good look at that clash and are incorporating the lessons learned. Russian involvement in Syria fits the model of “killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above” as well as any of America’s involvement in the MENA.

    Also, neither the phantom Russian experience in existential warfare at home after WWII nor the very real knowledge that they can not match US military budgets are enough to produce a world-beating capability.

    That is not to say that Russia does not have advantages.

    Russian advantages:
    1. Stayed home throughout most of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s and minded their own knitting.
    2. Spent what budget they had on development rather than deployments.
    3. Had a serious crisis that resulted in huge swathes of the military establishment being cast off. Initially painful, but helpful in the long run.
    4. Not ruled by neocon/globalists with priorities orthogonal to the nation.
    5. Possible economies in R&D due to various factors.

    I am sure there are others, but those loom large from this side of the pond.

    I appreciate Saker’s writings as well as any that challenge the ruling class’s current orthodoxy. But just because the hyper-violent globo-homo death cultists self-delude as a matter of course does not preclude others from also engaging in self-deception.

    It can be difficult to see the clear path through all the self-serving/self-deceiving opaque gas baggery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    The Russian people (in present rump Russian empire guise) have as little experience with warfare requiring personal sacrifice as do the American peoples.

    Russian involvement in Syria fits the model of “killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above” as well as any of America’s involvement in the MENA.
     
    Good points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @FKA Max
    AnonFromTN,

    I appreciate the interaction we had in the other comments thread, but I kind of agree with commenter Wizard of Oz's comment about you:

    You are really going over the top with the number of unsupported assertions you throw in on top of what you know about to make you sound like the hasbarists and amateur propagandists for other countries on UR.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2403171

    You hardly ever cite sources to back up your claims and when faced with counter arguments and counter sources you either dismiss them as propaganda, etc. or say that you have deeper knowledge of the subject matter, because you grew up or worked in the Soviet Union, etc., which raises the question for me how objective or unbiased you actually are or can be when Russia is being discussed.

    I also did a quick search through your Unz Review comments archive and saw that you had commented or tried to comment under three other usernames besides AnonFromTN:

    AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Levelheaded"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Informed"] - https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?CommentOrder=ASC&commenterfilter=AnonFromTN

    Does the TN in your username stand for Tennessee? Are you really based in Tennessee, because I saw this article:

    Fake Tennessee GOP Twitter account highlighted in indictment of 13 Russians

    Twitter suspended the account after it became aware it was linked to a Russian "troll farm." Federal lawmakers last year also acknowledged the account was linked to Russian sources.
     
    - https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/02/16/fake-tennessee-gop-twitter-account-highlighted-indictment-13-russians/345835002/

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:

    During the maneuver, the Russian contractors crossed the Euphrates River near the town of Khusham, breaching what Moscow and Washington have agreed is the dividing line separating their respective zones of authority.
     
    - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-shadow-army-suffers-a-setback-in-syria

    And you just replied: "This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…"

    Please, provide sources to your debunking claims. Thank you.

    Your English is very good, so if you are indeed a Russian "troll farm" employee, you must be pretty high-level. However you need to work on your humor quota... take yourself a little bit less seriously and you will do a better job...

    I guess you guys are back, or at least some of you. I have not been reading and commenting on Russia-related subjects and articles that much, so I didn't realize this.

    The Russian/Putin Troll army was real, but that was back in 2014 mostly. I battled them and dealt with them personally, but they are not around anymore. Their trolling efforts backfired pretty much, because they were not subtle enough and so they turned off many Westerners through their in-your-face pro-Putin propaganda.
    Russians are terrible at trolling, because they don’t have a very sophisticated sense of humor and don’t really understand American culture and sensibilities.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/forum/the-washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-and-disgusting/#comment-1668899

    Russia’s Online Troll Army Is Huge, Hilarious & Already Everywhere

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CussBbmJHzI

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:

    Sir, most (with some extremely rare exceptions) American “sources” on Russia in general, and Russian military in particular, are not only incompetent–a defining characteristics of the American Russia “expertdom”–but they are also propaganda-generating machines designed to literally lie professionally. Per specific issue of those “200″ killed mercenaries–for anyone who ever served in armed forces the stupidity and absurdity of those claims are evident. I will tell you one thing “my sources” on that are much longer and thicker than BS echo-chamber of New Yorker or any other US “media”. No, there were no 200, or 100 or even 50 killed mercs in Syria. Russian FM’s number of around 20 is true in the classic case of being in a wrong palce in a wrong time. But you obviously have very vague understanding of an enormous difference between mercs of this mythological Wagner and Russian Armed Forces’ cadre officers, NCOs and soldiers. How they fight, what do they use (weapons, tactics, operational art etc.) is, obviously, not your strength. I am not suggesting you to buy or read my book but if you really want to see the scale of BS and brainwashing of general American public on the issue–you may always check other competent sources. I’ll give you a hint–overwhelming majority of sources I deliberately used were of American (and UK) origin–not to be accused of bias or propaganda. So, NO–your sources and info from then is bad, in fact–it is utter rubbish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max


    I’ll give you a hint–overwhelming majority of sources I deliberately used were of American (and UK) origin–not to be accused of bias or propaganda. So, NO–your sources and info from then is bad, in fact–it is utter rubbish.
     
    One of my sources ( second video http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2403060 ), which interviewed the Cossack officer who stated that the latest figure of casualties from that incident was 218, is non-Anglo France 24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24

    I think even the pro-Putin Cossacks https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cossacks-russia-moscow-putin-rally-demonstration-world-cup-a8348221.html were pissed that over 200 of their comrades were put in danger and sacrificed as cannon fodder like that, and that is why, I believe, he talked to France 24.

    The second source I cited is also pro-Putin/Kremlin but still leaked the alleged conversations between the Russian mercenaries who survived the attacks. Again, I think, because they were pissed that so many Russians were willingly endangered and sacrificed by Putin and the Kremlin.

    Privately owned pro-Kremlin news site Vzglyad, produced by top pro-Kremlin social-media propagandist Konstantin Rykov has published purportedly decoded Russian mercenaries chatting with one another from voice tapes that appeared on the Russian-language Telegram channel “WarGonzo” shortly after the firefight with the SDF and U.S. warplanes. Four distinct voices put the total number of mercenaries dead at well over 200, although even they disagree as to the exact figures and details; with some arguing that entire companies were “destroyed,” and that American flags were draped over the vanquished Russian trenches, which would certainly incite an incensed reaction back in Russia. For that reason, we suspect that the Vzglyad article is disinformation meant to embarrass the Russian government for failing to defend its assets in the field, if not cajole it into retaliating against the U.S.

    Today, Bloomberg News appeared to corroborate the Vzglyad allegations, reporting that “[m]ore than 200 mercenaries, mostly Russians” were killed in the episode, citing an unnamed U.S. official and “three Russians familiar with the matter.”
     
    - https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-the-us-really-kill-200-russians-in-syriaor-just-a-few

    Phone conversation between the head of the Wagner Group with Russian army General

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOYN5ES5e0

    Have you ever thought about why the American and UK sources you use/cite in your up-coming book are talking up, exaggerating and fear mongering about Russian military capabilities?

    One very plausible explanation, in my opinion, is not because they really believe in it/them, but it is really done to increase their own budgets and revenues.

    How many of the studies you are citing in your book were/are financed by Western defense contractors?

    In their campaign to stop reductions in Pentagon spending and protect their profits, big defense contractors are spending millions on studies, rallies, and lobbying Congress with the false claim that defense cuts will result in the loss of more than 1 million American jobs. But Pentagon contractors’ threats to send layoff notices to thousands of employees in the days preceding the Presidential election are political stunts. The public has a right to know the truth behind the rhetoric and fear mongering.
     
    - http://www.pogo.org/our-work/resource-pages/2012/defense-contractors-driving-the-pentagon-budget-battle-2012-07-30.html

    The World's Biggest Arms Companies

    Out of the ten largest arms manufacturers, seven are American and BAE Systems [UK based] is the first-non U.S. company on the list. Known for producing the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, it came fourth on the list in 2016 with sales coming to $22.9 billion. It is also on course for a successful 2017, having recently announced the sale of 24 Typhoons to Qatar in a deal worth up to £6 billion.

    https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_12221_the_world_s_biggest_arms_companies_n.jpg

    Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/12221/the-worlds-biggest-arms-companies/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @FKA Max
    AnonFromTN,

    I appreciate the interaction we had in the other comments thread, but I kind of agree with commenter Wizard of Oz's comment about you:

    You are really going over the top with the number of unsupported assertions you throw in on top of what you know about to make you sound like the hasbarists and amateur propagandists for other countries on UR.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2403171

    You hardly ever cite sources to back up your claims and when faced with counter arguments and counter sources you either dismiss them as propaganda, etc. or say that you have deeper knowledge of the subject matter, because you grew up or worked in the Soviet Union, etc., which raises the question for me how objective or unbiased you actually are or can be when Russia is being discussed.

    I also did a quick search through your Unz Review comments archive and saw that you had commented or tried to comment under three other usernames besides AnonFromTN:

    AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Levelheaded"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Informed"] - https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?CommentOrder=ASC&commenterfilter=AnonFromTN

    Does the TN in your username stand for Tennessee? Are you really based in Tennessee, because I saw this article:

    Fake Tennessee GOP Twitter account highlighted in indictment of 13 Russians

    Twitter suspended the account after it became aware it was linked to a Russian "troll farm." Federal lawmakers last year also acknowledged the account was linked to Russian sources.
     
    - https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/02/16/fake-tennessee-gop-twitter-account-highlighted-indictment-13-russians/345835002/

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:

    During the maneuver, the Russian contractors crossed the Euphrates River near the town of Khusham, breaching what Moscow and Washington have agreed is the dividing line separating their respective zones of authority.
     
    - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-shadow-army-suffers-a-setback-in-syria

    And you just replied: "This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…"

    Please, provide sources to your debunking claims. Thank you.

    Your English is very good, so if you are indeed a Russian "troll farm" employee, you must be pretty high-level. However you need to work on your humor quota... take yourself a little bit less seriously and you will do a better job...

    I guess you guys are back, or at least some of you. I have not been reading and commenting on Russia-related subjects and articles that much, so I didn't realize this.

    The Russian/Putin Troll army was real, but that was back in 2014 mostly. I battled them and dealt with them personally, but they are not around anymore. Their trolling efforts backfired pretty much, because they were not subtle enough and so they turned off many Westerners through their in-your-face pro-Putin propaganda.
    Russians are terrible at trolling, because they don’t have a very sophisticated sense of humor and don’t really understand American culture and sensibilities.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/forum/the-washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-and-disgusting/#comment-1668899

    Russia’s Online Troll Army Is Huge, Hilarious & Already Everywhere

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CussBbmJHzI

    Well, believe what you will (freedom of religion and all). Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me. As to monikers, I’ve tried some, but found that they are already taken by others, and I was unhappy with Anon (way too many Anons here) and did not like “Brave new world”-style numbers, so I settled on AnonFromTN.

    Now, to the alleged incident. It was widely reported in the Western media and some Russian outlets financed by the West (like Meduza). Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.
    However, Jim Mattis is on record saying he is not aware of any Russians killed by the US forces (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-mattis-russia-us-airstrikes-syria-mercenaries-killed/). Russian Defense ministry also denied this. For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.

    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence. The sources that tried to come up with names of those allegedly killed mercenaries published highly suspicious lists of exclusively Russian-sounding last names (remember, Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic country, where more than 100 languages are in use), which appeared to be copied from a phonebook, with all non-Russian-sounding names omitted.

    Mind you, I wasn’t there, but neither was anyone “reporting” this alleged incident. That’s all I know about it.

    As to the outcome of potential clash between the US and Russian military, I can only cite the cases of several Russian officers who sacrificed their lives in Syria, impressing many in the West (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JcGrvkUes; or about Alexander Prokhorenko, who called airstrikes on himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513911/Trapped-surrounded-murderous-ISIS-fighters-heroic-Russian-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html). On the other hand, I do remember American and British special forces crying on camera after being captured by the Iranians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ne1pvNPuGE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc0FKmrQQA).

    You are welcome to make your own conclusions. I’ve made mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me.
     
    Good for you!

    Thanks very much for clarifying.
    , @FKA Max

    For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.
     
    Should that not make you a little skeptical ;-)

    But it could be possible, if this indeed is true:


    For that reason, we suspect that the Vzglyad article is disinformation meant to embarrass the Russian government for failing to defend its assets in the field, if not cajole it into retaliating against the U.S.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404113

    Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.
     
    That is the modus operandi of Russian propaganda. They just publish all kinds of figures and accounts to confuse people about the real number of casualties and the true nature of certain events and incidents. But I have never heard the 600+ casualties figure associated with the U.S.-Wagner Group mercenaries clash.

    In the third video I cited http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2403060 by Sky News, which was aired in 2016 by the way not in 2018, the Wagner Group mercenary interviewed said that 500 to 600 Wagner Group operators had been killed in Syria since they had been involved in the conflict there. It is probably a much higher number of killed by now, in 2018.


    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence.
     
    Do you really believe/buy that?

    This is a very good conversation about how Russian mis-/disinformation operations/campaigns are conducted with ex-RT employee Liz Wahl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Wahl

    Uncovering Russian Propaganda With Former ‘Russia Today’ Anchor

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOdd22FIg50

    Source: http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2401399

    Here an example of over-exaggerated Russian enemy casualty figures:

    850 Nusra fighters vs. 100 Turkish-backed rebels… That moment when not even the #Assad propaganda buys the Russian lies re #Syria anymore. - http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russian-special-forces-repel-a-us-planned-attack-in-syria-denounce-the-usa-and-issue-a-stark-warning/#comment-2018470

    https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/911558894547333120

    , @FKA Max
    What do you make of the following? Is he just blowing hot air, in your opinion?

    Pompeo Confirms Hundreds Of Russians Killed In U.S. Attack In Syria | TIME

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CZl8kHWGYk

    President Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of State confirmed Thursday that “a couple hundred Russians were killed” by U.S. forces in Syria earlier this year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:
     
    Sir, most (with some extremely rare exceptions) American "sources" on Russia in general, and Russian military in particular, are not only incompetent--a defining characteristics of the American Russia "expertdom"--but they are also propaganda-generating machines designed to literally lie professionally. Per specific issue of those "200" killed mercenaries--for anyone who ever served in armed forces the stupidity and absurdity of those claims are evident. I will tell you one thing "my sources" on that are much longer and thicker than BS echo-chamber of New Yorker or any other US "media". No, there were no 200, or 100 or even 50 killed mercs in Syria. Russian FM's number of around 20 is true in the classic case of being in a wrong palce in a wrong time. But you obviously have very vague understanding of an enormous difference between mercs of this mythological Wagner and Russian Armed Forces' cadre officers, NCOs and soldiers. How they fight, what do they use (weapons, tactics, operational art etc.) is, obviously, not your strength. I am not suggesting you to buy or read my book but if you really want to see the scale of BS and brainwashing of general American public on the issue--you may always check other competent sources. I'll give you a hint--overwhelming majority of sources I deliberately used were of American (and UK) origin--not to be accused of bias or propaganda. So, NO--your sources and info from then is bad, in fact--it is utter rubbish.

    I’ll give you a hint–overwhelming majority of sources I deliberately used were of American (and UK) origin–not to be accused of bias or propaganda. So, NO–your sources and info from then is bad, in fact–it is utter rubbish.

    One of my sources ( second video http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2403060 ), which interviewed the Cossack officer who stated that the latest figure of casualties from that incident was 218, is non-Anglo France 24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24

    I think even the pro-Putin Cossacks https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cossacks-russia-moscow-putin-rally-demonstration-world-cup-a8348221.html were pissed that over 200 of their comrades were put in danger and sacrificed as cannon fodder like that, and that is why, I believe, he talked to France 24.

    The second source I cited is also pro-Putin/Kremlin but still leaked the alleged conversations between the Russian mercenaries who survived the attacks. Again, I think, because they were pissed that so many Russians were willingly endangered and sacrificed by Putin and the Kremlin.

    Privately owned pro-Kremlin news site Vzglyad, produced by top pro-Kremlin social-media propagandist Konstantin Rykov has published purportedly decoded Russian mercenaries chatting with one another from voice tapes that appeared on the Russian-language Telegram channel “WarGonzo” shortly after the firefight with the SDF and U.S. warplanes. Four distinct voices put the total number of mercenaries dead at well over 200, although even they disagree as to the exact figures and details; with some arguing that entire companies were “destroyed,” and that American flags were draped over the vanquished Russian trenches, which would certainly incite an incensed reaction back in Russia. For that reason, we suspect that the Vzglyad article is disinformation meant to embarrass the Russian government for failing to defend its assets in the field, if not cajole it into retaliating against the U.S.

    Today, Bloomberg News appeared to corroborate the Vzglyad allegations, reporting that “[m]ore than 200 mercenaries, mostly Russians” were killed in the episode, citing an unnamed U.S. official and “three Russians familiar with the matter.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-the-us-really-kill-200-russians-in-syriaor-just-a-few

    Phone conversation between the head of the Wagner Group with Russian army General

    Have you ever thought about why the American and UK sources you use/cite in your up-coming book are talking up, exaggerating and fear mongering about Russian military capabilities?

    One very plausible explanation, in my opinion, is not because they really believe in it/them, but it is really done to increase their own budgets and revenues.

    How many of the studies you are citing in your book were/are financed by Western defense contractors?

    In their campaign to stop reductions in Pentagon spending and protect their profits, big defense contractors are spending millions on studies, rallies, and lobbying Congress with the false claim that defense cuts will result in the loss of more than 1 million American jobs. But Pentagon contractors’ threats to send layoff notices to thousands of employees in the days preceding the Presidential election are political stunts. The public has a right to know the truth behind the rhetoric and fear mongering.

    http://www.pogo.org/our-work/resource-pages/2012/defense-contractors-driving-the-pentagon-budget-battle-2012-07-30.html

    The World’s Biggest Arms Companies

    Out of the ten largest arms manufacturers, seven are American and BAE Systems [UK based] is the first-non U.S. company on the list. Known for producing the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, it came fourth on the list in 2016 with sales coming to $22.9 billion. It is also on course for a successful 2017, having recently announced the sale of 24 Typhoons to Qatar in a deal worth up to £6 billion.

    Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/12221/the-worlds-biggest-arms-companies/

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Great Intercept article:

    U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business

    Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

    And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

    Think tanks with major funding from defense contractors, including the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council, have similarly demanded higher defense spending to counter Russia.
    [...]
    “Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” he said.
     
    - https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Why are the Neocons still breathing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Who ARE the "Neo-Cons?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. FKA Max says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    Well, believe what you will (freedom of religion and all). Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me. As to monikers, I’ve tried some, but found that they are already taken by others, and I was unhappy with Anon (way too many Anons here) and did not like “Brave new world”-style numbers, so I settled on AnonFromTN.

    Now, to the alleged incident. It was widely reported in the Western media and some Russian outlets financed by the West (like Meduza). Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.
    However, Jim Mattis is on record saying he is not aware of any Russians killed by the US forces (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-mattis-russia-us-airstrikes-syria-mercenaries-killed/). Russian Defense ministry also denied this. For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.

    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence. The sources that tried to come up with names of those allegedly killed mercenaries published highly suspicious lists of exclusively Russian-sounding last names (remember, Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic country, where more than 100 languages are in use), which appeared to be copied from a phonebook, with all non-Russian-sounding names omitted.

    Mind you, I wasn’t there, but neither was anyone “reporting” this alleged incident. That’s all I know about it.

    As to the outcome of potential clash between the US and Russian military, I can only cite the cases of several Russian officers who sacrificed their lives in Syria, impressing many in the West (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JcGrvkUes; or about Alexander Prokhorenko, who called airstrikes on himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513911/Trapped-surrounded-murderous-ISIS-fighters-heroic-Russian-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html). On the other hand, I do remember American and British special forces crying on camera after being captured by the Iranians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ne1pvNPuGE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc0FKmrQQA).

    You are welcome to make your own conclusions. I’ve made mine.

    Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me.

    Good for you!

    Thanks very much for clarifying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. FKA Max says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    Well, believe what you will (freedom of religion and all). Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me. As to monikers, I’ve tried some, but found that they are already taken by others, and I was unhappy with Anon (way too many Anons here) and did not like “Brave new world”-style numbers, so I settled on AnonFromTN.

    Now, to the alleged incident. It was widely reported in the Western media and some Russian outlets financed by the West (like Meduza). Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.
    However, Jim Mattis is on record saying he is not aware of any Russians killed by the US forces (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-mattis-russia-us-airstrikes-syria-mercenaries-killed/). Russian Defense ministry also denied this. For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.

    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence. The sources that tried to come up with names of those allegedly killed mercenaries published highly suspicious lists of exclusively Russian-sounding last names (remember, Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic country, where more than 100 languages are in use), which appeared to be copied from a phonebook, with all non-Russian-sounding names omitted.

    Mind you, I wasn’t there, but neither was anyone “reporting” this alleged incident. That’s all I know about it.

    As to the outcome of potential clash between the US and Russian military, I can only cite the cases of several Russian officers who sacrificed their lives in Syria, impressing many in the West (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JcGrvkUes; or about Alexander Prokhorenko, who called airstrikes on himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513911/Trapped-surrounded-murderous-ISIS-fighters-heroic-Russian-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html). On the other hand, I do remember American and British special forces crying on camera after being captured by the Iranians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ne1pvNPuGE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc0FKmrQQA).

    You are welcome to make your own conclusions. I’ve made mine.

    For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.

    Should that not make you a little skeptical ;-)

    But it could be possible, if this indeed is true:

    For that reason, we suspect that the Vzglyad article is disinformation meant to embarrass the Russian government for failing to defend its assets in the field, if not cajole it into retaliating against the U.S.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404113

    Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.

    That is the modus operandi of Russian propaganda. They just publish all kinds of figures and accounts to confuse people about the real number of casualties and the true nature of certain events and incidents. But I have never heard the 600+ casualties figure associated with the U.S.-Wagner Group mercenaries clash.

    In the third video I cited http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2403060 by Sky News, which was aired in 2016 by the way not in 2018, the Wagner Group mercenary interviewed said that 500 to 600 Wagner Group operators had been killed in Syria since they had been involved in the conflict there. It is probably a much higher number of killed by now, in 2018.

    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence.

    Do you really believe/buy that?

    This is a very good conversation about how Russian mis-/disinformation operations/campaigns are conducted with ex-RT employee Liz Wahl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Wahl

    Uncovering Russian Propaganda With Former ‘Russia Today’ Anchor

    Source: http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2401399

    Here an example of over-exaggerated Russian enemy casualty figures:

    850 Nusra fighters vs. 100 Turkish-backed rebels… That moment when not even the #Assad propaganda buys the Russian lies re #Syria anymore.http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russian-special-forces-repel-a-us-planned-attack-in-syria-denounce-the-usa-and-issue-a-stark-warning/#comment-2018470

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. I finished the book 2 weeks ago and could not stop until it was over. Excellent book, which not only is a must read due to importance of its content but it is also written so well that I enjoyed the language and smoothness of Andrei writing. I think it would be good idea to have it published in Russian as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. FKA Max says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    Well, believe what you will (freedom of religion and all). Considering what I make in my real job (yes, in Tennessee), propaganda machines of neither the State Department nor Russia can afford me. As to monikers, I’ve tried some, but found that they are already taken by others, and I was unhappy with Anon (way too many Anons here) and did not like “Brave new world”-style numbers, so I settled on AnonFromTN.

    Now, to the alleged incident. It was widely reported in the Western media and some Russian outlets financed by the West (like Meduza). Different sources air vastly different numbers of Russian mercenaries allegedly killed in Syria, from five to dozens, to 200, to 640.
    However, Jim Mattis is on record saying he is not aware of any Russians killed by the US forces (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-mattis-russia-us-airstrikes-syria-mercenaries-killed/). Russian Defense ministry also denied this. For once, the US and Russian official sources agreed.

    What’s more, it is against the law in Russia to have non-government armed forces. Whatever you might think of Putin, he strictly maintains state monopoly on violence. The sources that tried to come up with names of those allegedly killed mercenaries published highly suspicious lists of exclusively Russian-sounding last names (remember, Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic country, where more than 100 languages are in use), which appeared to be copied from a phonebook, with all non-Russian-sounding names omitted.

    Mind you, I wasn’t there, but neither was anyone “reporting” this alleged incident. That’s all I know about it.

    As to the outcome of potential clash between the US and Russian military, I can only cite the cases of several Russian officers who sacrificed their lives in Syria, impressing many in the West (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JcGrvkUes; or about Alexander Prokhorenko, who called airstrikes on himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513911/Trapped-surrounded-murderous-ISIS-fighters-heroic-Russian-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html). On the other hand, I do remember American and British special forces crying on camera after being captured by the Iranians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ne1pvNPuGE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc0FKmrQQA).

    You are welcome to make your own conclusions. I’ve made mine.

    What do you make of the following? Is he just blowing hot air, in your opinion?

    Pompeo Confirms Hundreds Of Russians Killed In U.S. Attack In Syria | TIME

    President Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of State confirmed Thursday that “a couple hundred Russians were killed” by U.S. forces in Syria earlier this year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hunor
    mr. exceptional number one American unfortunate humanoid.

    you so desperately want to believe the capabilities of the USA military , that you completely blind to reason. The Russians did not attacked anyone in eastern Syria , some irregular Syrian units did. And the American air force started to bombing the crap out of them , they have information of Russian troops near by about ten kilometers away who were not attacking anyone because the are not under the command of irregular Syrian forces. the Americans know perfectly what the situation is but heroically bombed the Russians as well , just because they have no means to defend themselves . As a heroic American backstabbers completed the bombing raid there were about twenty Russian dead . After that all the American chest beating began about an event that can only be compared to the battle of the Bulge , hundreds of Russians has been destroyed. Reality ? Proof ? Here it is check it out. A German media correspondent team visited the area and
    investigated the near by hospitals and villages , and airfields. They find out there were no massive cargo planes evacuating hundreds after hundreds of coffins transporting the dead to Russia. not a pictures of dead bodies, or departing , and landing planes in Russia. You have a faked radio conversation but why not even a picture or some evidence other than talk of like Iraq has WMD.

    you are a very nice "shiple " .
    , @AnonFromTN
    As far as Pompeo goes, he is a politician. As they say in the US, an honest politician is the one who, once bought, stays bought. That about describes the honesty of all politicians in all countries. Exceptions exist, but they are few and far between.

    Here is one of the links for the 640:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html
    There are others on the web.

    As to the interview, a person says that he is ex-mercenary, which means exactly nothing, especially taking into account possible “consideration’. There are lots of people that would say anything for money. I can name quite a few sources willing to pay for this kind of “confession” handsomely. What’s more, we all know facilities where inmates say that they are Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, etc. We don’t necessarily take their word for it, unless we are fellow inmates.

    As to propaganda, Russian, UK, or American, it is full of lies by definition: if something is true, you don’t need propaganda to push it. However, comparing my 33 years in the USSR and 27 in the US, I can say that next to current American and British MSM, Soviet “Pravda” was a paragon of honesty. They usually lied by omission, twisted facts by selectively presenting them and spinning them as they saw fit, but never invented a story out of nothing. In contrast, MSM in the US and UK do all of the above, plus come up with “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Maybe Orwell felt that this type of blatant lie is a typical Anglo-Saxon thing.

    Mind you, I am not saying that I know what happened in Syria: I’ve never even been in that country. Neither were pretty much all of those who “report” from there.

    In my book, key question to ask when you see any “report” is the old Roman one: cui prodest?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. iffen says:

    Andrei Martyanov not only comprehensively debunks

    Please tell me there is more here than debunking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. hunor says:
    @FKA Max
    What do you make of the following? Is he just blowing hot air, in your opinion?

    Pompeo Confirms Hundreds Of Russians Killed In U.S. Attack In Syria | TIME

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CZl8kHWGYk

    President Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of State confirmed Thursday that “a couple hundred Russians were killed” by U.S. forces in Syria earlier this year.

    mr. exceptional number one American unfortunate humanoid.

    you so desperately want to believe the capabilities of the USA military , that you completely blind to reason. The Russians did not attacked anyone in eastern Syria , some irregular Syrian units did. And the American air force started to bombing the crap out of them , they have information of Russian troops near by about ten kilometers away who were not attacking anyone because the are not under the command of irregular Syrian forces. the Americans know perfectly what the situation is but heroically bombed the Russians as well , just because they have no means to defend themselves . As a heroic American backstabbers completed the bombing raid there were about twenty Russian dead . After that all the American chest beating began about an event that can only be compared to the battle of the Bulge , hundreds of Russians has been destroyed. Reality ? Proof ? Here it is check it out. A German media correspondent team visited the area and
    investigated the near by hospitals and villages , and airfields. They find out there were no massive cargo planes evacuating hundreds after hundreds of coffins transporting the dead to Russia. not a pictures of dead bodies, or departing , and landing planes in Russia. You have a faked radio conversation but why not even a picture or some evidence other than talk of like Iraq has WMD.

    you are a very nice “shiple ” .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @FKA Max
    What do you make of the following? Is he just blowing hot air, in your opinion?

    Pompeo Confirms Hundreds Of Russians Killed In U.S. Attack In Syria | TIME

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CZl8kHWGYk

    President Trump’s nominee to serve as Secretary of State confirmed Thursday that “a couple hundred Russians were killed” by U.S. forces in Syria earlier this year.

    As far as Pompeo goes, he is a politician. As they say in the US, an honest politician is the one who, once bought, stays bought. That about describes the honesty of all politicians in all countries. Exceptions exist, but they are few and far between.

    Here is one of the links for the 640:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html

    There are others on the web.

    As to the interview, a person says that he is ex-mercenary, which means exactly nothing, especially taking into account possible “consideration’. There are lots of people that would say anything for money. I can name quite a few sources willing to pay for this kind of “confession” handsomely. What’s more, we all know facilities where inmates say that they are Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, etc. We don’t necessarily take their word for it, unless we are fellow inmates.

    As to propaganda, Russian, UK, or American, it is full of lies by definition: if something is true, you don’t need propaganda to push it. However, comparing my 33 years in the USSR and 27 in the US, I can say that next to current American and British MSM, Soviet “Pravda” was a paragon of honesty. They usually lied by omission, twisted facts by selectively presenting them and spinning them as they saw fit, but never invented a story out of nothing. In contrast, MSM in the US and UK do all of the above, plus come up with “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Maybe Orwell felt that this type of blatant lie is a typical Anglo-Saxon thing.

    Mind you, I am not saying that I know what happened in Syria: I’ve never even been in that country. Neither were pretty much all of those who “report” from there.

    In my book, key question to ask when you see any “report” is the old Roman one: cui prodest?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Thank you for the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html

    As I suspected the 600+ causalities figure is over the period of several weeks and not just that one incident/night:

    The moment a US fighter jet destroys a Russian tank in massive raid that 'killed hundreds of fighters and DOZENS of Putin's mercenaries who are secretly fighting in Syria'

    An alleged 644 Russian mercenary soldiers were killed in Syria in recent weeks


    It comes after reports that more than 200 private Russian military contractors were killed in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and Kurdish forces last week, Bloomberg reports.
    [...]
    In recent weeks, more than 600 Russian mercenaries have reportedly been killed in Syria, many of them in airstrikes carried out by the U.S.-led coalition.
     
    This might be the reason the Cossacks lashed out at the Kremlin http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404113

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/13/15/492AF83300000578-5386503-image-m-40_1518537003967.jpg


    One was Cossack fighter Vladimir Loginov, 51, from Kaliningrad, a father of two who formerly worked for the Russian Interior Ministry, who died in a U.S.-led coalition airstrike on February 7.
    [...]
    He fell 'heroically defending our Motherland in its far reaches from crazy savages', according to the Baltic Cossack Union in Kaliningrad.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Mulegino1 says:

    Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?

    As H.L. Mencken pointed out, the fighting prowess of the Anglo-Saxon is grossly exaggerated and extremely over hyped. The last time our own forces fought at rough conventional parity with a foe was against the Chinese in Korea, and the result was a negotiated truce.

    Let’s face it, like the British before us, we are good at fighting much weaker and outnumbered nations: Mexico , Germany with Britain and France, Germany again against Britain and the USSR, Japan against Britain and the USSR. In Korea, our forces fought the technologically inferior Chinese to a standstill. We fought the overwhelmingly outmatched North Vietnamese to a stalemate and ultimate defeat, and the mighty Grenadians to instantaneous victory. We fought the dirty wars in Central America against miniscule guerilla forces. We conquered mighty Panama and Saddam’s Iraq, the Taliban’s Afghanistan, and Iraq yet again.

    All this basking in martial glory is surely worth the price of a trillion or so dollars a year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    “Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?”
    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. FKA Max says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    As far as Pompeo goes, he is a politician. As they say in the US, an honest politician is the one who, once bought, stays bought. That about describes the honesty of all politicians in all countries. Exceptions exist, but they are few and far between.

    Here is one of the links for the 640:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html
    There are others on the web.

    As to the interview, a person says that he is ex-mercenary, which means exactly nothing, especially taking into account possible “consideration’. There are lots of people that would say anything for money. I can name quite a few sources willing to pay for this kind of “confession” handsomely. What’s more, we all know facilities where inmates say that they are Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, etc. We don’t necessarily take their word for it, unless we are fellow inmates.

    As to propaganda, Russian, UK, or American, it is full of lies by definition: if something is true, you don’t need propaganda to push it. However, comparing my 33 years in the USSR and 27 in the US, I can say that next to current American and British MSM, Soviet “Pravda” was a paragon of honesty. They usually lied by omission, twisted facts by selectively presenting them and spinning them as they saw fit, but never invented a story out of nothing. In contrast, MSM in the US and UK do all of the above, plus come up with “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Maybe Orwell felt that this type of blatant lie is a typical Anglo-Saxon thing.

    Mind you, I am not saying that I know what happened in Syria: I’ve never even been in that country. Neither were pretty much all of those who “report” from there.

    In my book, key question to ask when you see any “report” is the old Roman one: cui prodest?

    Thank you for the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html

    As I suspected the 600+ causalities figure is over the period of several weeks and not just that one incident/night:

    The moment a US fighter jet destroys a Russian tank in massive raid that ‘killed hundreds of fighters and DOZENS of Putin’s mercenaries who are secretly fighting in Syria’

    An alleged 644 Russian mercenary soldiers were killed in Syria in recent weeks

    It comes after reports that more than 200 private Russian military contractors were killed in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and Kurdish forces last week, Bloomberg reports.
    [...]
    In recent weeks, more than 600 Russian mercenaries have reportedly been killed in Syria, many of them in airstrikes carried out by the U.S.-led coalition.

    This might be the reason the Cossacks lashed out at the Kremlin http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404113

    One was Cossack fighter Vladimir Loginov, 51, from Kaliningrad, a father of two who formerly worked for the Russian Interior Ministry, who died in a U.S.-led coalition airstrike on February 7.
    [...]
    He fell ‘heroically defending our Motherland in its far reaches from crazy savages’, according to the Baltic Cossack Union in Kaliningrad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    More from another angry and disillusioned Cossack:

    Yevgeny Shabayev, leader of a local chapter of a paramilitary Cossack organization who has ties to Russian military contractors, said he had visited acquaintances injured in Syria at the defense ministry’s Central Hospital in Khimki, on the outskirts of Moscow, on Wednesday.

    He said the wounded men had told him that the two units of Russian contractors involved in the battle near Deir al-Zor numbered 550 men. Of those, there are now about 200 who are not either dead or wounded, the wounded men had told him.
     
    - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-casualtie/russian-toll-in-syria-battle-was-300-killed-and-wounded-sources-idUSKCN1FZ2DZ


    Shabayev had just finished visiting eight of the wounded mercenaries. He agreed to talk with RFE/RL about the fighting in Syria and about how and why Russians end up going there. His assertions -- including about burials and casualties, remuneration and compensation, deployments, or purported meetings in the Kremlin -- have not been corroborated by RFE/RL.
    [...]
    Instead of expressing "serious concern" like our beloved leader [Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov always does, the Russian government just ignored the situation and spoke out instead about events in Florida. That is, at least 100 Russians died, and our government is worried about the deaths in American schools. I never really noticed that [U.S. President Donald] Trump was ever much worried when someone in Ulan-Ude kills schoolkids with an ax.

    If our Russian government doesn't want to support our citizens, if it doesn't protect them and forgets about them even after they are killed, then that state is serving something besides the national interests of the Russian people. Most likely, it is serving commercial interests. Probably some business project in which people are nothing but biomass. On the other hand, they use us like biomass here in Russia, too. You pay for housing, for communal services, but they kill you. The country is going extinct; it's just that over there [in Syria], the living are destroyed more quickly.
     
    - https://www.rferl.org/a/syria-russian-mercenaries-cossack-shabayev--interview/29056934.html
    , @Z-man
    I hope most of the Russian mercenary casualties were like this one, men past their prime and already reproduced themselves. Putin Da!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. El Dato says:
    @Sean
    No one really knows how effective the latest weapons on either side would actually be in a real war. Winston Churchill furiously denounced and disparaged Chamberlain for pouring resources into making Spitfires instead of the Bolton Paul Defiant, a turret fighter. The Defiant proved to be a total failure.

    the Bolton Paul Defiant, a turret fighter. The Defiant proved to be a total failure.

    I wouldn’t imagine a neoconbonkers/libertarian alliance to go very far…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Alfa158 says:
    @Mulegino1
    Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?

    As H.L. Mencken pointed out, the fighting prowess of the Anglo-Saxon is grossly exaggerated and extremely over hyped. The last time our own forces fought at rough conventional parity with a foe was against the Chinese in Korea, and the result was a negotiated truce.

    Let's face it, like the British before us, we are good at fighting much weaker and outnumbered nations: Mexico , Germany with Britain and France, Germany again against Britain and the USSR, Japan against Britain and the USSR. In Korea, our forces fought the technologically inferior Chinese to a standstill. We fought the overwhelmingly outmatched North Vietnamese to a stalemate and ultimate defeat, and the mighty Grenadians to instantaneous victory. We fought the dirty wars in Central America against miniscule guerilla forces. We conquered mighty Panama and Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan, and Iraq yet again.

    All this basking in martial glory is surely worth the price of a trillion or so dollars a year.

    “Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?”
    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.
     
    First week of Ardennes in 1944 with Gerow's V Corps (in general, Hodges' 1st Army) on the Northern Shoulder facing Dietrich's Panzer Army. First days were pretty nasty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Thank you for the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html

    As I suspected the 600+ causalities figure is over the period of several weeks and not just that one incident/night:

    The moment a US fighter jet destroys a Russian tank in massive raid that 'killed hundreds of fighters and DOZENS of Putin's mercenaries who are secretly fighting in Syria'

    An alleged 644 Russian mercenary soldiers were killed in Syria in recent weeks


    It comes after reports that more than 200 private Russian military contractors were killed in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and Kurdish forces last week, Bloomberg reports.
    [...]
    In recent weeks, more than 600 Russian mercenaries have reportedly been killed in Syria, many of them in airstrikes carried out by the U.S.-led coalition.
     
    This might be the reason the Cossacks lashed out at the Kremlin http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404113

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/13/15/492AF83300000578-5386503-image-m-40_1518537003967.jpg


    One was Cossack fighter Vladimir Loginov, 51, from Kaliningrad, a father of two who formerly worked for the Russian Interior Ministry, who died in a U.S.-led coalition airstrike on February 7.
    [...]
    He fell 'heroically defending our Motherland in its far reaches from crazy savages', according to the Baltic Cossack Union in Kaliningrad.
     

    More from another angry and disillusioned Cossack:

    Yevgeny Shabayev, leader of a local chapter of a paramilitary Cossack organization who has ties to Russian military contractors, said he had visited acquaintances injured in Syria at the defense ministry’s Central Hospital in Khimki, on the outskirts of Moscow, on Wednesday.

    He said the wounded men had told him that the two units of Russian contractors involved in the battle near Deir al-Zor numbered 550 men. Of those, there are now about 200 who are not either dead or wounded, the wounded men had told him.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-casualtie/russian-toll-in-syria-battle-was-300-killed-and-wounded-sources-idUSKCN1FZ2DZ

    Shabayev had just finished visiting eight of the wounded mercenaries. He agreed to talk with RFE/RL about the fighting in Syria and about how and why Russians end up going there. His assertions — including about burials and casualties, remuneration and compensation, deployments, or purported meetings in the Kremlin — have not been corroborated by RFE/RL.
    [...]
    Instead of expressing “serious concern” like our beloved leader [Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov always does, the Russian government just ignored the situation and spoke out instead about events in Florida. That is, at least 100 Russians died, and our government is worried about the deaths in American schools. I never really noticed that [U.S. President Donald] Trump was ever much worried when someone in Ulan-Ude kills schoolkids with an ax.

    If our Russian government doesn’t want to support our citizens, if it doesn’t protect them and forgets about them even after they are killed, then that state is serving something besides the national interests of the Russian people. Most likely, it is serving commercial interests. Probably some business project in which people are nothing but biomass. On the other hand, they use us like biomass here in Russia, too. You pay for housing, for communal services, but they kill you. The country is going extinct; it’s just that over there [in Syria], the living are destroyed more quickly.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/syria-russian-mercenaries-cossack-shabayev–interview/29056934.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Alfa158
    “Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?”
    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.

    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.

    First week of Ardennes in 1944 with Gerow’s V Corps (in general, Hodges’ 1st Army) on the Northern Shoulder facing Dietrich’s Panzer Army. First days were pretty nasty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Nasty", but not as Mulegino described, which was:

    "Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?"
    , @animalogic
    Bastogne. Kasserine Pass (the entire War of Succession considered from the South) etc. "Mere" battles, but offer insights into US "back-against-the-wall" actions.
    It's not a question that US service men can not fight - they can. However, as the early months of Korea show, the US style of war contains an inherent...brittleness.
    , @jilles dykstra
    The USA was driven out of the Philippines.
    After Midway, where the Japanese carriers were sunk, it was clear who would win the Pacific war.
    Ardennes 1944, the allies had complete air superiority.
    Korea was, I think, the only war where the USA was fighting desperately, then there was Vietnam, the war the USA lost against people dragging supplies on bicycles through the jungle.
    The determination to win wars against oppressors was shown by Dien Bien Phu, hope the spelling is right.
    France considered it impossible that heavy artillery was dragged up the mountains around the airfield.
    When the artillery was in position, and began firing down, the Frenchman who had thought out the plan for a base there committed suicide.
    In my opinion the USA never fought a war against an equal military force.
    Germans in bunkers in the Siegfried line, early 1945, were unable to fire from these bunkers, the USA concentrated so much fire continuously on the bunkers that they could not fire a shot.
    The Germans had never anticipated such a use of ammo.
    This covering fire made it possible to demolish the bunkers.
    It was more or less the same with USA daylight bombing over Germany, the Flying Fortresses were propaganda, they could just bomb when accompanied by long range fighters with drop tanks.
    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. utu says:

    There are two main reasons for this: first, unlike their US counterparts, Russian weapons are designed to kill, not to make money and, second, Russians understand warfare because they understand what war really is.

    American MIC loves this book. Every congressman and lobbyist in the DC area will get a copy. MIC needs to make them aware and scare them of the kill gap. American weapons unlike the Russian ones do not kill. The next frontier for MIC: The Kill Gap. Americans weapons do not kill. They rather cuddle.

    Anyway, good for Martyanov. Will have some money coming.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Scalpel
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Will there be a Kennedy ready to take advantage of the *kill gap" in 2020?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. utu says:
    @roo_ster
    A decade or more of pouring money & blood into sand in MENA has had an effect on the US military similar to the foolishness in SE Asia. It has put America 10+ years behind, R&D & deployment-wise, where it would have been.

    And as with the post-Vietnam Reagan rebuild, the US military is seeking to re-arm and re-train for a peer/near-peer adversary. Success in this endeavor is TBD.

    Saker makes some good points, especially with regard to the worthless hyper-violent neocon/globalist faction that has had the upper hand in the US ruling class for the last few decades. That is the greatest source of American weakness and poor decision-making. Removing or gelding it would be of great benefit to Americans and most other nations.

    On the other hand, Saker also engages in self-deceiving fever dreams of his own.

    The Russian people (in present rump Russian empire guise) have as little experience with warfare requiring personal sacrifice as do the American peoples. Chechnya was eventually conquered, but only after blundering and bleeding all over the Caucasus. Ukraine was closer to a vigorous field trial. Russians and others have taken a good look at that clash and are incorporating the lessons learned. Russian involvement in Syria fits the model of "killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above" as well as any of America's involvement in the MENA.

    Also, neither the phantom Russian experience in existential warfare at home after WWII nor the very real knowledge that they can not match US military budgets are enough to produce a world-beating capability.

    That is not to say that Russia does not have advantages.

    Russian advantages:
    1. Stayed home throughout most of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s and minded their own knitting.
    2. Spent what budget they had on development rather than deployments.
    3. Had a serious crisis that resulted in huge swathes of the military establishment being cast off. Initially painful, but helpful in the long run.
    4. Not ruled by neocon/globalists with priorities orthogonal to the nation.
    5. Possible economies in R&D due to various factors.

    I am sure there are others, but those loom large from this side of the pond.

    I appreciate Saker's writings as well as any that challenge the ruling class's current orthodoxy. But just because the hyper-violent globo-homo death cultists self-delude as a matter of course does not preclude others from also engaging in self-deception.

    It can be difficult to see the clear path through all the self-serving/self-deceiving opaque gas baggery.

    The Russian people (in present rump Russian empire guise) have as little experience with warfare requiring personal sacrifice as do the American peoples.

    Russian involvement in Syria fits the model of “killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above” as well as any of America’s involvement in the MENA.

    Good points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Banger says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    AnonFromTN,

    I appreciate the interaction we had in the other comments thread, but I kind of agree with commenter Wizard of Oz's comment about you:

    You are really going over the top with the number of unsupported assertions you throw in on top of what you know about to make you sound like the hasbarists and amateur propagandists for other countries on UR.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2403171

    You hardly ever cite sources to back up your claims and when faced with counter arguments and counter sources you either dismiss them as propaganda, etc. or say that you have deeper knowledge of the subject matter, because you grew up or worked in the Soviet Union, etc., which raises the question for me how objective or unbiased you actually are or can be when Russia is being discussed.

    I also did a quick search through your Unz Review comments archive and saw that you had commented or tried to comment under three other usernames besides AnonFromTN:

    AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Levelheaded"] , AnonFromTN [AKA "Informed"] - https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?CommentOrder=ASC&commenterfilter=AnonFromTN

    Does the TN in your username stand for Tennessee? Are you really based in Tennessee, because I saw this article:

    Fake Tennessee GOP Twitter account highlighted in indictment of 13 Russians

    Twitter suspended the account after it became aware it was linked to a Russian "troll farm." Federal lawmakers last year also acknowledged the account was linked to Russian sources.
     
    - https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/02/16/fake-tennessee-gop-twitter-account-highlighted-indictment-13-russians/345835002/

    I cited two separate sources that over 200 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries were killed when their unit attacked an oil refinery protected by Americans east of the Euphrates river dividing line:

    During the maneuver, the Russian contractors crossed the Euphrates River near the town of Khusham, breaching what Moscow and Washington have agreed is the dividing line separating their respective zones of authority.
     
    - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-shadow-army-suffers-a-setback-in-syria

    And you just replied: "This particular fake was debunked so many times, that it’s boooring…"

    Please, provide sources to your debunking claims. Thank you.

    Your English is very good, so if you are indeed a Russian "troll farm" employee, you must be pretty high-level. However you need to work on your humor quota... take yourself a little bit less seriously and you will do a better job...

    I guess you guys are back, or at least some of you. I have not been reading and commenting on Russia-related subjects and articles that much, so I didn't realize this.

    The Russian/Putin Troll army was real, but that was back in 2014 mostly. I battled them and dealt with them personally, but they are not around anymore. Their trolling efforts backfired pretty much, because they were not subtle enough and so they turned off many Westerners through their in-your-face pro-Putin propaganda.
    Russians are terrible at trolling, because they don’t have a very sophisticated sense of humor and don’t really understand American culture and sensibilities.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/forum/the-washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-and-disgusting/#comment-1668899

    Russia’s Online Troll Army Is Huge, Hilarious & Already Everywhere

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CussBbmJHzI

    Just a small point. All major corporate and national powers troll the internet as a matter of routine. I worked for a big-time Washington PR firm when trolling was just getting started big-time and saw how it worked. Anyone with money can do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I wonder whether there are already professional trolling/PR organizations using Artificial Intelligence to produce draft comments to clog up sites they don't like. With one human editor/commenter maybe half a dozen sites could be stuffed around. Only guessing of course but maybe j2 or some other tech wizard would know what's possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Carlton Meyer
    Few Americans understand the massive, blatant corruption that goes on in the Pentagon.

    For example, the EMALS aircraft launch system aboard the new $13 billion USS Ford does not work reliably, and there is little hope it can improve. Yet the Navy is building three more Ford class carriers! The Navy didn't even test EMALS ashore until after the USS Ford construction began!

    http://www.g2mil.com/EMALS.htm

    The Navy continues spending over a billion dollars a year on railguns even though the technology is not useful for weapons.

    http://www.g2mil.com/rail_gun_fraud.htm

    Finally, billions of dollars are spent each year for Navy missile defense even though the SM-3 missile is far too small to reach anything but low flying short range missiles.

    http://www.g2mil.com/NMD_Fraud.htm

    I can provide a dozen other examples, like the LCS and LX.

    I found your site and some thoughts to be really worthy of paying attention to. It gives more credibility to it that you are a former US military professional. I found some of your views very close to mine too on some key issues.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. 1) Dear Mr Unz. Scrap The Saker who came to prominence for translated Igor Girkin’s comments on VK.com in 2014. Replace him with Andrei. The Saker has no intuition about what is happening gin Russia. Andrei does know his own chosen fields unlike Saker who presumes to know Putin’s innermost councils from Florida. (And he never reads Putin’s actual announcements either). Reposting John Helmer would be better if Andrei has no time.

    2) Andrei. What do you make of this weeks announcements that the Russian destroyer building programme has been pushed back to 2035, even later than the Armata tank? (World cup period announcement). There are times, 2014 in particular, when I feel that the Stavka is in control. And yet, the defence budget has been cut by 20% in the last two years and the more expensive weapon systems postponed into the future. Clearly, losing a conscript army is a source of savings but not 20%. Reading Putin’s discussion of the subject it appears that: the air force and submarines have never really been neglected. The army and border guard have recently been adequately modernised. In 2008 they probably compared favourably only with Ukraine. Fancy weapons and ship building programs have been announced but building in usable numbers is for the 2030′s. I promise I’ll buy the book. I assume it is an Amazon download. Well done for such concentrated effort. I can’t decide between a business manual, novel, tales of the mafia (not all old – as we speak, Azeris are shooting each other over tomatoes) or political tirade. Target rich environment.

    3) I can now see that the most creative time in the Saratov opto-electronics community was the 1990′s and early 2000′s. I am going to a conference in September. Same ideas and mostly people as 10 years ago.

    Read More
    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    What do you make of this weeks announcements that the Russian destroyer building programme has been pushed back to 2035
     
    I make nothing of it since OSK provided THREE scenarios (from very conservative to innovative) in its Strategy. You may easily access it here:

    http://minpromtorg.gov.ru/docs/#!strategiya_razvitiya_sudostroitelnoy_promyshlennosti_na_period_do_2035_goda

    But looks like a tectonic shift in naval (and land) warfare will take some time to sink in. I am absolutely, like zero in whatever units, not worried about Russian Navy DDGs. I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. Submarines and means of their deployment are also of special interest. DDG program? Not really. To understand that--ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide--you will easily understand why I am not worried about destroyers or aircraft carriers.

    The Saker who came to prominence for translated Igor Girkin’s comments on VK.com in 2014.
     
    Really? I too was fooled by Mr. Girkin in 2014 until I started extricating myself from media environment and started recalling who I was in the past life. This was about that time that I initiated my blog. Per Andrei (Raevsky), aka Saker, John Helmer? Really? One of the reasons why Saker gets flak and is assaulted from some specific quarters on Unz is the fact that he wears his heart on sleeve--a "luxury" few Western men can afford due to cowardice. And that, I am sorry, is a very Russian thing, even when I disagree with Saker and I do disagree with him once in a while.

    I can now see that the most creative time in the Saratov opto-electronics community was the 1990′s and early 2000′s. I am going to a conference in September. Same ideas and mostly people as 10 years ago.
     
    Sure, where did I hear this tune before? Yet, somehow radiophotonics locator already exists and actually works. Again, I repeat myself, you will never convince me that you know Russian military-industrial complex.
    , @FB

    '...I am going to a conference in September...'
     
    Great to hear Tampon Phil...hope you sell a ton of palm oil...fresh off the boat from India, I trust...cheerio...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Philip Owen
    1) Dear Mr Unz. Scrap The Saker who came to prominence for translated Igor Girkin's comments on VK.com in 2014. Replace him with Andrei. The Saker has no intuition about what is happening gin Russia. Andrei does know his own chosen fields unlike Saker who presumes to know Putin's innermost councils from Florida. (And he never reads Putin's actual announcements either). Reposting John Helmer would be better if Andrei has no time.

    2) Andrei. What do you make of this weeks announcements that the Russian destroyer building programme has been pushed back to 2035, even later than the Armata tank? (World cup period announcement). There are times, 2014 in particular, when I feel that the Stavka is in control. And yet, the defence budget has been cut by 20% in the last two years and the more expensive weapon systems postponed into the future. Clearly, losing a conscript army is a source of savings but not 20%. Reading Putin's discussion of the subject it appears that: the air force and submarines have never really been neglected. The army and border guard have recently been adequately modernised. In 2008 they probably compared favourably only with Ukraine. Fancy weapons and ship building programs have been announced but building in usable numbers is for the 2030's. I promise I'll buy the book. I assume it is an Amazon download. Well done for such concentrated effort. I can't decide between a business manual, novel, tales of the mafia (not all old - as we speak, Azeris are shooting each other over tomatoes) or political tirade. Target rich environment.

    3) I can now see that the most creative time in the Saratov opto-electronics community was the 1990's and early 2000's. I am going to a conference in September. Same ideas and mostly people as 10 years ago.

    What do you make of this weeks announcements that the Russian destroyer building programme has been pushed back to 2035

    I make nothing of it since OSK provided THREE scenarios (from very conservative to innovative) in its Strategy. You may easily access it here:

    http://minpromtorg.gov.ru/docs/#!strategiya_razvitiya_sudostroitelnoy_promyshlennosti_na_period_do_2035_goda

    But looks like a tectonic shift in naval (and land) warfare will take some time to sink in. I am absolutely, like zero in whatever units, not worried about Russian Navy DDGs. I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. Submarines and means of their deployment are also of special interest. DDG program? Not really. To understand that–ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide–you will easily understand why I am not worried about destroyers or aircraft carriers.

    The Saker who came to prominence for translated Igor Girkin’s comments on VK.com in 2014.

    Really? I too was fooled by Mr. Girkin in 2014 until I started extricating myself from media environment and started recalling who I was in the past life. This was about that time that I initiated my blog. Per Andrei (Raevsky), aka Saker, John Helmer? Really? One of the reasons why Saker gets flak and is assaulted from some specific quarters on Unz is the fact that he wears his heart on sleeve–a “luxury” few Western men can afford due to cowardice. And that, I am sorry, is a very Russian thing, even when I disagree with Saker and I do disagree with him once in a while.

    I can now see that the most creative time in the Saratov opto-electronics community was the 1990′s and early 2000′s. I am going to a conference in September. Same ideas and mostly people as 10 years ago.

    Sure, where did I hear this tune before? Yet, somehow radiophotonics locator already exists and actually works. Again, I repeat myself, you will never convince me that you know Russian military-industrial complex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    "I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. "

    One does not bring knife to gun fight.

    "To understand that–ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide"
    I think these two statements are very closely related especially considering Russian land forces progress in all areas you have been describing for years in your blog.

    The biggest worry is nukes and American elites inadequacy and hysterics if they ever try and get mauled.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. myself says:
    @anonymous

    For Americans warfare is killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above, while making a ton of money in the process.
     
    This is why I don't think there'll be any head-on clash between the US and Russia. It would violate the above principle. American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself. It's a form of banditry, roving the world in search of the next victim. Parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America are all weak and subject to US whims. That there's a huge mythology attached to US military prowess is just part of the brainwashing that goes on. It's been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries. There's always the risk of miscalculation of course but US politics is mostly show biz so it's hard to assess what part of it's warhawk talk is real and what's showboating.

    American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself.

    It’s been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries.

    That is simply the Anglo-Saxon tradition, for a few centuries.

    Secure from invasion by strong enemies, Britain and the United States have most often specialized in fielding ultra-elite expeditionary forces – small armies, honed to a razor’s edge, superbly equipped, and configured for quick surgical conflicts against vulnerable and weak opponents.

    For Britain, a good example would be the regular British Army on the eve of World War I, a force of some 6 or 7 Infantry Divisions and some Cavalry Brigades. It was an elite force of long-service professionals, suitable for distant deployment and fighting in the British Empire’s far-flung possessions. And it was TINY.

    For the United States, the example would be the “State Department troops”, aka the U.S. Marine Corps, pre-World War 2. Same deal as with the British – elite veteran soldiers, rapidly deployable, meant to fight numerous but badly-outclassed opponents. Also a quite small force.

    When called upon to fight grueling, bloody conventional wars against peer opponents, neither Britain nor the United States have been entirely in their element, though both do an adequate enough job. Good enough to win, but at considerable cost.

    Anglo-Saxons do not do lighting wars against peer enemies, we/they grind them down using allies (better termed “patsies”) to do the bleeding for us.

    Large naval wars are no problem, but large LAND WARS? – No, just . . . NO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Some truth in what you say. How many wars on the continent in the 1700-1800's were sustained on British
    gold ?
    , @Anglo Pirates
    Myself

    you described very well how pirates work
    , @Mulegino1
    The Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, weighs in on this very topic:

    So far as I can make out there is no record in history of any Anglo-Saxon nation entering upon any great war without allies. The French have done it, the Dutch have done it, the Germans have done it, the Japs have done it, and even such inferior nations as the Danes, the Spaniards, the Boers and the Greeks have done it, but never the English or Americans. Can you imagine the United States resolutely facing a war in which the odds against it were as huge as they were against Spain in 1898? The facts of history are wholly against any such fancy. The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy, and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger. Here I put an unimpeachably Anglo-Saxon witness on the stand, to wit, the late Charles W. Eliot. I find him saying, in an article quoted with approbation by the Congressional Record, that during the Revolutionary War the colonists now hymned so eloquently in the school-books "fell into a condition of despondency from which nothing but the steadfastness of Washington and the Continental army and the aid from France saved them," and that "when the War of 1812 brought grave losses a considerable portion of the population experienced a moral collapse, from which they were rescued only by the exertions of a few thoroughly patriotic statesmen and the exploits of three or four American frigates on the seas"--to say nothing of an enterprising Corsican gentleman, Bonaparte by name.
    In both these wars the Americans had enormous and obvious advantages, in terrain, in allies and in men; nevertheless, they fought, in the main, very badly, and from the first shot to the last a majority of them stood in favor of making peace on almost any terms. The Mexican and Spanish Wars I pass over as perhaps too obscenely ungallant to be discussed at all; of the former, U. S. Grant, who fought in it, said that it was "the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." Who remembers that, during the Spanish War, the whole Atlantic Coast trembled in fear of the Spaniards' feeble fleet--that all New England had hysterics every time a strange coal-barge was sighted on the sky-line, that the safe-deposit boxes of Boston were emptied and their contents transferred to Worcester, and that the Navy had to organize a patrol to save the coast towns from depopulation? Perhaps those Reds, atheists and pro-Germans remember it who also remember that during World War I the entire country went wild with fear of an enemy who, without the aid of divine intervention, obviously could not strike it a blow at all--and that the great moral victory was gained at last with the assistance of twenty-one allies and at odds of eight to one.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. pogohere says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    These Russian mercenaries, who had first-hand experiences with/of U.S. military capabilities, seem to have a different opinion. Video sime-stamped to 9 min 55 sec:

    200 Russians Were Killed by US Airstrikes in Syria. Details, Recorded Radio Communications.

    https://youtu.be/XaeDMOWkCwU?t=9m55s

    Exclusive: Russian mercenaries in Syria, Putin's secret army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eka_Jn9K_HU

    Exclusive: Russia's Secret Soldiers Fighting In Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvW3OBJDVS8

    Video time-stamped to 4 min 55 sec:

    James Mattis I ordered annihilation of the Russian mercenaries

    https://youtu.be/GO7WP7Cbz3E?t=4m55s

    The Truth About the Russian Deaths in Syria

    3-2-18

    Hundreds of Russian soldiers are alleged to have died in U.S. airstrikes at the beginning of February. Reporting by DER SPIEGEL shows that events were likely very different.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Thank you very much for the link.

    This part strikes me as a little odd:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.
     
    This could very well be the case:

    At the same time, however, a completely different version of events has gained traction -- disseminated at first by Russian nationalists like Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, and then by others associated with the Wagner unit. According to those accounts, many more Russians had been killed in the battle -- 100, 200, 300 or as many as 600. An entire unit, it was said, had been wiped out and the Kremlin wanted to cover it up. Recordings of alleged fighters even popped up apparently confirming these horrendous losses.
    [...]
    Relations between the Russian mercenaries in Syria -- it is thought there are more than 2,000 of them -- and the government in Moscow have been tense for some time. The fighters claim they are being used as cannon fodder, are being kept quiet and are poorly paid. For them to now accuse the Kremlin of trying to cover up the fact that Russians were killed -- by the Americans, of all people -- hits President Vladimir Putin's government in a weak spot: its credibility.
     
    What do you make of this though? Do you think he just made it up?:


    Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

    “We don’t trust Russia anymore,” Hassan said. When a reporter asked about the irony of the Russian officer denying the attack and then asking for a truce, Hassan responded: “It’s funny that a superpower doesn’t know what their forces are conducting on the ground.”
     
    - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/

    Kurdistan 24 reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians. Click the CC button for English subtitles:

    Kurdistan24 coverage in Deir Al-Zor where Syrian regime attacked US-led SDF/YPG


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrseDnoLGCo

    I might have very well fallen for Russian nationalist propaganda, but, as I said, these two sentences from Der Spiegel article strike me as a little odd: "But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives."

    Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have a "Nothing to see here, just move along." vibe to them:

    Ahmad Ramadan, the journalist who founded the Euphrates Post and has since emigrated to Turkey, comes from Tabiya. One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't. The Russians in Tabiya just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
     
    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare:

    One of the most prominent and largest pro-government militias from the Aleppo area and part of the "Local Defence Forces" network, the Baqir Brigade mostly consists of tribesmen from the al-Baggara tribe that has traditionally supported the rule of the al-Assad family despite being mostly Sunni Muslim. hough the militia's fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqir_Brigade

    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    For some reason I trust the Cossack sources more here, but I could be wrong: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    Thanks again, for providing the link.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max


    I’ll give you a hint–overwhelming majority of sources I deliberately used were of American (and UK) origin–not to be accused of bias or propaganda. So, NO–your sources and info from then is bad, in fact–it is utter rubbish.
     
    One of my sources ( second video http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2403060 ), which interviewed the Cossack officer who stated that the latest figure of casualties from that incident was 218, is non-Anglo France 24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24

    I think even the pro-Putin Cossacks https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cossacks-russia-moscow-putin-rally-demonstration-world-cup-a8348221.html were pissed that over 200 of their comrades were put in danger and sacrificed as cannon fodder like that, and that is why, I believe, he talked to France 24.

    The second source I cited is also pro-Putin/Kremlin but still leaked the alleged conversations between the Russian mercenaries who survived the attacks. Again, I think, because they were pissed that so many Russians were willingly endangered and sacrificed by Putin and the Kremlin.

    Privately owned pro-Kremlin news site Vzglyad, produced by top pro-Kremlin social-media propagandist Konstantin Rykov has published purportedly decoded Russian mercenaries chatting with one another from voice tapes that appeared on the Russian-language Telegram channel “WarGonzo” shortly after the firefight with the SDF and U.S. warplanes. Four distinct voices put the total number of mercenaries dead at well over 200, although even they disagree as to the exact figures and details; with some arguing that entire companies were “destroyed,” and that American flags were draped over the vanquished Russian trenches, which would certainly incite an incensed reaction back in Russia. For that reason, we suspect that the Vzglyad article is disinformation meant to embarrass the Russian government for failing to defend its assets in the field, if not cajole it into retaliating against the U.S.

    Today, Bloomberg News appeared to corroborate the Vzglyad allegations, reporting that “[m]ore than 200 mercenaries, mostly Russians” were killed in the episode, citing an unnamed U.S. official and “three Russians familiar with the matter.”
     
    - https://www.thedailybeast.com/did-the-us-really-kill-200-russians-in-syriaor-just-a-few

    Phone conversation between the head of the Wagner Group with Russian army General

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOYN5ES5e0

    Have you ever thought about why the American and UK sources you use/cite in your up-coming book are talking up, exaggerating and fear mongering about Russian military capabilities?

    One very plausible explanation, in my opinion, is not because they really believe in it/them, but it is really done to increase their own budgets and revenues.

    How many of the studies you are citing in your book were/are financed by Western defense contractors?

    In their campaign to stop reductions in Pentagon spending and protect their profits, big defense contractors are spending millions on studies, rallies, and lobbying Congress with the false claim that defense cuts will result in the loss of more than 1 million American jobs. But Pentagon contractors’ threats to send layoff notices to thousands of employees in the days preceding the Presidential election are political stunts. The public has a right to know the truth behind the rhetoric and fear mongering.
     
    - http://www.pogo.org/our-work/resource-pages/2012/defense-contractors-driving-the-pentagon-budget-battle-2012-07-30.html

    The World's Biggest Arms Companies

    Out of the ten largest arms manufacturers, seven are American and BAE Systems [UK based] is the first-non U.S. company on the list. Known for producing the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, it came fourth on the list in 2016 with sales coming to $22.9 billion. It is also on course for a successful 2017, having recently announced the sale of 24 Typhoons to Qatar in a deal worth up to £6 billion.

    https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_12221_the_world_s_biggest_arms_companies_n.jpg

    Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/12221/the-worlds-biggest-arms-companies/

    Great Intercept article:

    U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business

    Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

    And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

    Think tanks with major funding from defense contractors, including the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council, have similarly demanded higher defense spending to counter Russia.
    [...]
    “Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” he said.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/

    Read More
    • Agree: Sean
    • Replies: @Sean

    https://www.rt.com/news/432071-italy-f35-jets-not-anymore/

    The anti-establishment Italian government's defense minister has said that the country won't purchase any more Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets from the US and will review the existing order for 90 planes.
    Elisabetta Trenta, the country's new minister of defense from the Eurosceptic Five Star Movement, has ruled out new contracts with the US for the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, adding that the order for 60 F-35A and 30 F-35B jets, which Italy concluded in 2012, might be placed under review.
     

    The way Russian armour like the T14 is being designed to be ever more svelte and the F35 weighs 35 tons, it makes it you wonder what is going on.
    , @utu
    I keep saying that Martyanov is God sent for the MIC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Andrei Martyanov

    What do you make of this weeks announcements that the Russian destroyer building programme has been pushed back to 2035
     
    I make nothing of it since OSK provided THREE scenarios (from very conservative to innovative) in its Strategy. You may easily access it here:

    http://minpromtorg.gov.ru/docs/#!strategiya_razvitiya_sudostroitelnoy_promyshlennosti_na_period_do_2035_goda

    But looks like a tectonic shift in naval (and land) warfare will take some time to sink in. I am absolutely, like zero in whatever units, not worried about Russian Navy DDGs. I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. Submarines and means of their deployment are also of special interest. DDG program? Not really. To understand that--ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide--you will easily understand why I am not worried about destroyers or aircraft carriers.

    The Saker who came to prominence for translated Igor Girkin’s comments on VK.com in 2014.
     
    Really? I too was fooled by Mr. Girkin in 2014 until I started extricating myself from media environment and started recalling who I was in the past life. This was about that time that I initiated my blog. Per Andrei (Raevsky), aka Saker, John Helmer? Really? One of the reasons why Saker gets flak and is assaulted from some specific quarters on Unz is the fact that he wears his heart on sleeve--a "luxury" few Western men can afford due to cowardice. And that, I am sorry, is a very Russian thing, even when I disagree with Saker and I do disagree with him once in a while.

    I can now see that the most creative time in the Saratov opto-electronics community was the 1990′s and early 2000′s. I am going to a conference in September. Same ideas and mostly people as 10 years ago.
     
    Sure, where did I hear this tune before? Yet, somehow radiophotonics locator already exists and actually works. Again, I repeat myself, you will never convince me that you know Russian military-industrial complex.

    “I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. ”

    One does not bring knife to gun fight.

    “To understand that–ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide”
    I think these two statements are very closely related especially considering Russian land forces progress in all areas you have been describing for years in your blog.

    The biggest worry is nukes and American elites inadequacy and hysterics if they ever try and get mauled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The biggest worry is nukes and American elites inadequacy and hysterics if they ever try and get mauled.
     
    US is biased (always was) towards nuclear threshold precisely for the reasons of grossly inflated conventional capability, be it during Cold War (the REAL book about that is yet to be written) or today. Especially today.
    , @Leander Starr
    If you want to see how a war against Russia would go look at what happened to Sadam's 5000 tanks. The Russian have 20 000. The video game would be even more fun
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Sean says:
    @Sean
    No one really knows how effective the latest weapons on either side would actually be in a real war. Winston Churchill furiously denounced and disparaged Chamberlain for pouring resources into making Spitfires instead of the Bolton Paul Defiant, a turret fighter. The Defiant proved to be a total failure.

    There was a night fighter pilot whose wife and family were killed by German bombing and was out for German blood that while simply flying a Hurricane toward the sound of AA shot down more German night bombers than all the specialized Turbinlite Havocs which were technically novel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Sean says:
    @FKA Max
    Great Intercept article:

    U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business

    Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

    And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

    Think tanks with major funding from defense contractors, including the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council, have similarly demanded higher defense spending to counter Russia.
    [...]
    “Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” he said.
     
    - https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/

    https://www.rt.com/news/432071-italy-f35-jets-not-anymore/

    The anti-establishment Italian government’s defense minister has said that the country won’t purchase any more Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets from the US and will review the existing order for 90 planes.
    Elisabetta Trenta, the country’s new minister of defense from the Eurosceptic Five Star Movement, has ruled out new contracts with the US for the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, adding that the order for 60 F-35A and 30 F-35B jets, which Italy concluded in 2012, might be placed under review.

    The way Russian armour like the T14 is being designed to be ever more svelte and the F35 weighs 35 tons, it makes it you wonder what is going on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    It's the Italians loss, in my opinion, if they go ahead and cancel it.

    I have a very different view of the F-35 than Martyanov et al.:

    Hence the kind of criminally overpriced and useless weapons system like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship or, of course, the fantastically expensive and no less fantastically vulnerable aircraft carriers.
     
    I think it is a game-changing weapons system as it turns assault vessels into mini-aircraft carriers:

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHa6BTywCFo

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a detachment of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters onboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), marking the first time the jet has deployed operationally onboard a large deck amphibious assault ship. The arrival of the F-35B onboard the L-class ships mark a massive boost in striking power for the roughly 40,000-ton vesselseffectively turning them into light carriers. Indeed, until the United States Navy’s F-35C version becomes operational, the F-35B will be the only stealth aircraft to be found onboard a naval flight deck. "Pairing F-35B Lightning II's with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime," Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said. "This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities."

    In the long term, several operators have announced their intention to supplement or replace their Harrier fleets with the STOVL variant of the F-35 Lightning II, designated as the F-35B.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

    NASA uses the abbreviation SSTOVL for Supersonic Short Take-Off / Vertical Landing,[3] and as of 2012, the X-35B/F-35B are the only aircraft to conform with this combination within one flight.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

    What is your opinion on the F-35, Sean?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. utu says:
    @FKA Max
    Great Intercept article:

    U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business

    Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

    And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

    Think tanks with major funding from defense contractors, including the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council, have similarly demanded higher defense spending to counter Russia.
    [...]
    “Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” he said.
     
    - https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/

    I keep saying that Martyanov is God sent for the MIC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    At first glance, this is a very strange symbiotic relationship, but taking the bigger picture view of the situation one realizes that this arrangement seems to be mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Russia.

    Rising geo-political tensions mean more sales for the Western (and Russian) Military-industrial complex and simultaneously higher oil and gas prices for Russia and other suppliers (including the U.S.) - unless the Saudis/OPEC artificially keep the prices low - which Putin desperately depends on to pay Russians' pensions, etc.

    And the Europeans and Chinese mostly foot the bill.

    Russia Sends Oil to China at Europe's Expense as Trades Upended


    For the time being, the cuts to Russian crude flows aren’t showing up in prices -- quite the opposite -- thanks to maintenance work at refineries in Europe that turn the oil into fuels. Russia’s Urals crude has been trading near 4-year lows in Europe thanks to that maintenance, as well as an increase in crude flows from the U.S.
     
    - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/russia-sends-oil-to-china-at-europe-s-expense-as-trades-upended

    Rising Oil Prices Buoy Russia’s Economy, Despite Sanctions

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/world/europe/russia-oil-economy.html

    Do you think he is consciously aware of his role in this game/theater/symbiosis?

    , @Peripatetic commenter
    The term you want is godsend

    That is: Martyanov is a godsend for the MIC!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. The toys are interesting, the battles are interesting, but the human element is the real story, and human nature rarely changes.

    After WW2, many Americans pictured themselves as the guarantor and leader of the Free World, imposing a so-called Pax Americana against the barbarian others. Having assumed that role in the 1940s and ’50s, we assumed somewhere in the 1990s that we were the same Romans who had built the empire by the mid 2nd century, but we, like the Romans, had moved on as a people to something equivalent to the 5th century, with 9/11 being the sacking of our capital. We survived, but in a bit of a different state.

    Our elites now parade around like the Byzantine Romans of the 7th century, with Trump being perhaps our Emperor Heracles, bringing us to new greatness, but that is but imitation of our former greatness. We’re bumping up against our own versions of the Persians in the double form of Russia and China, meanwhile Islam is nipping at us in the east, and we’ve abandoned our hinterlands in the west to being overrun by the Latin America equivalents of the Lombards, Franks, Avars, Slavs, and Bulgars.

    The US might or might not be killing Russians in Syria, but its lesser cities and hinterlands are already overrun by hostile invaders, and its elites are fleeing to safety in gated communities and pumping up military and police forces to keep them safe while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. This is not a viable long-term strategy, but it is good for a couple generations of the elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    Broadly speaking, those are fine historical analogues.

    Extending the model further, you have to wonder WHEN, not if, the equivalent of the Hunnic nomad horde will explode out of the Eastern steppes, to bring devastation and utter ruin to the late classical world.

    We are at the end game, though the process may still take, as pointed out, another generation or so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m not saying that I disagree with Andrei or The Saker here as I know the US Military has degraded in capability. But I don’t think either truly understands the transition America has undertaken. What if America has fallen behind militarily but it doesn’t matter?

    America, which started as a British colony, has adopted the Anglo force structure which is not based on having the strongest military. It is based on controlling the money supply, controlling the media, and playing divide and conquer.

    Under the Anglo model, you don’t need to have the strongest military since America itself will not be doing the heavy fighting. The ultimate wet dream would have seen China and Russia fight it out to see both countries devastated. But in lieu of that we might see other countries take on Russia instead. Ukraine, Syria, some other ME country, Nato take your pick.

    Meanwhile the Anglo Model will see the media savage Russia. This will allow more sanctions on Russia to help isolate and strangle its economy.

    The is the true battle Russia faces. America will not directly confront Russia militarily. That would be stupid. But what defense does Russia have against these indirect forces? Nothing Russia can do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "...what defense does Russia have against these indirect forces? Nothing Russia can do."

    Not rocket science, really... Simply ignore the faux-"humanistic" screeching of the Western MSM propagandists and utterly DEVASTATE the home territory and population of anyone who directly tries anything against Russia or close allies. Demonstrate the balls to do this just once or twice; and see how behaviors start changing after that...
    , @Bill Jones
    Russia and China have been working for some time to circumvent the dollar based financial system.

    Increasingly the Remnimbi and Ruble are used in bilateral trade deals, both countries are reducing dollar holdings and buying real physical gold, not the paper crap that Americans are deluding themselves with.

    https://www.rt.com/business/418665-russia-banks-ready-shut-swift/
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/russias-central-bank-governor-touts-moscow-alternative-to-swift-transfer-system-as-protection-from-us-sanctions.html
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-14/russian-deputy-pm-our-banks-are-prepare-survive-without-swift
    https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/russian-swift-transfer-blockchain-technology-2019/

    https://www.gold.org/data/gold-reserves#
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. sarz says:

    It’s scary that America’s Commander-in-Chief is lost in space.

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-goes-on-nonsensical-rant-about-elton-john-organs-and-the-brain/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. One may note in passing that the last major war the US ‘won’ it had Russia fighting on the same side (as well as as others and an active resistance movement on its side) — and it can be well argued that it was USSR which won the war, not the US. At best it won half the war. What sort of military allies would the US have in war now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. FKA Max says: • Website
    @utu
    I keep saying that Martyanov is God sent for the MIC.

    At first glance, this is a very strange symbiotic relationship, but taking the bigger picture view of the situation one realizes that this arrangement seems to be mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Russia.

    Rising geo-political tensions mean more sales for the Western (and Russian) Military-industrial complex and simultaneously higher oil and gas prices for Russia and other suppliers (including the U.S.) – unless the Saudis/OPEC artificially keep the prices low – which Putin desperately depends on to pay Russians’ pensions, etc.

    And the Europeans and Chinese mostly foot the bill.

    Russia Sends Oil to China at Europe’s Expense as Trades Upended

    For the time being, the cuts to Russian crude flows aren’t showing up in prices — quite the opposite — thanks to maintenance work at refineries in Europe that turn the oil into fuels. Russia’s Urals crude has been trading near 4-year lows in Europe thanks to that maintenance, as well as an increase in crude flows from the U.S.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/russia-sends-oil-to-china-at-europe-s-expense-as-trades-upended

    Rising Oil Prices Buoy Russia’s Economy, Despite Sanctions

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/world/europe/russia-oil-economy.html

    Do you think he is consciously aware of his role in this game/theater/symbiosis?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Do you think he is consciously aware of his role in this game/theater/symbiosis?
     
    This is a good question. True believers are more effective. Cynical propagandists are easier to control. Human mind is very complex and can operate holding several mutually contradictory beliefs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Sergey Krieger
    "I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. "

    One does not bring knife to gun fight.

    "To understand that–ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide"
    I think these two statements are very closely related especially considering Russian land forces progress in all areas you have been describing for years in your blog.

    The biggest worry is nukes and American elites inadequacy and hysterics if they ever try and get mauled.

    The biggest worry is nukes and American elites inadequacy and hysterics if they ever try and get mauled.

    US is biased (always was) towards nuclear threshold precisely for the reasons of grossly inflated conventional capability, be it during Cold War (the REAL book about that is yet to be written) or today. Especially today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. FKA Max says: • Website
    @pogohere
    The Truth About the Russian Deaths in Syria

    3-2-18

    Hundreds of Russian soldiers are alleged to have died in U.S. airstrikes at the beginning of February. Reporting by DER SPIEGEL shows that events were likely very different.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html

    Thank you very much for the link.

    This part strikes me as a little odd:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.

    This could very well be the case:

    At the same time, however, a completely different version of events has gained traction — disseminated at first by Russian nationalists like Igor “Strelkov” Girkin, and then by others associated with the Wagner unit. According to those accounts, many more Russians had been killed in the battle — 100, 200, 300 or as many as 600. An entire unit, it was said, had been wiped out and the Kremlin wanted to cover it up. Recordings of alleged fighters even popped up apparently confirming these horrendous losses.
    [...]
    Relations between the Russian mercenaries in Syria — it is thought there are more than 2,000 of them — and the government in Moscow have been tense for some time. The fighters claim they are being used as cannon fodder, are being kept quiet and are poorly paid. For them to now accuse the Kremlin of trying to cover up the fact that Russians were killed — by the Americans, of all people — hits President Vladimir Putin’s government in a weak spot: its credibility.

    What do you make of this though? Do you think he just made it up?:

    Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

    “We don’t trust Russia anymore,” Hassan said. When a reporter asked about the irony of the Russian officer denying the attack and then asking for a truce, Hassan responded: “It’s funny that a superpower doesn’t know what their forces are conducting on the ground.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/

    Kurdistan 24 reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians. Click the CC button for English subtitles:

    Kurdistan24 coverage in Deir Al-Zor where Syrian regime attacked US-led SDF/YPG

    I might have very well fallen for Russian nationalist propaganda, but, as I said, these two sentences from Der Spiegel article strike me as a little odd: “But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.”

    Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have a “Nothing to see here, just move along.” vibe to them:

    Ahmad Ramadan, the journalist who founded the Euphrates Post and has since emigrated to Turkey, comes from Tabiya. One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. “If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it,” he said. “But it wasn’t. The Russians in Tabiya just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare:

    One of the most prominent and largest pro-government militias from the Aleppo area and part of the “Local Defence Forces” network, the Baqir Brigade mostly consists of tribesmen from the al-Baggara tribe that has traditionally supported the rule of the al-Assad family despite being mostly Sunni Muslim. hough the militia’s fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqir_Brigade

    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    For some reason I trust the Cossack sources more here, but I could be wrong: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    Thanks again, for providing the link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Typo: *Though* the militia’s fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.

    Euphrates Post presents exclusive footage from the region targeted by coalition aircraft on 7 February Against Assad forces and Russia troops

    https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2018/3-march-euphrates-post-presents-exclusive-footage-from-the

    US airstrike on pro-regime groups in DeirEzzor 07 Feb 2018

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxKnWmCcqQ

    I don't understand all the tribal, etc. alliances and rivalries in the region, but the Euphrates Post seems to be mainly anti-Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces


    Ibrahim Ali al Sulieman, reporter for Euphrates Post Foundation, from al Shadadi city in Hasaka governorate southern suburbs, arrested by Kurdish Self-management force (mainly Kurdish Democratic Union Party –PKK branch) from his residence in al Shadadi city and taken to unknown place on September 15, 2017.
     
    - http://sn4hr.org/sites/news/2017/09/15/euphrates-post-foundation-reporter-ibrahim-al-sulieman-arrested-kurdish-self-management-forces-al-shadadi-city-hasaka-governorate-september-15/

    This might be why Erdogan and the Turks let its founder, Ahmad Ramadan, immigrate to Turkey; to protect him from the Kurds, so he can continue to publish more anti-Kurdish news?

    Since the Turks are mostly concerned about the Kurds and not so much about Assad or ISIS, et al. directly, this could be a plausible explanation.
    , @FKA Max

    Kurdistan 24reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians.
     
    Kurdish news agencies not mentioning any direct Russian involvement in the attack could also be explained by the fact that the Russians are sometimes allied with the Kurds, and so they didn't want to anger or embarrass the Russians by reporting their involvement?

    Allies [...] Russia (sometimes)[58][59][60][61][62][63]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces

    58. "Activists and a rebel commander say Kurdish fighters have launched an attack in northern Syria under the cover of Russian airstrikes to try and capture a military air base held by insurgents". U.S. News & World Report. 10 February 2016.
    59. "Russia cooperates with PYD against ISIL". Today's Zaman. 9 October 2015. Archived from the original on 29 October 2015.
    60. "Russian support for PKK's Syrian arm PYD". Anadolu Agency.
    61. "Kurds attack Turkish-backed Syrian opposition forces with Russian help". i24 News. 28 November 2015.
    62. "YPG advances near Turkey's border". Rudaw Media Network. 28 November 2015. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015.
    63. Wood, L. Todd (8 February 2016). "Russia supporting Kurdish groups in Syria to Turkey's detriment". Washington Times.
    , @FKA Max
    I just posted this comment/(conspiracy) theory:

    I’m reaching here, and this is pure speculation on my part, but could it be that the Skripals were poisoned (March 4, 2018) by Putin, et al. to distract from the 200+ Russian mercenaries allegedly killed by U.S. airstrikes in Syria (February 7, 2018) http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2406731 before the Russian election (March 18, 2018)?

    The story was picking up steam by mid-Februray and even pro-Kremlin/Putin-loyal Cossacks were complaining about it: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2407120

    One of the widows wanted the Russian government to "avenge" the fallen:

    Russian Widow Says Husband Died In Syria ‘For No Reason’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na1F9TTd618
    , @FKA Max

    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare
    [...]
    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?
     

    I just found a NY Times report on the "Baqir Brigade"(BB):

    This Militia is Threatening American Troops in Syria | Visual Investigations

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsPmG7NZCmQ

    The New York Times
    Published on Jun 14, 2018
    There are roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria. Recently, a statement went out calling for direct attacks against them. Who sent it, and why?

    The BB seems to be coordinating with the Russians:


    In February, the Baqir Brigade acknowledged fatalities during an assault in coordination with Russian Wagner private military contractors against US positions near Deir Ezzor city. The brigade also reported that two sons of Sheikh Nawwaf al Bashir, a prominent al Baqqara tribal leader, were killed in airstrikes by the US-led coalition and vowed vengeance.
     
    This is the most interesting part of the article to me, which highlights, again, the complex web of alliances and rivalries in the region. The consensus seems to be that everyone wants the U.S. out of Syria, with the exception of the Kurds:

    The inclusion of Turkish forces in the statement is likely meant to boost support with Syrian Kurds rather than a signal of attacking Turkish troops, though that possibility should not be entirely dismissed. The Baqir Brigade’s members were the pro-Syrian regime fighters deployed to Afrin earlier to show support for Kurdish forces. While Tehran is unlikely to set its guns on Turkey, with which it and Russia are in a negotiations process, it has used the latest Turkish offensive into Afrin to improve relations with Syrian Kurds and try to peel them away from the US. It is clear, however, that the crux of the latest letter is directed toward the US.
     
    - https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/04/irgc-controlled-syrian-militia-declares-jihad-against-us-forces-in-syria.php

    All this leads me to the conclusion and reinforces my previous perception that the Der Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html might not be entirely reliable due to its heavy reliance on anti-American, pro-Assad/Iran/Russia BB sources, which likely dis-/misinformed the Der Spiegel reporters about the true extent of Russian involvement and causalities in the incident:


    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives. They said a total of more than 200 of the attackers died, including around 80 Syrian soldiers with the 4th Division, around 100 Iraqis and Afghans and around 70 tribal fighters, mostly with the al-Baqir militia.
    [...]
    One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't.

     

    Der Spiegel is also a center-left publication https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/ which are in general less critical of Russia and most of the time even sympathetic towards it (not a bad thing, at all), and it also has had business connections to pro-Russian media in the past, and therefore might not be considered completely unbiased and objective when it comes to Russia reporting:

    In this particular regard, Germany, namely the influential Hamburg magazine DER SPIEGEL, does play a rather dubious role: DER SPIEGEL lends its name and reputation to one of Moscow’s major publication projects in Ukraine - the infamous weekly “Der Spiegel - Profil”. This coloured high-circulation journal is edited by Mikhail Leontev, a well-known Russian anti-Western propagandist, former “persona non grata” in Ukraine, founding member of neo-fascist Alexander Dugin’s “Eurasia” Movement, etc. One could argue though that the primitiveness of “Der Spiegel – Profil’s” anti-Ukrainianism has the unintended effect of supporting pro-NATO forces in Ukraine (reminding the ambivalent repercussions of transmissions in Ukraine of the dubious television reports from Kyiv by Russian TV “journalists”). And, DER SPIEGEL, it appears, is assisting in this. Yet, this would be a strange way, indeed, for German journalists to contribute to further improvement of relations between Ukraine and the West.[5]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel-Profil#Controversy Archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110724193045/http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Umland%20Ukraine%20NATO%20and%20German%20Foreign%20Policies.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. utu says:
    @FKA Max
    At first glance, this is a very strange symbiotic relationship, but taking the bigger picture view of the situation one realizes that this arrangement seems to be mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Russia.

    Rising geo-political tensions mean more sales for the Western (and Russian) Military-industrial complex and simultaneously higher oil and gas prices for Russia and other suppliers (including the U.S.) - unless the Saudis/OPEC artificially keep the prices low - which Putin desperately depends on to pay Russians' pensions, etc.

    And the Europeans and Chinese mostly foot the bill.

    Russia Sends Oil to China at Europe's Expense as Trades Upended


    For the time being, the cuts to Russian crude flows aren’t showing up in prices -- quite the opposite -- thanks to maintenance work at refineries in Europe that turn the oil into fuels. Russia’s Urals crude has been trading near 4-year lows in Europe thanks to that maintenance, as well as an increase in crude flows from the U.S.
     
    - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/russia-sends-oil-to-china-at-europe-s-expense-as-trades-upended

    Rising Oil Prices Buoy Russia’s Economy, Despite Sanctions

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/world/europe/russia-oil-economy.html

    Do you think he is consciously aware of his role in this game/theater/symbiosis?

    Do you think he is consciously aware of his role in this game/theater/symbiosis?

    This is a good question. True believers are more effective. Cynical propagandists are easier to control. Human mind is very complex and can operate holding several mutually contradictory beliefs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    He seems to have a direct conflict of interest:

    ANDREI MARTYANOV is an expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR in 1963. He graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990. He took part in the events in the Caucasus which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In mid-1990s he moved to the United States where he currently works as Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group. He is a frequent blogger on the US Naval Institute Blog.
     
    - http://claritypress.com/Martyanov.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Thank you very much for the link.

    This part strikes me as a little odd:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.
     
    This could very well be the case:

    At the same time, however, a completely different version of events has gained traction -- disseminated at first by Russian nationalists like Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, and then by others associated with the Wagner unit. According to those accounts, many more Russians had been killed in the battle -- 100, 200, 300 or as many as 600. An entire unit, it was said, had been wiped out and the Kremlin wanted to cover it up. Recordings of alleged fighters even popped up apparently confirming these horrendous losses.
    [...]
    Relations between the Russian mercenaries in Syria -- it is thought there are more than 2,000 of them -- and the government in Moscow have been tense for some time. The fighters claim they are being used as cannon fodder, are being kept quiet and are poorly paid. For them to now accuse the Kremlin of trying to cover up the fact that Russians were killed -- by the Americans, of all people -- hits President Vladimir Putin's government in a weak spot: its credibility.
     
    What do you make of this though? Do you think he just made it up?:


    Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

    “We don’t trust Russia anymore,” Hassan said. When a reporter asked about the irony of the Russian officer denying the attack and then asking for a truce, Hassan responded: “It’s funny that a superpower doesn’t know what their forces are conducting on the ground.”
     
    - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/

    Kurdistan 24 reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians. Click the CC button for English subtitles:

    Kurdistan24 coverage in Deir Al-Zor where Syrian regime attacked US-led SDF/YPG


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrseDnoLGCo

    I might have very well fallen for Russian nationalist propaganda, but, as I said, these two sentences from Der Spiegel article strike me as a little odd: "But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives."

    Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have a "Nothing to see here, just move along." vibe to them:

    Ahmad Ramadan, the journalist who founded the Euphrates Post and has since emigrated to Turkey, comes from Tabiya. One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't. The Russians in Tabiya just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
     
    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare:

    One of the most prominent and largest pro-government militias from the Aleppo area and part of the "Local Defence Forces" network, the Baqir Brigade mostly consists of tribesmen from the al-Baggara tribe that has traditionally supported the rule of the al-Assad family despite being mostly Sunni Muslim. hough the militia's fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqir_Brigade

    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    For some reason I trust the Cossack sources more here, but I could be wrong: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    Thanks again, for providing the link.

    Typo: *Though* the militia’s fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.

    Euphrates Post presents exclusive footage from the region targeted by coalition aircraft on 7 February Against Assad forces and Russia troops

    https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2018/3-march-euphrates-post-presents-exclusive-footage-from-the

    US airstrike on pro-regime groups in DeirEzzor 07 Feb 2018

    I don’t understand all the tribal, etc. alliances and rivalries in the region, but the Euphrates Post seems to be mainly anti-Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces

    Ibrahim Ali al Sulieman, reporter for Euphrates Post Foundation, from al Shadadi city in Hasaka governorate southern suburbs, arrested by Kurdish Self-management force (mainly Kurdish Democratic Union Party –PKK branch) from his residence in al Shadadi city and taken to unknown place on September 15, 2017.

    http://sn4hr.org/sites/news/2017/09/15/euphrates-post-foundation-reporter-ibrahim-al-sulieman-arrested-kurdish-self-management-forces-al-shadadi-city-hasaka-governorate-september-15/

    This might be why Erdogan and the Turks let its founder, Ahmad Ramadan, immigrate to Turkey; to protect him from the Kurds, so he can continue to publish more anti-Kurdish news?

    Since the Turks are mostly concerned about the Kurds and not so much about Assad or ISIS, et al. directly, this could be a plausible explanation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Thank you very much for the link.

    This part strikes me as a little odd:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.
     
    This could very well be the case:

    At the same time, however, a completely different version of events has gained traction -- disseminated at first by Russian nationalists like Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, and then by others associated with the Wagner unit. According to those accounts, many more Russians had been killed in the battle -- 100, 200, 300 or as many as 600. An entire unit, it was said, had been wiped out and the Kremlin wanted to cover it up. Recordings of alleged fighters even popped up apparently confirming these horrendous losses.
    [...]
    Relations between the Russian mercenaries in Syria -- it is thought there are more than 2,000 of them -- and the government in Moscow have been tense for some time. The fighters claim they are being used as cannon fodder, are being kept quiet and are poorly paid. For them to now accuse the Kremlin of trying to cover up the fact that Russians were killed -- by the Americans, of all people -- hits President Vladimir Putin's government in a weak spot: its credibility.
     
    What do you make of this though? Do you think he just made it up?:


    Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

    “We don’t trust Russia anymore,” Hassan said. When a reporter asked about the irony of the Russian officer denying the attack and then asking for a truce, Hassan responded: “It’s funny that a superpower doesn’t know what their forces are conducting on the ground.”
     
    - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/

    Kurdistan 24 reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians. Click the CC button for English subtitles:

    Kurdistan24 coverage in Deir Al-Zor where Syrian regime attacked US-led SDF/YPG


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrseDnoLGCo

    I might have very well fallen for Russian nationalist propaganda, but, as I said, these two sentences from Der Spiegel article strike me as a little odd: "But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives."

    Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have a "Nothing to see here, just move along." vibe to them:

    Ahmad Ramadan, the journalist who founded the Euphrates Post and has since emigrated to Turkey, comes from Tabiya. One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't. The Russians in Tabiya just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
     
    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare:

    One of the most prominent and largest pro-government militias from the Aleppo area and part of the "Local Defence Forces" network, the Baqir Brigade mostly consists of tribesmen from the al-Baggara tribe that has traditionally supported the rule of the al-Assad family despite being mostly Sunni Muslim. hough the militia's fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqir_Brigade

    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    For some reason I trust the Cossack sources more here, but I could be wrong: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    Thanks again, for providing the link.

    Kurdistan 24reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians.

    Kurdish news agencies not mentioning any direct Russian involvement in the attack could also be explained by the fact that the Russians are sometimes allied with the Kurds, and so they didn’t want to anger or embarrass the Russians by reporting their involvement?

    Allies [...] Russia (sometimes)[58][59][60][61][62][63]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces

    58. “Activists and a rebel commander say Kurdish fighters have launched an attack in northern Syria under the cover of Russian airstrikes to try and capture a military air base held by insurgents”. U.S. News & World Report. 10 February 2016.
    59. “Russia cooperates with PYD against ISIL”. Today’s Zaman. 9 October 2015. Archived from the original on 29 October 2015.
    60. “Russian support for PKK’s Syrian arm PYD”. Anadolu Agency.
    61. “Kurds attack Turkish-backed Syrian opposition forces with Russian help”. i24 News. 28 November 2015.
    62. “YPG advances near Turkey’s border”. Rudaw Media Network. 28 November 2015. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015.
    63. Wood, L. Todd (8 February 2016). “Russia supporting Kurdish groups in Syria to Turkey’s detriment”. Washington Times.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. So much Russian chest-puffing. The Mongols. The French. The Crimean War. Tsushima. Tannenberg. The Winter War ( you remember those pesky Finns?). Mars. Afghanistan. The Chechens. I could go on, but my point is that no one remains undefeated. Social engineering is a bigger threat to the American military than you could ever be. I weep for my country when I see what we have been reduced to. Oh, and good luck in the World Cup. I’m pulling for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    So much Russian chest-puffing. The Mongols. The French. The Crimean War. Tsushima. Tannenberg. The Winter War ( you remember those pesky Finns?). Mars. Afghanistan. The Chechens.
     
    Technically speaking 4 of these conflicts resulted in a Russian victory, and wtf does "Mars" mean?
    , @prusmc
    What do the Russians and more so the Chinese have to worry about? SOCIAL ENGINEERING and the Social Justice Warriors are emasculating the spirit and competence of the US military. As someone commented note the weeping of Sailors captured by Iran, add in the at sea collisions of the Fitzpatrick and McCain and the all but exoneration of Bergdahl and you get dots to connect. Plenty more hidden and some noted in this thread.

    Why should an enemy prepare to attack or even defend against a country internally committing suicide?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. FKA Max says: • Website
    @utu

    Do you think he is consciously aware of his role in this game/theater/symbiosis?
     
    This is a good question. True believers are more effective. Cynical propagandists are easier to control. Human mind is very complex and can operate holding several mutually contradictory beliefs.

    He seems to have a direct conflict of interest:

    ANDREI MARTYANOV is an expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR in 1963. He graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990. He took part in the events in the Caucasus which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In mid-1990s he moved to the United States where he currently works as Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group. He is a frequent blogger on the US Naval Institute Blog.

    http://claritypress.com/Martyanov.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia's propaganda machine loves him. Russia's propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin's Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    One question: If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia's weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    So because of this configuration of the beneficiaries Martyanov will get away with anything. Only malcontents like you or I question it but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories. But I am sure his stories can be easily challenged. I think that most of the specs he is hailing exist only on paper and many of the weapons he describes also exist on paper or at best in prototype form only and has never been tested in real hostile environment. For instance SS-300 or SS-400 were never challenged with real countermeasures. They never shot down a single real enemy aircraft or missile. At least American MIM-104 Patriot were deployed in real battle condition in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia and managed to shot down something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. utu says:
    @FKA Max
    He seems to have a direct conflict of interest:

    ANDREI MARTYANOV is an expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR in 1963. He graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990. He took part in the events in the Caucasus which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In mid-1990s he moved to the United States where he currently works as Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group. He is a frequent blogger on the US Naval Institute Blog.
     
    - http://claritypress.com/Martyanov.html

    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia’s propaganda machine loves him. Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin’s Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    One question: If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia’s weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    So because of this configuration of the beneficiaries Martyanov will get away with anything. Only malcontents like you or I question it but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories. But I am sure his stories can be easily challenged. I think that most of the specs he is hailing exist only on paper and many of the weapons he describes also exist on paper or at best in prototype form only and has never been tested in real hostile environment. For instance SS-300 or SS-400 were never challenged with real countermeasures. They never shot down a single real enemy aircraft or missile. At least American MIM-104 Patriot were deployed in real battle condition in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia and managed to shot down something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Great comment, utu.

    Particularly this part:


    Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin’s Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.
     

    I believe the blurb/bio is truthful, but like you stated this raises several issues/questions:

    If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia’s weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?
     
    , @James Brown
    Agree completely with what you wrote but I'd suggest to you that you're wrong when you say that "Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners.".

    Not always. RT, Sputnik and other propaganda outlets are "directed" at western public and they also give a platform to some western "useful idiots". Conquer and divide is also playedd by the Russia's propaganda outlets.

    "(...)but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories."

    For God's sake, you don't need to know "enough technical issues to challenge his stories.".

    One knows that is false and that is enough. They're selling us "cold war 2".
    If you are not completely stupid you will remember that you already saw that movie.

    What most people ignore -and FKA MAX(48) put it very well- so let me just repeat what he said because it's worth repeating: " but taking the bigger picture view of the situation one realizes that this arrangement seems to be mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Russia."

    I will just add not only for the U.S. and Russia but for all other minor players also: China, GB,France, Turkey, Israel of course, even Sweden... etc...
    , @Begemot

    Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.
     
    Substitute 'Russia' with 'America' and 'authoritarian' with 'democratic' (or is that 'oligarchic'?) and you have an accurate description of the US of A.

    Glass houses.
    , @Felix Keverich

    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia’s propaganda machine loves him.
     
    lol You are so conspiratorial! Martyanov is just an old sovok, driven by a sense of nostalgia. He emotionally connects to his homeland in this fashion. I really doubt that "Russia’s propaganda machine" is even aware of his existence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. BLL says:
    @FKA Max
    These Russian mercenaries, who had first-hand experiences with/of U.S. military capabilities, seem to have a different opinion. Video sime-stamped to 9 min 55 sec:

    200 Russians Were Killed by US Airstrikes in Syria. Details, Recorded Radio Communications.

    https://youtu.be/XaeDMOWkCwU?t=9m55s

    Exclusive: Russian mercenaries in Syria, Putin's secret army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eka_Jn9K_HU

    Exclusive: Russia's Secret Soldiers Fighting In Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvW3OBJDVS8

    Video time-stamped to 4 min 55 sec:

    James Mattis I ordered annihilation of the Russian mercenaries

    https://youtu.be/GO7WP7Cbz3E?t=4m55s

    http://eaworldview.com/2018/03/200-russians-killed-by-us-airstrikes-in-syria-maybe-not/

    Try this URL for what most likely really happened, containing exact combatants, places, times and results as well as the hyped ’200′ + claim. There were ‘some’ of those mercenaries there, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and apparently none actually participated in the reported fighting. There is also a very plausible explanation why the numbers were ‘purposely’ exaggerated – by both sides, very ironically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Thank you very much for the link.

    I replied to the Der Spiegel coverage of the incident here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2406731

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Thank you very much for the link.

    This part strikes me as a little odd:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.
     
    This could very well be the case:

    At the same time, however, a completely different version of events has gained traction -- disseminated at first by Russian nationalists like Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, and then by others associated with the Wagner unit. According to those accounts, many more Russians had been killed in the battle -- 100, 200, 300 or as many as 600. An entire unit, it was said, had been wiped out and the Kremlin wanted to cover it up. Recordings of alleged fighters even popped up apparently confirming these horrendous losses.
    [...]
    Relations between the Russian mercenaries in Syria -- it is thought there are more than 2,000 of them -- and the government in Moscow have been tense for some time. The fighters claim they are being used as cannon fodder, are being kept quiet and are poorly paid. For them to now accuse the Kremlin of trying to cover up the fact that Russians were killed -- by the Americans, of all people -- hits President Vladimir Putin's government in a weak spot: its credibility.
     
    What do you make of this though? Do you think he just made it up?:


    Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

    “We don’t trust Russia anymore,” Hassan said. When a reporter asked about the irony of the Russian officer denying the attack and then asking for a truce, Hassan responded: “It’s funny that a superpower doesn’t know what their forces are conducting on the ground.”
     
    - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/

    Kurdistan 24 reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians. Click the CC button for English subtitles:

    Kurdistan24 coverage in Deir Al-Zor where Syrian regime attacked US-led SDF/YPG


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrseDnoLGCo

    I might have very well fallen for Russian nationalist propaganda, but, as I said, these two sentences from Der Spiegel article strike me as a little odd: "But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives."

    Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have a "Nothing to see here, just move along." vibe to them:

    Ahmad Ramadan, the journalist who founded the Euphrates Post and has since emigrated to Turkey, comes from Tabiya. One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't. The Russians in Tabiya just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
     
    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare:

    One of the most prominent and largest pro-government militias from the Aleppo area and part of the "Local Defence Forces" network, the Baqir Brigade mostly consists of tribesmen from the al-Baggara tribe that has traditionally supported the rule of the al-Assad family despite being mostly Sunni Muslim. hough the militia's fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqir_Brigade

    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    For some reason I trust the Cossack sources more here, but I could be wrong: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    Thanks again, for providing the link.

    I just posted this comment/(conspiracy) theory:

    I’m reaching here, and this is pure speculation on my part, but could it be that the Skripals were poisoned (March 4, 2018) by Putin, et al. to distract from the 200+ Russian mercenaries allegedly killed by U.S. airstrikes in Syria (February 7, 2018) http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2406731 before the Russian election (March 18, 2018)?

    The story was picking up steam by mid-Februray and even pro-Kremlin/Putin-loyal Cossacks were complaining about it: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/#comment-2407120

    One of the widows wanted the Russian government to “avenge” the fallen:

    Russian Widow Says Husband Died In Syria ‘For No Reason’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Parbes says:
    @Anonymous
    I'm not saying that I disagree with Andrei or The Saker here as I know the US Military has degraded in capability. But I don't think either truly understands the transition America has undertaken. What if America has fallen behind militarily but it doesn't matter?

    America, which started as a British colony, has adopted the Anglo force structure which is not based on having the strongest military. It is based on controlling the money supply, controlling the media, and playing divide and conquer.

    Under the Anglo model, you don't need to have the strongest military since America itself will not be doing the heavy fighting. The ultimate wet dream would have seen China and Russia fight it out to see both countries devastated. But in lieu of that we might see other countries take on Russia instead. Ukraine, Syria, some other ME country, Nato take your pick.

    Meanwhile the Anglo Model will see the media savage Russia. This will allow more sanctions on Russia to help isolate and strangle its economy.

    The is the true battle Russia faces. America will not directly confront Russia militarily. That would be stupid. But what defense does Russia have against these indirect forces? Nothing Russia can do.

    “…what defense does Russia have against these indirect forces? Nothing Russia can do.”

    Not rocket science, really… Simply ignore the faux-”humanistic” screeching of the Western MSM propagandists and utterly DEVASTATE the home territory and population of anyone who directly tries anything against Russia or close allies. Demonstrate the balls to do this just once or twice; and see how behaviors start changing after that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. FKA Max says: • Website
    @BLL
    http://eaworldview.com/2018/03/200-russians-killed-by-us-airstrikes-in-syria-maybe-not/

    Try this URL for what most likely really happened, containing exact combatants, places, times and results as well as the hyped '200' + claim. There were 'some' of those mercenaries there, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and apparently none actually participated in the reported fighting. There is also a very plausible explanation why the numbers were 'purposely' exaggerated – by both sides, very ironically.

    Thank you very much for the link.

    I replied to the Der Spiegel coverage of the incident here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2406731

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. FKA Max says: • Website
    @utu
    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia's propaganda machine loves him. Russia's propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin's Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    One question: If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia's weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    So because of this configuration of the beneficiaries Martyanov will get away with anything. Only malcontents like you or I question it but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories. But I am sure his stories can be easily challenged. I think that most of the specs he is hailing exist only on paper and many of the weapons he describes also exist on paper or at best in prototype form only and has never been tested in real hostile environment. For instance SS-300 or SS-400 were never challenged with real countermeasures. They never shot down a single real enemy aircraft or missile. At least American MIM-104 Patriot were deployed in real battle condition in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia and managed to shot down something.

    Great comment, utu.

    Particularly this part:

    Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin’s Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    I believe the blurb/bio is truthful, but like you stated this raises several issues/questions:

    If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia’s weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Don’t see how his living in the USA would prevent him from staying up to date and in the know.

    Why would martyanov be unable to get information by visiting Russia, or by talking on the phone to people in Russia?

    And how do we know that he hasn’t been back in Russia many times during that period?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. myself says:
    @The Alarmist
    The toys are interesting, the battles are interesting, but the human element is the real story, and human nature rarely changes.

    After WW2, many Americans pictured themselves as the guarantor and leader of the Free World, imposing a so-called Pax Americana against the barbarian others. Having assumed that role in the 1940s and '50s, we assumed somewhere in the 1990s that we were the same Romans who had built the empire by the mid 2nd century, but we, like the Romans, had moved on as a people to something equivalent to the 5th century, with 9/11 being the sacking of our capital. We survived, but in a bit of a different state.

    Our elites now parade around like the Byzantine Romans of the 7th century, with Trump being perhaps our Emperor Heracles, bringing us to new greatness, but that is but imitation of our former greatness. We're bumping up against our own versions of the Persians in the double form of Russia and China, meanwhile Islam is nipping at us in the east, and we've abandoned our hinterlands in the west to being overrun by the Latin America equivalents of the Lombards, Franks, Avars, Slavs, and Bulgars.

    The US might or might not be killing Russians in Syria, but its lesser cities and hinterlands are already overrun by hostile invaders, and its elites are fleeing to safety in gated communities and pumping up military and police forces to keep them safe while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. This is not a viable long-term strategy, but it is good for a couple generations of the elites.

    Broadly speaking, those are fine historical analogues.

    Extending the model further, you have to wonder WHEN, not if, the equivalent of the Hunnic nomad horde will explode out of the Eastern steppes, to bring devastation and utter ruin to the late classical world.

    We are at the end game, though the process may still take, as pointed out, another generation or so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Russian poet Alexander Blok wrote poem The Scythians more than 100 years ago. It is amazingly relevant today. Here is an excerpt from one of the translations:

    We shall abandon Europe and her charm.
    We shall resort to Scythian craft and guile.
    Swift to the woods and forests we shall swarm,
    And then look back, and smile our slit-eyed smile.

    Away to the Urals, all! Quick, leave the land,
    And clear the field for trial by blood and sword,
    Where steel machines that have no soul must stand
    And face the fury of the Mongol horde.

    But we ourselves, henceforth, we shall not serve
    As henchmen holding up the trusty shield.
    We'll keep our distance and, slit-eyed, observe
    The deadly conflict raging on the field.

    We shall not stir, even though the frenzied Huns
    Plunder the corpses of the slain in battle, drive
    Their cattle into shrines, burn cities down,
    And roast their white-skinned fellow men alive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Wally says:
    @WorkingClass
    Why are the Neocons still breathing?

    Who ARE the “Neo-Cons?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    I suppose they can be anyone you want them to be, Wally. You can be one if you want to. It's your world.

    Oh, wait...that was a rhetorical question. Sorry. My bad.

    Jews!

    Jews! is the answer you were looking for. What did I win? Please tell me it was your undying love.

    https://youtu.be/JIOqpWPPzsg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Biff says:

    If the peasants of Vietnam can send the War Machine packing Russia should have no problem. Just seal off America’s borders, and make it the planet’s ghetto.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @utu
    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia's propaganda machine loves him. Russia's propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin's Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    One question: If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia's weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    So because of this configuration of the beneficiaries Martyanov will get away with anything. Only malcontents like you or I question it but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories. But I am sure his stories can be easily challenged. I think that most of the specs he is hailing exist only on paper and many of the weapons he describes also exist on paper or at best in prototype form only and has never been tested in real hostile environment. For instance SS-300 or SS-400 were never challenged with real countermeasures. They never shot down a single real enemy aircraft or missile. At least American MIM-104 Patriot were deployed in real battle condition in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia and managed to shot down something.

    Agree completely with what you wrote but I’d suggest to you that you’re wrong when you say that “Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners.”.

    Not always. RT, Sputnik and other propaganda outlets are “directed” at western public and they also give a platform to some western “useful idiots”. Conquer and divide is also playedd by the Russia’s propaganda outlets.

    “(…)but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories.”

    For God’s sake, you don’t need to know “enough technical issues to challenge his stories.”.

    One knows that is false and that is enough. They’re selling us “cold war 2″.
    If you are not completely stupid you will remember that you already saw that movie.

    What most people ignore -and FKA MAX(48) put it very well- so let me just repeat what he said because it’s worth repeating: ” but taking the bigger picture view of the situation one realizes that this arrangement seems to be mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Russia.”

    I will just add not only for the U.S. and Russia but for all other minor players also: China, GB,France, Turkey, Israel of course, even Sweden… etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined. However, there are nuances. For example, RT spends less in a year than CNN or BBC spends in a day. Simple reason is that it’s a lot cheaper to say that two times two equals four than “prove” that two times two equals five and a half.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Wally says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.
     
    First week of Ardennes in 1944 with Gerow's V Corps (in general, Hodges' 1st Army) on the Northern Shoulder facing Dietrich's Panzer Army. First days were pretty nasty.

    “Nasty”, but not as Mulegino described, which was:

    “Not to disparage the courageous fighting men of our nation, but precisely when- in the current and last century- have our American forces fought with their backs to the wall and against overwhelming air and naval superiority?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Begemot says:
    @utu
    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia's propaganda machine loves him. Russia's propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin's Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    One question: If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia's weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    So because of this configuration of the beneficiaries Martyanov will get away with anything. Only malcontents like you or I question it but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories. But I am sure his stories can be easily challenged. I think that most of the specs he is hailing exist only on paper and many of the weapons he describes also exist on paper or at best in prototype form only and has never been tested in real hostile environment. For instance SS-300 or SS-400 were never challenged with real countermeasures. They never shot down a single real enemy aircraft or missile. At least American MIM-104 Patriot were deployed in real battle condition in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia and managed to shot down something.

    Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    Substitute ‘Russia’ with ‘America’ and ‘authoritarian’ with ‘democratic’ (or is that ‘oligarchic’?) and you have an accurate description of the US of A.

    Glass houses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. ” how the US rewriting of the history of WWII resulted in a complete misunderstanding, especially at the top political levels, of the nature of modern warfare ”

    How ‘rewriting’ ?
    WWII mainstream history is the victor’s history.
    Those that write or wrote other history ended in poverty, or were neglected.

    As to present USA military power, there are many indications that USA technology is behind Russian and Chinese technology.
    I wonder if the USA educational system is to blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...As to present USA military power, there are many indications that USA technology is behind Russian and Chinese technology.

    I wonder if the USA educational system is to blame...'
     

    Good question...there are many problems with US higher education today, especially in the technical fields [hard sciences]...

    Russia, with half the US population, graduates twice as many engineers...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/cxyphltp9/20150609_Engineering_Fo.jpg


    Even Iran, with a quarter of US population graduates as many engineers as the US...this is a recipe for precipitous national decline in a modern world where technical capability is the key not only to national defense but also industrial and economic progress...

    How much does a STEM education cost in the US [about $200,000 for undergrad degree] and who can afford that...?

    Here is a snapshot of US household wealth, in quintiles...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/boavay20d/Census_Quintiles.jpg


    Realistically it is only the top 20 percent of families that can afford this...other factors are that technical professions are valued little in a society that glorifies vanity and money...hence young people whose families can afford to educate them choose to go into professions like business or law and not science or engineering...

    A book could be written on this decline in technical capability of the US and how it is a systemic problem at the core of the US 'civilizational' model...

    Many children from poor working families [think of the bottom 60 percent of the graph above] who are gifted and motivated with a natural interest in math and science...will never get the opportunity to reach their potential in America...

    A few years ago a great film was made about the true story of Homer Hickam, who grew up in a coal mining family in West Virginia of the late 1950s, and managed, against all odds, to fulfill his dream and become a Nasa scientist...October Sky...

    Unfortunately, these stories are so rare that they exist mainly in the world of the silver screen...

    This is especially true of minority children...despite the nonsense about 'black IQ' we see everywhere...the fact of the matter is that there are many gifted black children with mathematical aptitudes far above average...[this type of aptitude is not meaningfully measured in the psycho-quackery that is IQ testing]...

    Here is a list of African-American astronauts...

    It is of course a short one, and something of a miracle that these admirable individuals even achieved what they did...but the list of what 'might have been' is a far longer and tragic one...

    Look at the education achievements of Cuba...from banana republic to world leader...the country spends 10 percent of GNP on education...twice that of the US...very few gifted children slip through the cracks in such a system...but this cannot come about in a system where national priorities do not even consider the issue of developing human potential...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @utu

    There are two main reasons for this: first, unlike their US counterparts, Russian weapons are designed to kill, not to make money and, second, Russians understand warfare because they understand what war really is.
     
    American MIC loves this book. Every congressman and lobbyist in the DC area will get a copy. MIC needs to make them aware and scare them of the kill gap. American weapons unlike the Russian ones do not kill. The next frontier for MIC: The Kill Gap. Americans weapons do not kill. They rather cuddle.

    Anyway, good for Martyanov. Will have some money coming.

    Will there be a Kennedy ready to take advantage of the *kill gap” in 2020?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Banger
    Just a small point. All major corporate and national powers troll the internet as a matter of routine. I worked for a big-time Washington PR firm when trolling was just getting started big-time and saw how it worked. Anyone with money can do it.

    I wonder whether there are already professional trolling/PR organizations using Artificial Intelligence to produce draft comments to clog up sites they don’t like. With one human editor/commenter maybe half a dozen sites could be stuffed around. Only guessing of course but maybe j2 or some other tech wizard would know what’s possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Andrei Martyanov

    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.
     
    First week of Ardennes in 1944 with Gerow's V Corps (in general, Hodges' 1st Army) on the Northern Shoulder facing Dietrich's Panzer Army. First days were pretty nasty.

    Bastogne. Kasserine Pass (the entire War of Succession considered from the South) etc. “Mere” battles, but offer insights into US “back-against-the-wall” actions.
    It’s not a question that US service men can not fight – they can. However, as the early months of Korea show, the US style of war contains an inherent…brittleness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Kasserine Pass
     
    Please. This is not even serious discussion.
    , @myself

    However, as the early months of Korea show, the US style of war contains an inherent…brittleness.
     
    An observation from a Chinese commander, regarding his American opponents during the Korean War:

    "Americans are very good at killing their enemies - this, we admire. But they are also afraid to die - this, we do not".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @myself

    American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself.
     

    It’s been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries.
     
    That is simply the Anglo-Saxon tradition, for a few centuries.

    Secure from invasion by strong enemies, Britain and the United States have most often specialized in fielding ultra-elite expeditionary forces - small armies, honed to a razor's edge, superbly equipped, and configured for quick surgical conflicts against vulnerable and weak opponents.

    For Britain, a good example would be the regular British Army on the eve of World War I, a force of some 6 or 7 Infantry Divisions and some Cavalry Brigades. It was an elite force of long-service professionals, suitable for distant deployment and fighting in the British Empire's far-flung possessions. And it was TINY.

    For the United States, the example would be the "State Department troops", aka the U.S. Marine Corps, pre-World War 2. Same deal as with the British - elite veteran soldiers, rapidly deployable, meant to fight numerous but badly-outclassed opponents. Also a quite small force.


    When called upon to fight grueling, bloody conventional wars against peer opponents, neither Britain nor the United States have been entirely in their element, though both do an adequate enough job. Good enough to win, but at considerable cost.

    Anglo-Saxons do not do lighting wars against peer enemies, we/they grind them down using allies (better termed "patsies") to do the bleeding for us.

    Large naval wars are no problem, but large LAND WARS? - No, just . . . NO.

    Some truth in what you say. How many wars on the continent in the 1700-1800′s were sustained on British
    gold ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Andrei Martyanov

    The only time I can think of was the first year or so in the Pacific theater of WW2, up through the end of the battle for Guadalcanal.
     
    First week of Ardennes in 1944 with Gerow's V Corps (in general, Hodges' 1st Army) on the Northern Shoulder facing Dietrich's Panzer Army. First days were pretty nasty.

    The USA was driven out of the Philippines.
    After Midway, where the Japanese carriers were sunk, it was clear who would win the Pacific war.
    Ardennes 1944, the allies had complete air superiority.
    Korea was, I think, the only war where the USA was fighting desperately, then there was Vietnam, the war the USA lost against people dragging supplies on bicycles through the jungle.
    The determination to win wars against oppressors was shown by Dien Bien Phu, hope the spelling is right.
    France considered it impossible that heavy artillery was dragged up the mountains around the airfield.
    When the artillery was in position, and began firing down, the Frenchman who had thought out the plan for a base there committed suicide.
    In my opinion the USA never fought a war against an equal military force.
    Germans in bunkers in the Siegfried line, early 1945, were unable to fire from these bunkers, the USA concentrated so much fire continuously on the bunkers that they could not fire a shot.
    The Germans had never anticipated such a use of ammo.
    This covering fire made it possible to demolish the bunkers.
    It was more or less the same with USA daylight bombing over Germany, the Flying Fortresses were propaganda, they could just bomb when accompanied by long range fighters with drop tanks.
    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.

    That is a feature and not a bug. That was America's strategy for winning the war with the least amount of casualties. We didn't have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @K.O.Pectate
    So much Russian chest-puffing. The Mongols. The French. The Crimean War. Tsushima. Tannenberg. The Winter War ( you remember those pesky Finns?). Mars. Afghanistan. The Chechens. I could go on, but my point is that no one remains undefeated. Social engineering is a bigger threat to the American military than you could ever be. I weep for my country when I see what we have been reduced to. Oh, and good luck in the World Cup. I'm pulling for you.

    So much Russian chest-puffing. The Mongols. The French. The Crimean War. Tsushima. Tannenberg. The Winter War ( you remember those pesky Finns?). Mars. Afghanistan. The Chechens.

    Technically speaking 4 of these conflicts resulted in a Russian victory, and wtf does “Mars” mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @K.O. Pectate
    Technically speaking? I believe the subject was defeat. Kalka River. 1382 Siege of Moscow. The Crimean War, although technically a stalemate, denied the Russians a Black Sea port (if memory serves) Operation Mars was a 1942 Stalingrad counteroffensive that cost the Soviets 500,000 casualties , as opposed to 40,000 German. I've been studying history ( every) since 1961. Yours is a much older country than mine, and believe me, I carry no water for our current military. My youngest son left the US Army after 5 1/2 years because of the feminization of the military. Exist long enough, and defeat is inevitable. And, sorry for that World Cup thing. I'm rooting for the Croats from here on. You gentlemen ( I assume that you are Russian) gave it your best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @utu
    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia's propaganda machine loves him. Russia's propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin's Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.

    One question: If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia's weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?

    So because of this configuration of the beneficiaries Martyanov will get away with anything. Only malcontents like you or I question it but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories. But I am sure his stories can be easily challenged. I think that most of the specs he is hailing exist only on paper and many of the weapons he describes also exist on paper or at best in prototype form only and has never been tested in real hostile environment. For instance SS-300 or SS-400 were never challenged with real countermeasures. They never shot down a single real enemy aircraft or missile. At least American MIM-104 Patriot were deployed in real battle condition in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia and managed to shot down something.

    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia’s propaganda machine loves him.

    lol You are so conspiratorial! Martyanov is just an old sovok, driven by a sense of nostalgia. He emotionally connects to his homeland in this fashion. I really doubt that “Russia’s propaganda machine” is even aware of his existence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    You are shooting the messenger, like many others here.

    Whether the American MIC loves Martyanov because he can be used to increase sales, or hates him because he calls out their corruption and failures is beside the point. Martyanov's thesis is important and must be confronted, not dismissed because the wrong people might exploit it or because the author may be a "sovok". (How is being a "sovok" so very different from waxing nostalgic about "the greatest generation" anyway?)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Sergey Krieger
    "I do, however, take a keen interest in a development of missile weaponry and its carriers. "

    One does not bring knife to gun fight.

    "To understand that–ask yourself a question: how the conventional war against Russia will look like, if someone really wants to commit suicide"
    I think these two statements are very closely related especially considering Russian land forces progress in all areas you have been describing for years in your blog.

    The biggest worry is nukes and American elites inadequacy and hysterics if they ever try and get mauled.

    If you want to see how a war against Russia would go look at what happened to Sadam’s 5000 tanks. The Russian have 20 000. The video game would be even more fun

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Hey, go look up what happened to Georgian army in 2008: they had US-made weapons and the Israeli military doctrine.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Saddam lost because the French, who had constructed Saddam's air defence system, revealed to the USA how it functioned
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Where have you been all this time? This place was sorely missing you deep knowledge and analytical skills. And yes, if shit hits the fan please do not hesitate to enlist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Leander Starr
    If you want to see how a war against Russia would go look at what happened to Sadam's 5000 tanks. The Russian have 20 000. The video game would be even more fun

    Hey, go look up what happened to Georgian army in 2008: they had US-made weapons and the Israeli military doctrine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico

    they had US-made weapons
     
    Did they? Which ones?

    The Georgians were completely outnumbered and outflanked. Their loss was an obvious predictable outcome. The reasons for the 2008 war are one thing. The reasons why the Georgians were trounced so quickly are something else. Russian military brilliance or performance isn't provided as one by anybody but Russian propagandists.

    Then you have Russian military performance in Afghanistan and twice in Chechnya. Not good. The Crimea and Syria are the only other two examples of Russian military prowess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Clearly, the purpose of Martyanov’s book is to convince Americans that their military forces could not beat the forces of the Russian Federation and can therefore be classified as pro-Putin propaganda. Interestingly, the publication of the book on the eve of Trump’s meeting with Putin makes that meeting look even more like a capitulation that it already does and will therefore re-invigorate Russiagate, which, in its turn damages Trump’s chances of avoiding impeachment and Putin’s chances of getting anything useful out of the summit. It’s hard to imagine that the publishers (and the author of this article!) didn’t realise that. Who’s on who’s side?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ValmMond

    Who’s on who’s side?
     
    Martyanov and the Saker might well be undercover Clinton operatives. We don't know. What's clear is that grammar and you are on opposite sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @FKA Max
    These Russian mercenaries, who had first-hand experiences with/of U.S. military capabilities, seem to have a different opinion. Video sime-stamped to 9 min 55 sec:

    200 Russians Were Killed by US Airstrikes in Syria. Details, Recorded Radio Communications.

    https://youtu.be/XaeDMOWkCwU?t=9m55s

    Exclusive: Russian mercenaries in Syria, Putin's secret army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eka_Jn9K_HU

    Exclusive: Russia's Secret Soldiers Fighting In Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvW3OBJDVS8

    Video time-stamped to 4 min 55 sec:

    James Mattis I ordered annihilation of the Russian mercenaries

    https://youtu.be/GO7WP7Cbz3E?t=4m55s

    Wow! So America’s trillion dollar military actually defeated 200 mercenaries? Holy cow, that’s impressive. USA! USA!

    Too bad it can’t stop a horde of mesoamerican savages from invading America..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Mike P says:
    @Felix Keverich

    What do you think is true in this blurb? Can you verify at least one thing form it? In cases like this one you can only go by the cui bono rule. Clearly the MIC loves him. They like to hear about the kill gap. Every congressman will get a complimentary copy of Martyanov book for the MIC lobby. Good for Martyanov. He is making some money form it. And also Russia’s propaganda machine loves him.
     
    lol You are so conspiratorial! Martyanov is just an old sovok, driven by a sense of nostalgia. He emotionally connects to his homeland in this fashion. I really doubt that "Russia’s propaganda machine" is even aware of his existence.

    You are shooting the messenger, like many others here.

    Whether the American MIC loves Martyanov because he can be used to increase sales, or hates him because he calls out their corruption and failures is beside the point. Martyanov’s thesis is important and must be confronted, not dismissed because the wrong people might exploit it or because the author may be a “sovok”. (How is being a “sovok” so very different from waxing nostalgic about “the greatest generation” anyway?)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. prusmc says: • Website
    @K.O.Pectate
    So much Russian chest-puffing. The Mongols. The French. The Crimean War. Tsushima. Tannenberg. The Winter War ( you remember those pesky Finns?). Mars. Afghanistan. The Chechens. I could go on, but my point is that no one remains undefeated. Social engineering is a bigger threat to the American military than you could ever be. I weep for my country when I see what we have been reduced to. Oh, and good luck in the World Cup. I'm pulling for you.

    What do the Russians and more so the Chinese have to worry about? SOCIAL ENGINEERING and the Social Justice Warriors are emasculating the spirit and competence of the US military. As someone commented note the weeping of Sailors captured by Iran, add in the at sea collisions of the Fitzpatrick and McCain and the all but exoneration of Bergdahl and you get dots to connect. Plenty more hidden and some noted in this thread.

    Why should an enemy prepare to attack or even defend against a country internally committing suicide?

    Read More
    • Replies: @K.O.Pectate
    Couldn't agree more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Felix Keverich

    So much Russian chest-puffing. The Mongols. The French. The Crimean War. Tsushima. Tannenberg. The Winter War ( you remember those pesky Finns?). Mars. Afghanistan. The Chechens.
     
    Technically speaking 4 of these conflicts resulted in a Russian victory, and wtf does "Mars" mean?

    Technically speaking? I believe the subject was defeat. Kalka River. 1382 Siege of Moscow. The Crimean War, although technically a stalemate, denied the Russians a Black Sea port (if memory serves) Operation Mars was a 1942 Stalingrad counteroffensive that cost the Soviets 500,000 casualties , as opposed to 40,000 German. I’ve been studying history ( every) since 1961. Yours is a much older country than mine, and believe me, I carry no water for our current military. My youngest son left the US Army after 5 1/2 years because of the feminization of the military. Exist long enough, and defeat is inevitable. And, sorry for that World Cup thing. I’m rooting for the Croats from here on. You gentlemen ( I assume that you are Russian) gave it your best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tontos utiles
    KOPectato

    keep on studying history , 40.000 german casualties ??? , but if Paulus surrendered with 90.000 germans ... but if nearly 300.000 germans were cought in the final " kettle " , ???

    https://sputniknews.com/15battles/201504151020888765/


    In the large Stalingrad Volga - Don front the germans , with their romanians , hungarians and italians allies had about 1,500.000 casualties ( dead and wounded ) , and the soviets similar figures .

    Hitler said that with the 6 th Armèe he could conquer heaven , well .....

    I hope your croat , ustachi friends , nazis allied with Hitler , do not forger what they did in WWII in their concentration camp of Jasenovac , Croacia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp

    where they assesinated hundreds of thousands , even children
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @myself

    American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself.
     

    It’s been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries.
     
    That is simply the Anglo-Saxon tradition, for a few centuries.

    Secure from invasion by strong enemies, Britain and the United States have most often specialized in fielding ultra-elite expeditionary forces - small armies, honed to a razor's edge, superbly equipped, and configured for quick surgical conflicts against vulnerable and weak opponents.

    For Britain, a good example would be the regular British Army on the eve of World War I, a force of some 6 or 7 Infantry Divisions and some Cavalry Brigades. It was an elite force of long-service professionals, suitable for distant deployment and fighting in the British Empire's far-flung possessions. And it was TINY.

    For the United States, the example would be the "State Department troops", aka the U.S. Marine Corps, pre-World War 2. Same deal as with the British - elite veteran soldiers, rapidly deployable, meant to fight numerous but badly-outclassed opponents. Also a quite small force.


    When called upon to fight grueling, bloody conventional wars against peer opponents, neither Britain nor the United States have been entirely in their element, though both do an adequate enough job. Good enough to win, but at considerable cost.

    Anglo-Saxons do not do lighting wars against peer enemies, we/they grind them down using allies (better termed "patsies") to do the bleeding for us.

    Large naval wars are no problem, but large LAND WARS? - No, just . . . NO.

    Myself

    you described very well how pirates work

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. This whole article and the book it is based on appear to be underwritten by Lockheed-Martin. It cries, screams, “more money for the military industrial complex, more, more, more!”

    The Saker hurts Russians in uniform. Not all of them know that. That’s exactly the problem. Saker knows that though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. MarkinLA says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The USA was driven out of the Philippines.
    After Midway, where the Japanese carriers were sunk, it was clear who would win the Pacific war.
    Ardennes 1944, the allies had complete air superiority.
    Korea was, I think, the only war where the USA was fighting desperately, then there was Vietnam, the war the USA lost against people dragging supplies on bicycles through the jungle.
    The determination to win wars against oppressors was shown by Dien Bien Phu, hope the spelling is right.
    France considered it impossible that heavy artillery was dragged up the mountains around the airfield.
    When the artillery was in position, and began firing down, the Frenchman who had thought out the plan for a base there committed suicide.
    In my opinion the USA never fought a war against an equal military force.
    Germans in bunkers in the Siegfried line, early 1945, were unable to fire from these bunkers, the USA concentrated so much fire continuously on the bunkers that they could not fire a shot.
    The Germans had never anticipated such a use of ammo.
    This covering fire made it possible to demolish the bunkers.
    It was more or less the same with USA daylight bombing over Germany, the Flying Fortresses were propaganda, they could just bomb when accompanied by long range fighters with drop tanks.
    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.

    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.

    That is a feature and not a bug. That was America’s strategy for winning the war with the least amount of casualties. We didn’t have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Did I suggest it was otherwise ?
    , @Jake
    "We didn’t have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy."

    The American Elites see white Middle America as no better than peasants whose lives can be tossed away with no loss. If you fail to grasp that, you may well miss everything else that is important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @myself
    Broadly speaking, those are fine historical analogues.

    Extending the model further, you have to wonder WHEN, not if, the equivalent of the Hunnic nomad horde will explode out of the Eastern steppes, to bring devastation and utter ruin to the late classical world.

    We are at the end game, though the process may still take, as pointed out, another generation or so.

    Russian poet Alexander Blok wrote poem The Scythians more than 100 years ago. It is amazingly relevant today. Here is an excerpt from one of the translations:

    We shall abandon Europe and her charm.
    We shall resort to Scythian craft and guile.
    Swift to the woods and forests we shall swarm,
    And then look back, and smile our slit-eyed smile.

    Away to the Urals, all! Quick, leave the land,
    And clear the field for trial by blood and sword,
    Where steel machines that have no soul must stand
    And face the fury of the Mongol horde.

    But we ourselves, henceforth, we shall not serve
    As henchmen holding up the trusty shield.
    We’ll keep our distance and, slit-eyed, observe
    The deadly conflict raging on the field.

    We shall not stir, even though the frenzied Huns
    Plunder the corpses of the slain in battle, drive
    Their cattle into shrines, burn cities down,
    And roast their white-skinned fellow men alive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @prusmc
    What do the Russians and more so the Chinese have to worry about? SOCIAL ENGINEERING and the Social Justice Warriors are emasculating the spirit and competence of the US military. As someone commented note the weeping of Sailors captured by Iran, add in the at sea collisions of the Fitzpatrick and McCain and the all but exoneration of Bergdahl and you get dots to connect. Plenty more hidden and some noted in this thread.

    Why should an enemy prepare to attack or even defend against a country internally committing suicide?

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @James Brown
    Agree completely with what you wrote but I'd suggest to you that you're wrong when you say that "Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners.".

    Not always. RT, Sputnik and other propaganda outlets are "directed" at western public and they also give a platform to some western "useful idiots". Conquer and divide is also playedd by the Russia's propaganda outlets.

    "(...)but we do not know enough technical issues to challenge his stories."

    For God's sake, you don't need to know "enough technical issues to challenge his stories.".

    One knows that is false and that is enough. They're selling us "cold war 2".
    If you are not completely stupid you will remember that you already saw that movie.

    What most people ignore -and FKA MAX(48) put it very well- so let me just repeat what he said because it's worth repeating: " but taking the bigger picture view of the situation one realizes that this arrangement seems to be mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Russia."

    I will just add not only for the U.S. and Russia but for all other minor players also: China, GB,France, Turkey, Israel of course, even Sweden... etc...

    There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined. However, there are nuances. For example, RT spends less in a year than CNN or BBC spends in a day. Simple reason is that it’s a lot cheaper to say that two times two equals four than “prove” that two times two equals five and a half.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    "There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined"

    It's not only about their "military prowess," but about the "new cold war".
    w/o that context- cold war 2- no one cares about their "military prowess".
    But to scare people and get money from them, you need a new cold war. It's a racket. And western media is part of that racket..And RT also.

    Agree with you that cnn, bbc, fox news, wp, nyt etc tell the people that white is black and black is white and RT tell them, sometimes, that grey is white...and even that white is white.

    Maybe it's because RT has less money, maybe it's because the Anglo-Saxons invented propaganda and made it a "science", whereas the Russians and Germans are still learning about propaganda.

    Again, and this what we are discussing, in terms of the main narrative about the "cold war 2", I doubt RT is telling another story. In fact, I believe they're reinforcing that narrative.

    I say " I doubt", because I don' watch TV anymore. So maybe RT is now telling the truth to its viewers about that big lie: there won't be a war between Russia and the USA. The "cold war 2" is a big lie because that is the way MIC of several countries make money.

    I doubt RT is telling the truth now...but everything is possible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @K.O. Pectate
    Technically speaking? I believe the subject was defeat. Kalka River. 1382 Siege of Moscow. The Crimean War, although technically a stalemate, denied the Russians a Black Sea port (if memory serves) Operation Mars was a 1942 Stalingrad counteroffensive that cost the Soviets 500,000 casualties , as opposed to 40,000 German. I've been studying history ( every) since 1961. Yours is a much older country than mine, and believe me, I carry no water for our current military. My youngest son left the US Army after 5 1/2 years because of the feminization of the military. Exist long enough, and defeat is inevitable. And, sorry for that World Cup thing. I'm rooting for the Croats from here on. You gentlemen ( I assume that you are Russian) gave it your best.

    KOPectato

    keep on studying history , 40.000 german casualties ??? , but if Paulus surrendered with 90.000 germans … but if nearly 300.000 germans were cought in the final ” kettle ” , ???

    https://sputniknews.com/15battles/201504151020888765/

    In the large Stalingrad Volga – Don front the germans , with their romanians , hungarians and italians allies had about 1,500.000 casualties ( dead and wounded ) , and the soviets similar figures .

    Hitler said that with the 6 th Armèe he could conquer heaven , well …..

    I hope your croat , ustachi friends , nazis allied with Hitler , do not forger what they did in WWII in their concentration camp of Jasenovac , Croacia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp

    where they assesinated hundreds of thousands , even children

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    It for a very long time puzzled me why Hitler wanted to take Moscow and Stalingrad, both places without any apparent strategic significance.
    The Causasian oil fields were significant.
    Until I read in
    F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, 'The case of Richard Sorge', New York, 1966
    that Japan had promised to attack the USSR if Hitler had taken Moscow and was at the Volga.
    In my opinion an illusion that Japan would have done this, the country was without oil, available in Dutch Borneo.
    , @K.O.Pectate
    Your argument is with Antony Beevor, not me. Those are his figures. Dispute them with facts, not incoherent babbling. Furthermore, if you would like to keep fighting past wars, good luck. However, most of us would like to move on, and avoid future wars. And, try not to take the World Cup too seriously, Tonto.
    , @Wally
    Laughable, Jew controlled Wikipedia citation for Jasenovac.
    see:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

    recommended:
    Jasenovac claims shattered here:: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=jasenovac
    Croatian 'death camps' debunked: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8210
    Jasenovac: "The Cruelest Death Camp in the Entire Holocaust!" / Not: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7328

    That was easy.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Saker, if you are not working for Lockheed – a proposition I rank at 1 of 10 – then you are minimally circumspect enough to understand that whatever expertise you have, you are seeing things through a fishbowl that creates wild prismatic distortions.

    An admiral, or field marshal, cannot tolerate those distortions. They result in events like the Russo-Japanese War, WW1, or the Pyrrhic triumphs of WW2. Reflections on those events might lead an outside observer to wonder if the Russian penchant for generating miles and miles of cannon fodder has also created a parallel Russian penchant for failing to register it to the accounting tables that the cannon fodder spent, entailed a loss, not a victory. Non-Russians look with some wonder on the Russian preparedness to sacrifice his fellow countryman to the future melodies of patriotic song and consign the means of sacrifice to manuals for the conduct of battle, rather than records of error in the same.

    There are people far better qualified than you to critique the American military enterprise and there’s no shortage of error in that enterprise to critique. Don’t make so much of the fact that you enjoy and audience for this. You hurt your audience more than you help. I’m not speaking of the American audience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Non-Russians look with anxiety on the Russians willingness to fight back. Repressed memories of the fate of Napoleons and Hitlers surface from time to time to sap their cock-sure confidence in the superiority of their military.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @AnonFromTN
    There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined. However, there are nuances. For example, RT spends less in a year than CNN or BBC spends in a day. Simple reason is that it’s a lot cheaper to say that two times two equals four than “prove” that two times two equals five and a half.

    “There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined”

    It’s not only about their “military prowess,” but about the “new cold war”.
    w/o that context- cold war 2- no one cares about their “military prowess”.
    But to scare people and get money from them, you need a new cold war. It’s a racket. And western media is part of that racket..And RT also.

    Agree with you that cnn, bbc, fox news, wp, nyt etc tell the people that white is black and black is white and RT tell them, sometimes, that grey is white…and even that white is white.

    Maybe it’s because RT has less money, maybe it’s because the Anglo-Saxons invented propaganda and made it a “science”, whereas the Russians and Germans are still learning about propaganda.

    Again, and this what we are discussing, in terms of the main narrative about the “cold war 2″, I doubt RT is telling another story. In fact, I believe they’re reinforcing that narrative.

    I say ” I doubt”, because I don’ watch TV anymore. So maybe RT is now telling the truth to its viewers about that big lie: there won’t be a war between Russia and the USA. The “cold war 2″ is a big lie because that is the way MIC of several countries make money.

    I doubt RT is telling the truth now…but everything is possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    RT of course is Russian anti western propaganda.
    Nevertheless, the one and only channel where those critising the west can say what they want to say.
    , @AnonFromTN
    By definition, propaganda means lying: you don’t need propaganda to tell the truth. However, on the scale of one to one hundred, the lie index of CNN is about 90, of BBC – about 80, of RT – about 20-25. That’s why they don’t need so much money.

    Anglo-Saxon tradition plays a role, too. Orwell had inside knowledge of the subject and expressed it best: CNN, NYT, BBC and others of their ilk invent “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Their key secret is shamelessness: on the day of vicious Georgian attack on Tskhinval in 2008 all TV networks in the US reported the event as it is. Yet from the next day onward they reversed their stories by 180 degrees without missing a beat. Indeed, Germans and Russians have a lot to learn yet.

    I didn’t watch TV for about 10 years, and have no intention of watching it ever again. I would recommend this to every person in every country: nothing has such a high concentration of lies and stupidity as TV.

    You are right in one thing: MIC of all countries loves this kind of stories, as they say “give me more money”, ostensibly from an unbiased observer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @MarkinLA
    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.

    That is a feature and not a bug. That was America's strategy for winning the war with the least amount of casualties. We didn't have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy.

    Did I suggest it was otherwise ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    No but I felt the tone of your post was somewhat condescending to America's military.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @James Brown
    "There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined"

    It's not only about their "military prowess," but about the "new cold war".
    w/o that context- cold war 2- no one cares about their "military prowess".
    But to scare people and get money from them, you need a new cold war. It's a racket. And western media is part of that racket..And RT also.

    Agree with you that cnn, bbc, fox news, wp, nyt etc tell the people that white is black and black is white and RT tell them, sometimes, that grey is white...and even that white is white.

    Maybe it's because RT has less money, maybe it's because the Anglo-Saxons invented propaganda and made it a "science", whereas the Russians and Germans are still learning about propaganda.

    Again, and this what we are discussing, in terms of the main narrative about the "cold war 2", I doubt RT is telling another story. In fact, I believe they're reinforcing that narrative.

    I say " I doubt", because I don' watch TV anymore. So maybe RT is now telling the truth to its viewers about that big lie: there won't be a war between Russia and the USA. The "cold war 2" is a big lie because that is the way MIC of several countries make money.

    I doubt RT is telling the truth now...but everything is possible.

    RT of course is Russian anti western propaganda.
    Nevertheless, the one and only channel where those critising the west can say what they want to say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    If one believes that Russia is an independent country that is fighting for an international order dominated by law and justice, then RT can be seen as the "only channel where those critising the west can say what they want to say."

    But if one knows that Russia is controlled by the same "Zionist International mafia" that controls the west, then RT is, like bbc,cnn, fox , wp, nyt etc., just another propaganda outlet.

    Yes, it' true. RT gives a platform to westerns dissidents. I'd suggest that most of those western "intellectuals" who are "speaking true to power" don't know that they are being used. They are "useful idiots".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Tontos utiles
    KOPectato

    keep on studying history , 40.000 german casualties ??? , but if Paulus surrendered with 90.000 germans ... but if nearly 300.000 germans were cought in the final " kettle " , ???

    https://sputniknews.com/15battles/201504151020888765/


    In the large Stalingrad Volga - Don front the germans , with their romanians , hungarians and italians allies had about 1,500.000 casualties ( dead and wounded ) , and the soviets similar figures .

    Hitler said that with the 6 th Armèe he could conquer heaven , well .....

    I hope your croat , ustachi friends , nazis allied with Hitler , do not forger what they did in WWII in their concentration camp of Jasenovac , Croacia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp

    where they assesinated hundreds of thousands , even children

    It for a very long time puzzled me why Hitler wanted to take Moscow and Stalingrad, both places without any apparent strategic significance.
    The Causasian oil fields were significant.
    Until I read in
    F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, ‘The case of Richard Sorge’, New York, 1966
    that Japan had promised to attack the USSR if Hitler had taken Moscow and was at the Volga.
    In my opinion an illusion that Japan would have done this, the country was without oil, available in Dutch Borneo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tontos utiles
    Jillles ,

    Japan was occupying Manchuria since 1931 and threatening the USSR , so the USSR felt threatened east and west , by Japan and by Germany .

    In the summer of 1939 took place in Mongolia the battle of Jaljin Gol ( or incident of Nomohan for the japanese who mimimized the battle ) in which the soviets crushed a japanese army .

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Jaljin_Gol

    The russians still were afraid of a japanese invasion for some time , but it never happened , it seems that the japanese decided to attack Asia instead of the URSS .

    Well Moscow and Stalingrad have an enormous strategic importance . Moscow was the center of industries , logistics and communications of the USSR , it is the capital , what has a tremendous psychological importance . Stalin planned to send the Soviet Government to Samara in case of german occupation of Moscow , but at the same time he planned its defense , and to open the dams of the Moscow region to flood the city in case or german occupation .

    The fact is that the nazis arrived at the doors of Moscow in bad shape , they had one million casualties since the invasion ( dead and wounded ) , they could not occupy Leningrad , and the russian counteroffensive at the doors of Moscow , the Battle of M0scow , pushed them back 400 km and produced 500.000 german casualties ( dead and wounded )
    https://mundo.sputniknews.com/europa/201505091037196828/

    ( of course , the germans , and anglo saxons " historians " will keep pretending that the russians had 300 million dead - out of 200 million inhabitants , and that the invulnerable german soldiers , the superior race , only had a couple of thousand casualties , of course just because of the cold ,of pneumonia . Even if you check wikipedia in english and in spanish you will see that the figures of casualties in the battles of WWII are usually more accurate in the spanish versions )

    Well , regarding Stalingrad , the city has an enormous strategic importance , and psychological too , Stalin grad , the city of Stalin . On the river Volga , Stalingrad controlled south Russia and the Caucasus , thus the oil of Azerbaijan . Hitler knew that he could not have the oil without occupying Stalingrad .

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Stalingrado
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Leander Starr
    If you want to see how a war against Russia would go look at what happened to Sadam's 5000 tanks. The Russian have 20 000. The video game would be even more fun

    Saddam lost because the French, who had constructed Saddam’s air defence system, revealed to the USA how it functioned

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Mulegino1 says:
    @myself

    American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself.
     

    It’s been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries.
     
    That is simply the Anglo-Saxon tradition, for a few centuries.

    Secure from invasion by strong enemies, Britain and the United States have most often specialized in fielding ultra-elite expeditionary forces - small armies, honed to a razor's edge, superbly equipped, and configured for quick surgical conflicts against vulnerable and weak opponents.

    For Britain, a good example would be the regular British Army on the eve of World War I, a force of some 6 or 7 Infantry Divisions and some Cavalry Brigades. It was an elite force of long-service professionals, suitable for distant deployment and fighting in the British Empire's far-flung possessions. And it was TINY.

    For the United States, the example would be the "State Department troops", aka the U.S. Marine Corps, pre-World War 2. Same deal as with the British - elite veteran soldiers, rapidly deployable, meant to fight numerous but badly-outclassed opponents. Also a quite small force.


    When called upon to fight grueling, bloody conventional wars against peer opponents, neither Britain nor the United States have been entirely in their element, though both do an adequate enough job. Good enough to win, but at considerable cost.

    Anglo-Saxons do not do lighting wars against peer enemies, we/they grind them down using allies (better termed "patsies") to do the bleeding for us.

    Large naval wars are no problem, but large LAND WARS? - No, just . . . NO.

    The Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, weighs in on this very topic:

    So far as I can make out there is no record in history of any Anglo-Saxon nation entering upon any great war without allies. The French have done it, the Dutch have done it, the Germans have done it, the Japs have done it, and even such inferior nations as the Danes, the Spaniards, the Boers and the Greeks have done it, but never the English or Americans. Can you imagine the United States resolutely facing a war in which the odds against it were as huge as they were against Spain in 1898? The facts of history are wholly against any such fancy. The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy, and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger. Here I put an unimpeachably Anglo-Saxon witness on the stand, to wit, the late Charles W. Eliot. I find him saying, in an article quoted with approbation by the Congressional Record, that during the Revolutionary War the colonists now hymned so eloquently in the school-books “fell into a condition of despondency from which nothing but the steadfastness of Washington and the Continental army and the aid from France saved them,” and that “when the War of 1812 brought grave losses a considerable portion of the population experienced a moral collapse, from which they were rescued only by the exertions of a few thoroughly patriotic statesmen and the exploits of three or four American frigates on the seas”–to say nothing of an enterprising Corsican gentleman, Bonaparte by name.
    In both these wars the Americans had enormous and obvious advantages, in terrain, in allies and in men; nevertheless, they fought, in the main, very badly, and from the first shot to the last a majority of them stood in favor of making peace on almost any terms. The Mexican and Spanish Wars I pass over as perhaps too obscenely ungallant to be discussed at all; of the former, U. S. Grant, who fought in it, said that it was “the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” Who remembers that, during the Spanish War, the whole Atlantic Coast trembled in fear of the Spaniards’ feeble fleet–that all New England had hysterics every time a strange coal-barge was sighted on the sky-line, that the safe-deposit boxes of Boston were emptied and their contents transferred to Worcester, and that the Navy had to organize a patrol to save the coast towns from depopulation? Perhaps those Reds, atheists and pro-Germans remember it who also remember that during World War I the entire country went wild with fear of an enemy who, without the aid of divine intervention, obviously could not strike it a blow at all–and that the great moral victory was gained at last with the assistance of twenty-one allies and at odds of eight to one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Tontos utiles
    KOPectato

    keep on studying history , 40.000 german casualties ??? , but if Paulus surrendered with 90.000 germans ... but if nearly 300.000 germans were cought in the final " kettle " , ???

    https://sputniknews.com/15battles/201504151020888765/


    In the large Stalingrad Volga - Don front the germans , with their romanians , hungarians and italians allies had about 1,500.000 casualties ( dead and wounded ) , and the soviets similar figures .

    Hitler said that with the 6 th Armèe he could conquer heaven , well .....

    I hope your croat , ustachi friends , nazis allied with Hitler , do not forger what they did in WWII in their concentration camp of Jasenovac , Croacia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp

    where they assesinated hundreds of thousands , even children

    Your argument is with Antony Beevor, not me. Those are his figures. Dispute them with facts, not incoherent babbling. Furthermore, if you would like to keep fighting past wars, good luck. However, most of us would like to move on, and avoid future wars. And, try not to take the World Cup too seriously, Tonto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tontos utiles
    Kaopectate ( Salicilato de bismuto )

    I do not like soccer , I do not watch World Cup . I do not give any credit to Beevor or any other academic asset of the english intelligence , so I do not have to argue with him . I am fed up with English lies .

    Of course I want to avoid future wars , I wish your Pentagon , CIA and Department of State had the same wish .

    With respect .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. FB says:
    @Philip Owen
    1) Dear Mr Unz. Scrap The Saker who came to prominence for translated Igor Girkin's comments on VK.com in 2014. Replace him with Andrei. The Saker has no intuition about what is happening gin Russia. Andrei does know his own chosen fields unlike Saker who presumes to know Putin's innermost councils from Florida. (And he never reads Putin's actual announcements either). Reposting John Helmer would be better if Andrei has no time.

    2) Andrei. What do you make of this weeks announcements that the Russian destroyer building programme has been pushed back to 2035, even later than the Armata tank? (World cup period announcement). There are times, 2014 in particular, when I feel that the Stavka is in control. And yet, the defence budget has been cut by 20% in the last two years and the more expensive weapon systems postponed into the future. Clearly, losing a conscript army is a source of savings but not 20%. Reading Putin's discussion of the subject it appears that: the air force and submarines have never really been neglected. The army and border guard have recently been adequately modernised. In 2008 they probably compared favourably only with Ukraine. Fancy weapons and ship building programs have been announced but building in usable numbers is for the 2030's. I promise I'll buy the book. I assume it is an Amazon download. Well done for such concentrated effort. I can't decide between a business manual, novel, tales of the mafia (not all old - as we speak, Azeris are shooting each other over tomatoes) or political tirade. Target rich environment.

    3) I can now see that the most creative time in the Saratov opto-electronics community was the 1990's and early 2000's. I am going to a conference in September. Same ideas and mostly people as 10 years ago.

    ‘…I am going to a conference in September…’

    Great to hear Tampon Phil…hope you sell a ton of palm oil…fresh off the boat from India, I trust…cheerio…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Stop parading your family dysfunction in public. Deal with your post abuse trauma in your own time. Also learn to read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @animalogic
    Bastogne. Kasserine Pass (the entire War of Succession considered from the South) etc. "Mere" battles, but offer insights into US "back-against-the-wall" actions.
    It's not a question that US service men can not fight - they can. However, as the early months of Korea show, the US style of war contains an inherent...brittleness.

    Kasserine Pass

    Please. This is not even serious discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @jilles dykstra
    RT of course is Russian anti western propaganda.
    Nevertheless, the one and only channel where those critising the west can say what they want to say.

    If one believes that Russia is an independent country that is fighting for an international order dominated by law and justice, then RT can be seen as the “only channel where those critising the west can say what they want to say.”

    But if one knows that Russia is controlled by the same “Zionist International mafia” that controls the west, then RT is, like bbc,cnn, fox , wp, nyt etc., just another propaganda outlet.

    Yes, it’ true. RT gives a platform to westerns dissidents. I’d suggest that most of those western “intellectuals” who are “speaking true to power” don’t know that they are being used. They are “useful idiots”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    We are all idiots. Only a valued few are useful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @FKA Max
    Great comment, utu.

    Particularly this part:


    Russia’s propaganda is always directed at their subjects not the foreigners. The subjects as in any authoritarian system are sold the story that the rulers know what they are doing and that they are taking care of business: Be proud of your rulers and your country and do not worry and most importantly do not ask questions.

    The title of his book just as well could have been: Putin’s Wuderwaffe: Send More Money to Pentagon for western markets and for Russian audience: Putin and Russia Uber Alles.
     

    I believe the blurb/bio is truthful, but like you stated this raises several issues/questions:

    If it is really true that he has been living in the US for the last 20 plus years how can he know about Russia’s weapon development beyond anything what is available in various western journals that are run by and for the MIC?
     

    Don’t see how his living in the USA would prevent him from staying up to date and in the know.

    Why would martyanov be unable to get information by visiting Russia, or by talking on the phone to people in Russia?

    And how do we know that he hasn’t been back in Russia many times during that period?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Do you think the Russians would readily share this type of information with a "Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group [aka western, probably U.S. defense contractor]." - http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2406881 ?

    Unless he is some kind of double-triple-quadruple-whatever spy for the Russians, which I don't believe he is (higher-level employees in defense contracting businesses are usually pretty carefully vetted and well monitored), I don't think he would be privy to that kind of information.

    When you go to the U.S. Naval Institute Blog https://blog.usni.org/ which he writes for they are currently running ads for Kongsberg Gruppen's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_Gruppen "REMUS Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, produced at Hydroid https://www.hydroid.com/ , a fully owned subsidiary of Kongsberg."

    There are, clearly, commercial interests involved in all of this.

    As I stated up-thread "He seems to have a direct conflict of interest".

    I believe writing this book ensures a higher degree of job security for him.

    I don't blame him...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Wally
    Who ARE the "Neo-Cons?

    I suppose they can be anyone you want them to be, Wally. You can be one if you want to. It’s your world.

    Oh, wait…that was a rhetorical question. Sorry. My bad.

    Jews!

    Jews! is the answer you were looking for. What did I win? Please tell me it was your undying love.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Felix Keverich
    Hey, go look up what happened to Georgian army in 2008: they had US-made weapons and the Israeli military doctrine.

    they had US-made weapons

    Did they? Which ones?

    The Georgians were completely outnumbered and outflanked. Their loss was an obvious predictable outcome. The reasons for the 2008 war are one thing. The reasons why the Georgians were trounced so quickly are something else. Russian military brilliance or performance isn’t provided as one by anybody but Russian propagandists.

    Then you have Russian military performance in Afghanistan and twice in Chechnya. Not good. The Crimea and Syria are the only other two examples of Russian military prowess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    President Saakashvili would have never starter that war, if he didn't believe in victory. You don't launch an aggression, if you think you will be immediately outflanked and overrun. His plan was essentially a repeat of Croatian operation Storm: eradicating Russian-backed statelets would have opened a path for Georgia to quickly join NATO, which was also Washington's goal.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that "Russia sucks and cannot do shit". We also know that he relied on American intelligence and satellite data. Obviously US intelligence dropped the ball on Russia that time, and it wasn't the last time.

    My point is you guys know very little about Russia and its capabilities. Your bravado is mostly a product of ignorance.

    , @RadicalCenter
    How does Russia's performance in Afghanistan compare to the US government's? See Roderick Braithwaite's book "Afgantsy" for the infrastructure and cultural improvements the Russians made and tried to make.

    Also, does the USA face a rival superpower funding and arming the Afghans, as the US government did for Russia's Afghan opponents?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. FB says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " how the US rewriting of the history of WWII resulted in a complete misunderstanding, especially at the top political levels, of the nature of modern warfare "

    How 'rewriting' ?
    WWII mainstream history is the victor's history.
    Those that write or wrote other history ended in poverty, or were neglected.

    As to present USA military power, there are many indications that USA technology is behind Russian and Chinese technology.
    I wonder if the USA educational system is to blame.

    ‘…As to present USA military power, there are many indications that USA technology is behind Russian and Chinese technology.

    I wonder if the USA educational system is to blame…’

    Good question…there are many problems with US higher education today, especially in the technical fields [hard sciences]…

    Russia, with half the US population, graduates twice as many engineers…

    Even Iran, with a quarter of US population graduates as many engineers as the US…this is a recipe for precipitous national decline in a modern world where technical capability is the key not only to national defense but also industrial and economic progress…

    How much does a STEM education cost in the US [about $200,000 for undergrad degree] and who can afford that…?

    Here is a snapshot of US household wealth, in quintiles…

    Realistically it is only the top 20 percent of families that can afford this…other factors are that technical professions are valued little in a society that glorifies vanity and money…hence young people whose families can afford to educate them choose to go into professions like business or law and not science or engineering…

    A book could be written on this decline in technical capability of the US and how it is a systemic problem at the core of the US ‘civilizational’ model…

    Many children from poor working families [think of the bottom 60 percent of the graph above] who are gifted and motivated with a natural interest in math and science…will never get the opportunity to reach their potential in America…

    A few years ago a great film was made about the true story of Homer Hickam, who grew up in a coal mining family in West Virginia of the late 1950s, and managed, against all odds, to fulfill his dream and become a Nasa scientist…October Sky…

    Unfortunately, these stories are so rare that they exist mainly in the world of the silver screen…

    This is especially true of minority children…despite the nonsense about ‘black IQ’ we see everywhere…the fact of the matter is that there are many gifted black children with mathematical aptitudes far above average…[this type of aptitude is not meaningfully measured in the psycho-quackery that is IQ testing]…

    Here is a list of African-American astronauts…

    It is of course a short one, and something of a miracle that these admirable individuals even achieved what they did…but the list of what ‘might have been’ is a far longer and tragic one…

    Look at the education achievements of Cuba…from banana republic to world leader…the country spends 10 percent of GNP on education…twice that of the US…very few gifted children slip through the cracks in such a system…but this cannot come about in a system where national priorities do not even consider the issue of developing human potential…

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    Of course they are not going into STEM, it is boring. Better to major in Anthropology, Sociology, political science, Humanities, Women's studies, Chicano Studies, Black Studies, LGT studies and such. PROBABLY as much scholarship money and tuition assistance as for STEM and more fun and games protesting and safe-space seeking.
    On a more serious note, I don't think lack of money is a critical explanation for anything negative in US education. I believe per pupil expenditures are among the top ten in the family of nations.
    , @MarkinLA
    the fact of the matter is that there are many gifted black children with mathematical aptitudes far above average…[this type of aptitude is not meaningfully measured in the psycho-quackery that is IQ testing]…

    But it is at the math departments at universities where we see very few (if any) blacks at all. How do all these math geniuses slip through the cracks - especially when any black who can count to 10 can get a college scholarship?

    As for Cuba, what in the world of technological advancement is Cuba noted for? They have a decent medical system for a third world country but training people to be physicians isn't the same as training theoretical physicists.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Great exaggeration about how unaffordable college education is. People make it far more expensive by choosing private universities, or out-of-state government universities, that they cannot afford to pay for without massive borrowing.

    How about attending an in-state university?

    How about living at home during part or all of university to save tens of thousands of dollars in housing and dining costs?

    Anyone can afford a STEM or other university degree without debt if they take these measures and work part-time during the academic year and full-time during the summer. We know numerous people who have done it, and that's the plan for our children as well.

    See, e.g., Zack Bissonette's book "Debt Free U."

    So despite the hype about how everyone "has to" spend and borrow hundreds of thousands to pay for college tuition and living costs, this is not a legitimate cause of our relatively poor STEM graduate output. (Though if kids and their parents continue to be told, falsely, that they can't afford a STEM degree, perhaps they will listen rather than do their own research, and thus be deterred from trying.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. I’m going to have to stop reading Unz. I’ve got my own bloody reading list to take care of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    It can be addicting. Take a break, get some fresh air, come back when you're ready.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. So typical of Churchill, this turret fighter that could swivel and fire backwards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. Wally says:
    @Tontos utiles
    KOPectato

    keep on studying history , 40.000 german casualties ??? , but if Paulus surrendered with 90.000 germans ... but if nearly 300.000 germans were cought in the final " kettle " , ???

    https://sputniknews.com/15battles/201504151020888765/


    In the large Stalingrad Volga - Don front the germans , with their romanians , hungarians and italians allies had about 1,500.000 casualties ( dead and wounded ) , and the soviets similar figures .

    Hitler said that with the 6 th Armèe he could conquer heaven , well .....

    I hope your croat , ustachi friends , nazis allied with Hitler , do not forger what they did in WWII in their concentration camp of Jasenovac , Croacia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp

    where they assesinated hundreds of thousands , even children

    Laughable, Jew controlled Wikipedia citation for Jasenovac.
    see:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

    recommended:
    Jasenovac claims shattered here:: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=jasenovac
    Croatian ‘death camps’ debunked: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8210
    Jasenovac: “The Cruelest Death Camp in the Entire Holocaust!” / Not: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7328

    That was easy.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @K.O.Pectate
    Your argument is with Antony Beevor, not me. Those are his figures. Dispute them with facts, not incoherent babbling. Furthermore, if you would like to keep fighting past wars, good luck. However, most of us would like to move on, and avoid future wars. And, try not to take the World Cup too seriously, Tonto.

    Kaopectate ( Salicilato de bismuto )

    I do not like soccer , I do not watch World Cup . I do not give any credit to Beevor or any other academic asset of the english intelligence , so I do not have to argue with him . I am fed up with English lies .

    Of course I want to avoid future wars , I wish your Pentagon , CIA and Department of State had the same wish .

    With respect .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. FKA Max says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter
    Don’t see how his living in the USA would prevent him from staying up to date and in the know.

    Why would martyanov be unable to get information by visiting Russia, or by talking on the phone to people in Russia?

    And how do we know that he hasn’t been back in Russia many times during that period?

    Do you think the Russians would readily share this type of information with a “Laboratory Director in a commercial aerospace group [aka western, probably U.S. defense contractor].” – http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2406881 ?

    Unless he is some kind of double-triple-quadruple-whatever spy for the Russians, which I don’t believe he is (higher-level employees in defense contracting businesses are usually pretty carefully vetted and well monitored), I don’t think he would be privy to that kind of information.

    When you go to the U.S. Naval Institute Blog https://blog.usni.org/ which he writes for they are currently running ads for Kongsberg Gruppen’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_Gruppen “REMUS Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, produced at Hydroid https://www.hydroid.com/ , a fully owned subsidiary of Kongsberg.”

    There are, clearly, commercial interests involved in all of this.

    As I stated up-thread “He seems to have a direct conflict of interest”.

    I believe writing this book ensures a higher degree of job security for him.

    I don’t blame him…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Fair points....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @James Brown
    "There is no doubt that many players benefit by stories about the US and Russian military prowess, real and imagined"

    It's not only about their "military prowess," but about the "new cold war".
    w/o that context- cold war 2- no one cares about their "military prowess".
    But to scare people and get money from them, you need a new cold war. It's a racket. And western media is part of that racket..And RT also.

    Agree with you that cnn, bbc, fox news, wp, nyt etc tell the people that white is black and black is white and RT tell them, sometimes, that grey is white...and even that white is white.

    Maybe it's because RT has less money, maybe it's because the Anglo-Saxons invented propaganda and made it a "science", whereas the Russians and Germans are still learning about propaganda.

    Again, and this what we are discussing, in terms of the main narrative about the "cold war 2", I doubt RT is telling another story. In fact, I believe they're reinforcing that narrative.

    I say " I doubt", because I don' watch TV anymore. So maybe RT is now telling the truth to its viewers about that big lie: there won't be a war between Russia and the USA. The "cold war 2" is a big lie because that is the way MIC of several countries make money.

    I doubt RT is telling the truth now...but everything is possible.

    By definition, propaganda means lying: you don’t need propaganda to tell the truth. However, on the scale of one to one hundred, the lie index of CNN is about 90, of BBC – about 80, of RT – about 20-25. That’s why they don’t need so much money.

    Anglo-Saxon tradition plays a role, too. Orwell had inside knowledge of the subject and expressed it best: CNN, NYT, BBC and others of their ilk invent “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Their key secret is shamelessness: on the day of vicious Georgian attack on Tskhinval in 2008 all TV networks in the US reported the event as it is. Yet from the next day onward they reversed their stories by 180 degrees without missing a beat. Indeed, Germans and Russians have a lot to learn yet.

    I didn’t watch TV for about 10 years, and have no intention of watching it ever again. I would recommend this to every person in every country: nothing has such a high concentration of lies and stupidity as TV.

    You are right in one thing: MIC of all countries loves this kind of stories, as they say “give me more money”, ostensibly from an unbiased observer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    In Russian the word propaganda is more like advertising than lying. It may be biased and spun but is not necessarily actual lying. Hence some controversy about moral equivalence.
    , @MarkinLA
    Propaganda is not about lying. It is about convincing. Sometimes you lie, sometimes you tell the truth, sometimes you say nothing. The point is to persuade people that you are telling the truth.
    , @1RW
    Propaganda may lie, may be truthful, if biased, or any shade in between. What makes it propaganda is that it promotes a point of view - like advertising. It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps - credibility makes propaganda more efficient. While CNN, BBC are veritable juggernauts of outer party employment - and thus have the manpower to rewrite, edit, and manage it all reality, RT runs on a shoestring. So it’s much easier to merely selectively report hard facts.

    Having said this, perhaps it would do some good to get a good handle on what words mean before using them with other people
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @jilles dykstra
    It for a very long time puzzled me why Hitler wanted to take Moscow and Stalingrad, both places without any apparent strategic significance.
    The Causasian oil fields were significant.
    Until I read in
    F.W. Deakin and G.R. Storry, 'The case of Richard Sorge', New York, 1966
    that Japan had promised to attack the USSR if Hitler had taken Moscow and was at the Volga.
    In my opinion an illusion that Japan would have done this, the country was without oil, available in Dutch Borneo.

    Jillles ,

    Japan was occupying Manchuria since 1931 and threatening the USSR , so the USSR felt threatened east and west , by Japan and by Germany .

    In the summer of 1939 took place in Mongolia the battle of Jaljin Gol ( or incident of Nomohan for the japanese who mimimized the battle ) in which the soviets crushed a japanese army .

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Jaljin_Gol

    The russians still were afraid of a japanese invasion for some time , but it never happened , it seems that the japanese decided to attack Asia instead of the URSS .

    Well Moscow and Stalingrad have an enormous strategic importance . Moscow was the center of industries , logistics and communications of the USSR , it is the capital , what has a tremendous psychological importance . Stalin planned to send the Soviet Government to Samara in case of german occupation of Moscow , but at the same time he planned its defense , and to open the dams of the Moscow region to flood the city in case or german occupation .

    The fact is that the nazis arrived at the doors of Moscow in bad shape , they had one million casualties since the invasion ( dead and wounded ) , they could not occupy Leningrad , and the russian counteroffensive at the doors of Moscow , the Battle of M0scow , pushed them back 400 km and produced 500.000 german casualties ( dead and wounded )

    https://mundo.sputniknews.com/europa/201505091037196828/

    ( of course , the germans , and anglo saxons ” historians ” will keep pretending that the russians had 300 million dead – out of 200 million inhabitants , and that the invulnerable german soldiers , the superior race , only had a couple of thousand casualties , of course just because of the cold ,of pneumonia . Even if you check wikipedia in english and in spanish you will see that the figures of casualties in the battles of WWII are usually more accurate in the spanish versions )

    Well , regarding Stalingrad , the city has an enormous strategic importance , and psychological too , Stalin grad , the city of Stalin . On the river Volga , Stalingrad controlled south Russia and the Caucasus , thus the oil of Azerbaijan . Hitler knew that he could not have the oil without occupying Stalingrad .

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Stalingrado

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Anonymous
    I'm not saying that I disagree with Andrei or The Saker here as I know the US Military has degraded in capability. But I don't think either truly understands the transition America has undertaken. What if America has fallen behind militarily but it doesn't matter?

    America, which started as a British colony, has adopted the Anglo force structure which is not based on having the strongest military. It is based on controlling the money supply, controlling the media, and playing divide and conquer.

    Under the Anglo model, you don't need to have the strongest military since America itself will not be doing the heavy fighting. The ultimate wet dream would have seen China and Russia fight it out to see both countries devastated. But in lieu of that we might see other countries take on Russia instead. Ukraine, Syria, some other ME country, Nato take your pick.

    Meanwhile the Anglo Model will see the media savage Russia. This will allow more sanctions on Russia to help isolate and strangle its economy.

    The is the true battle Russia faces. America will not directly confront Russia militarily. That would be stupid. But what defense does Russia have against these indirect forces? Nothing Russia can do.

    Russia and China have been working for some time to circumvent the dollar based financial system.

    Increasingly the Remnimbi and Ruble are used in bilateral trade deals, both countries are reducing dollar holdings and buying real physical gold, not the paper crap that Americans are deluding themselves with.

    https://www.rt.com/business/418665-russia-banks-ready-shut-swift/

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/russias-central-bank-governor-touts-moscow-alternative-to-swift-transfer-system-as-protection-from-us-sanctions.html

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-14/russian-deputy-pm-our-banks-are-prepare-survive-without-swift

    https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/russian-swift-transfer-blockchain-technology-2019/

    https://www.gold.org/data/gold-reserves#

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Leander Starr
    If you want to see how a war against Russia would go look at what happened to Sadam's 5000 tanks. The Russian have 20 000. The video game would be even more fun

    Where have you been all this time? This place was sorely missing you deep knowledge and analytical skills. And yes, if shit hits the fan please do not hesitate to enlist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @anonymous

    For Americans warfare is killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above, while making a ton of money in the process.
     
    This is why I don't think there'll be any head-on clash between the US and Russia. It would violate the above principle. American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself. It's a form of banditry, roving the world in search of the next victim. Parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America are all weak and subject to US whims. That there's a huge mythology attached to US military prowess is just part of the brainwashing that goes on. It's been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries. There's always the risk of miscalculation of course but US politics is mostly show biz so it's hard to assess what part of it's warhawk talk is real and what's showboating.

    But they won against Grenada!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @FB

    '...I am going to a conference in September...'
     
    Great to hear Tampon Phil...hope you sell a ton of palm oil...fresh off the boat from India, I trust...cheerio...

    Stop parading your family dysfunction in public. Deal with your post abuse trauma in your own time. Also learn to read.

    Read More
    • LOL: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @James Brown
    If one believes that Russia is an independent country that is fighting for an international order dominated by law and justice, then RT can be seen as the "only channel where those critising the west can say what they want to say."

    But if one knows that Russia is controlled by the same "Zionist International mafia" that controls the west, then RT is, like bbc,cnn, fox , wp, nyt etc., just another propaganda outlet.

    Yes, it' true. RT gives a platform to westerns dissidents. I'd suggest that most of those western "intellectuals" who are "speaking true to power" don't know that they are being used. They are "useful idiots".

    We are all idiots. Only a valued few are useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    Better to be an idiot alive than a dead idiot. One of the consequences of believing in that big lie-cold war 2- being spread by the western media and the Russian media is that some naîve young people (idiots), decide to defend their "country" and they end up being killed. They die serving the MIC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @AnonFromTN
    By definition, propaganda means lying: you don’t need propaganda to tell the truth. However, on the scale of one to one hundred, the lie index of CNN is about 90, of BBC – about 80, of RT – about 20-25. That’s why they don’t need so much money.

    Anglo-Saxon tradition plays a role, too. Orwell had inside knowledge of the subject and expressed it best: CNN, NYT, BBC and others of their ilk invent “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Their key secret is shamelessness: on the day of vicious Georgian attack on Tskhinval in 2008 all TV networks in the US reported the event as it is. Yet from the next day onward they reversed their stories by 180 degrees without missing a beat. Indeed, Germans and Russians have a lot to learn yet.

    I didn’t watch TV for about 10 years, and have no intention of watching it ever again. I would recommend this to every person in every country: nothing has such a high concentration of lies and stupidity as TV.

    You are right in one thing: MIC of all countries loves this kind of stories, as they say “give me more money”, ostensibly from an unbiased observer.

    In Russian the word propaganda is more like advertising than lying. It may be biased and spun but is not necessarily actual lying. Hence some controversy about moral equivalence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    I have a feeling the difference is much deeper than semantics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Philip Owen
    In Russian the word propaganda is more like advertising than lying. It may be biased and spun but is not necessarily actual lying. Hence some controversy about moral equivalence.

    I have a feeling the difference is much deeper than semantics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    Thank you very much for the link.

    This part strikes me as a little odd:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives.
     
    This could very well be the case:

    At the same time, however, a completely different version of events has gained traction -- disseminated at first by Russian nationalists like Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, and then by others associated with the Wagner unit. According to those accounts, many more Russians had been killed in the battle -- 100, 200, 300 or as many as 600. An entire unit, it was said, had been wiped out and the Kremlin wanted to cover it up. Recordings of alleged fighters even popped up apparently confirming these horrendous losses.
    [...]
    Relations between the Russian mercenaries in Syria -- it is thought there are more than 2,000 of them -- and the government in Moscow have been tense for some time. The fighters claim they are being used as cannon fodder, are being kept quiet and are poorly paid. For them to now accuse the Kremlin of trying to cover up the fact that Russians were killed -- by the Americans, of all people -- hits President Vladimir Putin's government in a weak spot: its credibility.
     
    What do you make of this though? Do you think he just made it up?:


    Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming. The Kurdish commander saw this as a breach of faith.

    “We don’t trust Russia anymore,” Hassan said. When a reporter asked about the irony of the Russian officer denying the attack and then asking for a truce, Hassan responded: “It’s funny that a superpower doesn’t know what their forces are conducting on the ground.”
     
    - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/

    Kurdistan 24 reported on February 9, 2018 that the attack on Kurdish positions was conducted by Syrian forces and Hezbollah militias. No mention of Russians. Click the CC button for English subtitles:

    Kurdistan24 coverage in Deir Al-Zor where Syrian regime attacked US-led SDF/YPG


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrseDnoLGCo

    I might have very well fallen for Russian nationalist propaganda, but, as I said, these two sentences from Der Spiegel article strike me as a little odd: "But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives."

    Some parts of the last paragraph also seem to have a "Nothing to see here, just move along." vibe to them:

    Ahmad Ramadan, the journalist who founded the Euphrates Post and has since emigrated to Turkey, comes from Tabiya. One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't. The Russians in Tabiya just had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
     
    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare:

    One of the most prominent and largest pro-government militias from the Aleppo area and part of the "Local Defence Forces" network, the Baqir Brigade mostly consists of tribesmen from the al-Baggara tribe that has traditionally supported the rule of the al-Assad family despite being mostly Sunni Muslim. hough the militia's fighters thus come from a largely Sunni background, many of them appear to have converted to or are at least strongly influenced by Shia Islam.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqir_Brigade

    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    For some reason I trust the Cossack sources more here, but I could be wrong: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404648

    Thanks again, for providing the link.

    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare
    [...]
    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?

    I just found a NY Times report on the “Baqir Brigade”(BB):

    This Militia is Threatening American Troops in Syria | Visual Investigations

    The New York Times
    Published on Jun 14, 2018
    There are roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria. Recently, a statement went out calling for direct attacks against them. Who sent it, and why?

    The BB seems to be coordinating with the Russians:

    In February, the Baqir Brigade acknowledged fatalities during an assault in coordination with Russian Wagner private military contractors against US positions near Deir Ezzor city. The brigade also reported that two sons of Sheikh Nawwaf al Bashir, a prominent al Baqqara tribal leader, were killed in airstrikes by the US-led coalition and vowed vengeance.

    This is the most interesting part of the article to me, which highlights, again, the complex web of alliances and rivalries in the region. The consensus seems to be that everyone wants the U.S. out of Syria, with the exception of the Kurds:

    The inclusion of Turkish forces in the statement is likely meant to boost support with Syrian Kurds rather than a signal of attacking Turkish troops, though that possibility should not be entirely dismissed. The Baqir Brigade’s members were the pro-Syrian regime fighters deployed to Afrin earlier to show support for Kurdish forces. While Tehran is unlikely to set its guns on Turkey, with which it and Russia are in a negotiations process, it has used the latest Turkish offensive into Afrin to improve relations with Syrian Kurds and try to peel them away from the US. It is clear, however, that the crux of the latest letter is directed toward the US.

    https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/04/irgc-controlled-syrian-militia-declares-jihad-against-us-forces-in-syria.php

    All this leads me to the conclusion and reinforces my previous perception that the Der Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html might not be entirely reliable due to its heavy reliance on anti-American, pro-Assad/Iran/Russia BB sources, which likely dis-/misinformed the Der Spiegel reporters about the true extent of Russian involvement and causalities in the incident:

    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives. They said a total of more than 200 of the attackers died, including around 80 Syrian soldiers with the 4th Division, around 100 Iraqis and Afghans and around 70 tribal fighters, mostly with the al-Baqir militia.
    [...]
    One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. “If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it,” he said. “But it wasn’t.

    Der Spiegel is also a center-left publication https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/ which are in general less critical of Russia and most of the time even sympathetic towards it (not a bad thing, at all), and it also has had business connections to pro-Russian media in the past, and therefore might not be considered completely unbiased and objective when it comes to Russia reporting:

    In this particular regard, Germany, namely the influential Hamburg magazine DER SPIEGEL, does play a rather dubious role: DER SPIEGEL lends its name and reputation to one of Moscow’s major publication projects in Ukraine – the infamous weekly “Der Spiegel – Profil”. This coloured high-circulation journal is edited by Mikhail Leontev, a well-known Russian anti-Western propagandist, former “persona non grata” in Ukraine, founding member of neo-fascist Alexander Dugin’s “Eurasia” Movement, etc. One could argue though that the primitiveness of “Der Spiegel – Profil’s” anti-Ukrainianism has the unintended effect of supporting pro-NATO forces in Ukraine (reminding the ambivalent repercussions of transmissions in Ukraine of the dubious television reports from Kyiv by Russian TV “journalists”). And, DER SPIEGEL, it appears, is assisting in this. Yet, this would be a strange way, indeed, for German journalists to contribute to further improvement of relations between Ukraine and the West.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel-Profil#Controversy Archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110724193045/http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Umland%20Ukraine%20NATO%20and%20German%20Foreign%20Policies.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Will you shut up already pinhead...?

    You've trolled this discussion here with the online equivalent of walking into a crowded room and ripping a loud wet fart...repeatedly...

    No one cares about your flatulence over the supposed Wagner incident...and it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion...take a hike already...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/sr349mrwd/4447a4e2074ca621dc8c7ce4e43af2f2--funny-pics-funny-shit.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. slorter says:

    ‘Martyanov names the real enemy of both the Russian and the American people – the US political elites and, especially, the Neocons: they are destroying the US as a country and they are putting all of mankind at risk of nuclear annihilation.’

    That is a real problem to be faced! Good article look forward to the book!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. fnn says:

    Jim says the Poz has fatally weakened US military preparedness:

    https://blog.jim.com/war/technological-decline-3/

    The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has recently appeared, revealing that we have lost all nuclear military technology:

    U.S. production of tritium, a critical strategic material for nuclear weapons, is now insufficient to meet the forthcoming U.S. nuclear force sustainment demands, or to hedge against unforeseen developments. Programs are planned, but not yet fully funded, to ease these critical production shortfalls.

    This is euphemistic. Recent attempts to produce tritium were fully funded, but failed, which failure resulted in new plans for new attempts to produce tritium, which have not yet been fully funded.

    I have regularly remarked on America’s inability to produce tritium. All existing nuclear weapons require tritium to juice their detonation, and without tritium, would produce a low yield explosion. Tritium decays over time, and so fresh tritium continually needs to be added. The US is out of tritium, has repeatedly attempted to produce more, and repeatedly failed.

    Existing nuclear weapons have not received maintenance for a very long time, and it is unclear whether there is anyone with the relevant skills to perform maintenance and adequately test them for readiness.

    Fusion weapons require lithium enriches in lithium six to juice them. Enriched lithium does not decay, but the US has lost the capability to make more of it.

    Attempts to build new nuclear reactors in the US keep running into indefinite delays. To make significant amounts of plutonium 239 will need new reactors.

    Plutonium 239 is the stuff used in nuclear weapons, plutonium 238 the stuff used in nuclear batteries, plutonium 240 is the stuff you don’t want because it spontaneously fissions. You want to produce your plutonium using enriched uranium in a sodium cooled fast neutron reactor because then you get considerably more of the plutonium you want, and considerably less of the plutonium you do not want. The US used to build fast neutron reactors, but all recent attempts to build a fast neutron reactor in the west have failed, and all existing fast neutron reactors in the West have stopped working. The only existing fast neutron reactors that are working well enough to produce significant amounts of plutonium are in Russia and China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thanks for the link...I don't know how accurate this information is, but I would be skeptical...

    Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen and is used to create a more efficient chain reaction in warheads ...it's half life is only 12 years so it must be replenished periodically...

    The Ontario, Canada nuclear power station near Toronto has a Tritium removal facility, which collects about 2.5 kg per year from the heavy water moderated reactor...however, the company markets this for non-weapons uses...

    The only other civilian producer of tritium is in Chelyabinsk, Russia...Reviss Services, a British-Russian joint venture...

    That's in the civilian sector...it sounds frankly quite implausible that the US could not produce tritium...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. ValmMond says:
    @Michael Kenny
    Clearly, the purpose of Martyanov’s book is to convince Americans that their military forces could not beat the forces of the Russian Federation and can therefore be classified as pro-Putin propaganda. Interestingly, the publication of the book on the eve of Trump’s meeting with Putin makes that meeting look even more like a capitulation that it already does and will therefore re-invigorate Russiagate, which, in its turn damages Trump’s chances of avoiding impeachment and Putin’s chances of getting anything useful out of the summit. It’s hard to imagine that the publishers (and the author of this article!) didn’t realise that. Who’s on who’s side?

    Who’s on who’s side?

    Martyanov and the Saker might well be undercover Clinton operatives. We don’t know. What’s clear is that grammar and you are on opposite sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Bravo! State Department troll could have expected a lot of things, but not a shot at his/her/its grammar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @ValmMond

    Who’s on who’s side?
     
    Martyanov and the Saker might well be undercover Clinton operatives. We don't know. What's clear is that grammar and you are on opposite sides.

    Bravo! State Department troll could have expected a lot of things, but not a shot at his/her/its grammar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. prusmc says: • Website
    @FB

    '...As to present USA military power, there are many indications that USA technology is behind Russian and Chinese technology.

    I wonder if the USA educational system is to blame...'
     

    Good question...there are many problems with US higher education today, especially in the technical fields [hard sciences]...

    Russia, with half the US population, graduates twice as many engineers...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/cxyphltp9/20150609_Engineering_Fo.jpg


    Even Iran, with a quarter of US population graduates as many engineers as the US...this is a recipe for precipitous national decline in a modern world where technical capability is the key not only to national defense but also industrial and economic progress...

    How much does a STEM education cost in the US [about $200,000 for undergrad degree] and who can afford that...?

    Here is a snapshot of US household wealth, in quintiles...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/boavay20d/Census_Quintiles.jpg


    Realistically it is only the top 20 percent of families that can afford this...other factors are that technical professions are valued little in a society that glorifies vanity and money...hence young people whose families can afford to educate them choose to go into professions like business or law and not science or engineering...

    A book could be written on this decline in technical capability of the US and how it is a systemic problem at the core of the US 'civilizational' model...

    Many children from poor working families [think of the bottom 60 percent of the graph above] who are gifted and motivated with a natural interest in math and science...will never get the opportunity to reach their potential in America...

    A few years ago a great film was made about the true story of Homer Hickam, who grew up in a coal mining family in West Virginia of the late 1950s, and managed, against all odds, to fulfill his dream and become a Nasa scientist...October Sky...

    Unfortunately, these stories are so rare that they exist mainly in the world of the silver screen...

    This is especially true of minority children...despite the nonsense about 'black IQ' we see everywhere...the fact of the matter is that there are many gifted black children with mathematical aptitudes far above average...[this type of aptitude is not meaningfully measured in the psycho-quackery that is IQ testing]...

    Here is a list of African-American astronauts...

    It is of course a short one, and something of a miracle that these admirable individuals even achieved what they did...but the list of what 'might have been' is a far longer and tragic one...

    Look at the education achievements of Cuba...from banana republic to world leader...the country spends 10 percent of GNP on education...twice that of the US...very few gifted children slip through the cracks in such a system...but this cannot come about in a system where national priorities do not even consider the issue of developing human potential...

    Of course they are not going into STEM, it is boring. Better to major in Anthropology, Sociology, political science, Humanities, Women’s studies, Chicano Studies, Black Studies, LGT studies and such. PROBABLY as much scholarship money and tuition assistance as for STEM and more fun and games protesting and safe-space seeking.
    On a more serious note, I don’t think lack of money is a critical explanation for anything negative in US education. I believe per pupil expenditures are among the top ten in the family of nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. FB says:
    @FKA Max

    The Euphrates Post http://www.euphratespost.com/category/english/ seems to be a Sunni publication, but also pro-Assad, as is the al-Baqir militia, which is rather rare
    [...]
    So, can they be trusted to be provide unbiased reporting about the event? Could they have been pressured by Assad and the Russians to downplay the real number of Russian casualties?
     

    I just found a NY Times report on the "Baqir Brigade"(BB):

    This Militia is Threatening American Troops in Syria | Visual Investigations

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsPmG7NZCmQ

    The New York Times
    Published on Jun 14, 2018
    There are roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria. Recently, a statement went out calling for direct attacks against them. Who sent it, and why?

    The BB seems to be coordinating with the Russians:


    In February, the Baqir Brigade acknowledged fatalities during an assault in coordination with Russian Wagner private military contractors against US positions near Deir Ezzor city. The brigade also reported that two sons of Sheikh Nawwaf al Bashir, a prominent al Baqqara tribal leader, were killed in airstrikes by the US-led coalition and vowed vengeance.
     
    This is the most interesting part of the article to me, which highlights, again, the complex web of alliances and rivalries in the region. The consensus seems to be that everyone wants the U.S. out of Syria, with the exception of the Kurds:

    The inclusion of Turkish forces in the statement is likely meant to boost support with Syrian Kurds rather than a signal of attacking Turkish troops, though that possibility should not be entirely dismissed. The Baqir Brigade’s members were the pro-Syrian regime fighters deployed to Afrin earlier to show support for Kurdish forces. While Tehran is unlikely to set its guns on Turkey, with which it and Russia are in a negotiations process, it has used the latest Turkish offensive into Afrin to improve relations with Syrian Kurds and try to peel them away from the US. It is clear, however, that the crux of the latest letter is directed toward the US.
     
    - https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/04/irgc-controlled-syrian-militia-declares-jihad-against-us-forces-in-syria.php

    All this leads me to the conclusion and reinforces my previous perception that the Der Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html might not be entirely reliable due to its heavy reliance on anti-American, pro-Assad/Iran/Russia BB sources, which likely dis-/misinformed the Der Spiegel reporters about the true extent of Russian involvement and causalities in the incident:


    Among those stationed in Tabiya was a small contingent of Russian mercenaries. But the two militia sources said they did not participate in the fighting. Still, they said, 10 to 20 of them did in fact lose their lives. They said a total of more than 200 of the attackers died, including around 80 Syrian soldiers with the 4th Division, around 100 Iraqis and Afghans and around 70 tribal fighters, mostly with the al-Baqir militia.
    [...]
    One of his contacts fights for the al-Baqir militia and took the video at the site of the bombings. "If it had been a Russian attack, with many Russian dead, we would have reported about it," he said. "But it wasn't.

     

    Der Spiegel is also a center-left publication https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/ which are in general less critical of Russia and most of the time even sympathetic towards it (not a bad thing, at all), and it also has had business connections to pro-Russian media in the past, and therefore might not be considered completely unbiased and objective when it comes to Russia reporting:

    In this particular regard, Germany, namely the influential Hamburg magazine DER SPIEGEL, does play a rather dubious role: DER SPIEGEL lends its name and reputation to one of Moscow’s major publication projects in Ukraine - the infamous weekly “Der Spiegel - Profil”. This coloured high-circulation journal is edited by Mikhail Leontev, a well-known Russian anti-Western propagandist, former “persona non grata” in Ukraine, founding member of neo-fascist Alexander Dugin’s “Eurasia” Movement, etc. One could argue though that the primitiveness of “Der Spiegel – Profil’s” anti-Ukrainianism has the unintended effect of supporting pro-NATO forces in Ukraine (reminding the ambivalent repercussions of transmissions in Ukraine of the dubious television reports from Kyiv by Russian TV “journalists”). And, DER SPIEGEL, it appears, is assisting in this. Yet, this would be a strange way, indeed, for German journalists to contribute to further improvement of relations between Ukraine and the West.[5]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel-Profil#Controversy Archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110724193045/http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Umland%20Ukraine%20NATO%20and%20German%20Foreign%20Policies.pdf

    Will you shut up already pinhead…?

    You’ve trolled this discussion here with the online equivalent of walking into a crowded room and ripping a loud wet fart…repeatedly…

    No one cares about your flatulence over the supposed Wagner incident…and it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion…take a hike already…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    You are unduly tough on State Department trolls. This one’s job is to play “good cop”, pushing his BS insistently, but politely. There are others (I don’t need to name any names, everybody knows them) that play “bad cop”, a truly deranged troll. Have pity on them: no person with a real profession and a modicum of self-respect would work as a troll. They are paid a pittance, commensurate with their qualifications.
    , @FKA Max
    You forgot to LOL your own comment...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Z-man says:
    @FKA Max
    Thank you for the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386503/More-640-Russian-mercenary-soldiers-killed-Syria.html

    As I suspected the 600+ causalities figure is over the period of several weeks and not just that one incident/night:

    The moment a US fighter jet destroys a Russian tank in massive raid that 'killed hundreds of fighters and DOZENS of Putin's mercenaries who are secretly fighting in Syria'

    An alleged 644 Russian mercenary soldiers were killed in Syria in recent weeks


    It comes after reports that more than 200 private Russian military contractors were killed in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and Kurdish forces last week, Bloomberg reports.
    [...]
    In recent weeks, more than 600 Russian mercenaries have reportedly been killed in Syria, many of them in airstrikes carried out by the U.S.-led coalition.
     
    This might be the reason the Cossacks lashed out at the Kremlin http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2404113

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/13/15/492AF83300000578-5386503-image-m-40_1518537003967.jpg


    One was Cossack fighter Vladimir Loginov, 51, from Kaliningrad, a father of two who formerly worked for the Russian Interior Ministry, who died in a U.S.-led coalition airstrike on February 7.
    [...]
    He fell 'heroically defending our Motherland in its far reaches from crazy savages', according to the Baltic Cossack Union in Kaliningrad.
     

    I hope most of the Russian mercenary casualties were like this one, men past their prime and already reproduced themselves. Putin Da!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. FB says:
    @fnn
    Jim says the Poz has fatally weakened US military preparedness:
    https://blog.jim.com/war/technological-decline-3/

    The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has recently appeared, revealing that we have lost all nuclear military technology:

    U.S. production of tritium, a critical strategic material for nuclear weapons, is now insufficient to meet the forthcoming U.S. nuclear force sustainment demands, or to hedge against unforeseen developments. Programs are planned, but not yet fully funded, to ease these critical production shortfalls.

    This is euphemistic. Recent attempts to produce tritium were fully funded, but failed, which failure resulted in new plans for new attempts to produce tritium, which have not yet been fully funded.

    I have regularly remarked on America’s inability to produce tritium. All existing nuclear weapons require tritium to juice their detonation, and without tritium, would produce a low yield explosion. Tritium decays over time, and so fresh tritium continually needs to be added. The US is out of tritium, has repeatedly attempted to produce more, and repeatedly failed.
     

    Existing nuclear weapons have not received maintenance for a very long time, and it is unclear whether there is anyone with the relevant skills to perform maintenance and adequately test them for readiness.

    Fusion weapons require lithium enriches in lithium six to juice them. Enriched lithium does not decay, but the US has lost the capability to make more of it.

    Attempts to build new nuclear reactors in the US keep running into indefinite delays. To make significant amounts of plutonium 239 will need new reactors.

    Plutonium 239 is the stuff used in nuclear weapons, plutonium 238 the stuff used in nuclear batteries, plutonium 240 is the stuff you don’t want because it spontaneously fissions. You want to produce your plutonium using enriched uranium in a sodium cooled fast neutron reactor because then you get considerably more of the plutonium you want, and considerably less of the plutonium you do not want. The US used to build fast neutron reactors, but all recent attempts to build a fast neutron reactor in the west have failed, and all existing fast neutron reactors in the West have stopped working. The only existing fast neutron reactors that are working well enough to produce significant amounts of plutonium are in Russia and China.
     

    Thanks for the link…I don’t know how accurate this information is, but I would be skeptical…

    Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen and is used to create a more efficient chain reaction in warheads …it’s half life is only 12 years so it must be replenished periodically…

    The Ontario, Canada nuclear power station near Toronto has a Tritium removal facility, which collects about 2.5 kg per year from the heavy water moderated reactor…however, the company markets this for non-weapons uses…

    The only other civilian producer of tritium is in Chelyabinsk, Russia…Reviss Services, a British-Russian joint venture…

    That’s in the civilian sector…it sounds frankly quite implausible that the US could not produce tritium…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Sean

    https://www.rt.com/news/432071-italy-f35-jets-not-anymore/

    The anti-establishment Italian government's defense minister has said that the country won't purchase any more Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets from the US and will review the existing order for 90 planes.
    Elisabetta Trenta, the country's new minister of defense from the Eurosceptic Five Star Movement, has ruled out new contracts with the US for the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, adding that the order for 60 F-35A and 30 F-35B jets, which Italy concluded in 2012, might be placed under review.
     

    The way Russian armour like the T14 is being designed to be ever more svelte and the F35 weighs 35 tons, it makes it you wonder what is going on.

    It’s the Italians loss, in my opinion, if they go ahead and cancel it.

    I have a very different view of the F-35 than Martyanov et al.:

    Hence the kind of criminally overpriced and useless weapons system like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship or, of course, the fantastically expensive and no less fantastically vulnerable aircraft carriers.

    I think it is a game-changing weapons system as it turns assault vessels into mini-aircraft carriers:

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships – Here’s Why That’s a Big Deal


    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships – Here’s Why That’s a Big Deal The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a detachment of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters onboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), marking the first time the jet has deployed operationally onboard a large deck amphibious assault ship. The arrival of the F-35B onboard the L-class ships mark a massive boost in striking power for the roughly 40,000-ton vesselseffectively turning them into light carriers. Indeed, until the United States Navy’s F-35C version becomes operational, the F-35B will be the only stealth aircraft to be found onboard a naval flight deck. “Pairing F-35B Lightning II’s with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime,” Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said. “This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities.”

    In the long term, several operators have announced their intention to supplement or replace their Harrier fleets with the STOVL variant of the F-35 Lightning II, designated as the F-35B.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

    NASA uses the abbreviation SSTOVL for Supersonic Short Take-Off / Vertical Landing,[3] and as of 2012, the X-35B/F-35B are the only aircraft to conform with this combination within one flight.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

    What is your opinion on the F-35, Sean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    "Vladislav Shurygin, a Zavtra editor[3] and editor-in-chief of ZhP[4]." http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/08/20/trolls-on-tour-how-kremlin-money-buys-western-journalists/ on the F-35:

    Russian military expert about F-35 'Lightning II' (English subtitles)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZbqkxjAK8E

    Also in this comment Andrei Martyanov states:


    I operate on strictly open data and sources. In interview to Shurygin some people from “North Wind” did notice some improvement in tactics and increased combat cohesion of Ukrainian units.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/akarlin/novorossiya-sitrep-2/#comment-978733

    No spy confirmed ;-) http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2407975

    , @FKA Max
    This is a good example of the F-35 being (intentionally?) talked down, even though it actually has a longer range than the F-18. Maybe it is the Military-industrial complex doing this, so they can get contracts to build stealth tankers or longer range missiles, etc., I don't know?

    Navy’s F-35 doesn’t have range for real stealth strikes, House report says

    Risks to carriers, absence of stealth tankers puts "necessary targets" out of reach.


    The F-35C's advertised range is 1,200 nautical miles (roughly 2,200 kilometers), roughly 10 percent longer than that of the F/A-18. But for most strikes, that would require the carriers launching F-35C sorties to be much closer to the coast than falls within the comfort zone. And with advanced air and coastal defense systems—including, for example, the sorts that are popping up on islands in the South China Sea these days—less-than-stealthy tanker planes would give up the whole game.
     
    - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/navys-f-35-doesnt-have-range-for-real-stealth-strikes-house-report-says/

    One commenter put it well:


    I think an equally fair headline would be

    Quote:


    Navy’s carrier air wings don’t have range for real stealth strikes, even with the F-35C, House report says
     
    This long-range strike capability, stealth or not, has been missing from the US Navy for a generation. It is a systemic and programmatic failure on the part of Congress (who funds these things) and NAVSEA (who ultimately asks for development money), more so than a specific failing of a single aircraft.

    The F-35 has a multitude of faults, but I'm not sure it should shoulder this one all by its lonesome.
     

    - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/navys-f-35-doesnt-have-range-for-real-stealth-strikes-house-report-says/?comments=1&post=35372085

    Vox is also trashing the plane/program, makes one wonder...

    This jet fighter is a disaster, but Congress keeps buying it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw

    Vox
    Published on Jan 26, 2017

    Trump says the F-35 is too expensive and he's not wrong. But this is what he's up against.

    There some really good comments under that video defending the project:


    DJ Street Love
    4 months ago
    The most common misconception is that the F-35 has already cost $1 trillion. That figure comes from the entire lifespan of the aircraft in the US armed forces.

    "Regarding the $1 Trillion price tag, in reference to it's total program cost which will indeed cost approximately 1 trillion dollars. But while this may seem like an outrageous number for a fighter, it is critical to understand that this value is the cost to research and design the aircraft, build 2443 airframes and also pay for their fuel consumption, maintenance, spare engines, spare parts, upgrades and weapons expenditure, from the moment the first F-35 flew in 2006, through to when the F-35 is scheduled to be retired, in the year 2065."
     


    Pentagon officials including Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and chief weapons buyer Ellen Lord have highlighted the need to reduce the F-35’s $406.5 billion projected acquisition cost and its estimated $1.2 trillion price tag for long-term operations and support through 2070.
     
    - http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jets/

    Chief Seadawg
    3 months ago
    I have been a huge critic of the F-35, but the program does seem to have hit its stride. Many countries are lining up to purchase it. But the U.S. Navy's version, the F-35C, still has many unresolved problems, and the Navy will not even declare initial operational capability (IOC) until 2019, at the earliest. Meanwhile, neither the USAF or USMC have declared full operational capability (FOC) on the F-35A or F-35B respectively, and there are no news reports of FOC even being in the works.
     
    , @Sean
    Probably the air force are overly concerned with their appearance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7IgwDqJhno

    I think the F35 a poor, or not entirely trusted, man's F22. With limited numbers of the Raptor maintaining the US lead and uprated F16s there was no need for the F35. They would not let Israel have the F22, the F35 is way to transfer technology (Israel is fitting it with extra fuel tanks that compromise its invisibility to radar, and modifying advanced computer features). The A10 (actually an Army-commissioned plane that the Air Force never wanted) has been retained, which tells you all you need to know about the ground attack capabilities of the F35. The B52's would probably have to be used/sacrificed to prevent a battlefield nuke first use in the event of a tank breakthrough, although Western Europe is too built up for a tank drive to succeed now.

    The traditional Russian, and the future Chinese strategy may not be so Top Gun-ish:


    ONE program from 1981, called Eurisko, was designed to teach itself a naval role-playing game. After playing ten thousand matches, it arrived at a morally grotesque strategy: to field thousands of small, immobile ships, the vast majority of which were intended as cannon fodder. In a national tournament, Eurisko demolished its human opponents, who insisted that the game’s rules be changed. The following year, Eurisko won again—by forcing its damaged ships to sink themselves.
     
    I can imagine a strategy in which large numbers of small primitive tanks and planes or just obsolete inventory are fielded to distract one sides cutting edge weaponry, with the really effective weapons surviving as a result. Fortunately the West's next war will be against China and actually fought by the Russians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Philip Owen
    We are all idiots. Only a valued few are useful.

    Better to be an idiot alive than a dead idiot. One of the consequences of believing in that big lie-cold war 2- being spread by the western media and the Russian media is that some naîve young people (idiots), decide to defend their “country” and they end up being killed. They die serving the MIC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @FB
    Will you shut up already pinhead...?

    You've trolled this discussion here with the online equivalent of walking into a crowded room and ripping a loud wet fart...repeatedly...

    No one cares about your flatulence over the supposed Wagner incident...and it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion...take a hike already...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/sr349mrwd/4447a4e2074ca621dc8c7ce4e43af2f2--funny-pics-funny-shit.jpg

    You are unduly tough on State Department trolls. This one’s job is to play “good cop”, pushing his BS insistently, but politely. There are others (I don’t need to name any names, everybody knows them) that play “bad cop”, a truly deranged troll. Have pity on them: no person with a real profession and a modicum of self-respect would work as a troll. They are paid a pittance, commensurate with their qualifications.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I wish I were paid by the State Department! And yes, I try to be polite and respectful, unlike FB.

    My Unz Review commenting is a labor or love!

    I live in the boonies and day trade, so I need mental and intellectual stimulation, that is the reason why I spend so much time on the Unz Review.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FB
    Will you shut up already pinhead...?

    You've trolled this discussion here with the online equivalent of walking into a crowded room and ripping a loud wet fart...repeatedly...

    No one cares about your flatulence over the supposed Wagner incident...and it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion...take a hike already...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/sr349mrwd/4447a4e2074ca621dc8c7ce4e43af2f2--funny-pics-funny-shit.jpg

    You forgot to LOL your own comment…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. MarkinLA says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Did I suggest it was otherwise ?

    No but I felt the tone of your post was somewhat condescending to America’s military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    We no longer are in WWI circumstances, when GB sent tens of thousands of British to a certain death by German machine guns, in order to claim the right to divide the spoils of war at the conference table.
    I see nothing heroic in spilling a lot of one's own blood.
    Also not in spilling a lot of blood on the other side.
    Omaha Beach was a carnage, nearly all the floating tanks sunk, yet the USA troops succeeded.
    Even today, with many of the German bunkers no longer there, though I hate war, I admire the USA troops that went on the beach, seeing the bunkers that still are there.
    When visiting the Arromanches Dday museum a USA veteran said to his wife, could not help overhearing, 'the Germans could not shoot us all'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. MarkinLA says:
    @FB

    '...As to present USA military power, there are many indications that USA technology is behind Russian and Chinese technology.

    I wonder if the USA educational system is to blame...'
     

    Good question...there are many problems with US higher education today, especially in the technical fields [hard sciences]...

    Russia, with half the US population, graduates twice as many engineers...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/cxyphltp9/20150609_Engineering_Fo.jpg


    Even Iran, with a quarter of US population graduates as many engineers as the US...this is a recipe for precipitous national decline in a modern world where technical capability is the key not only to national defense but also industrial and economic progress...

    How much does a STEM education cost in the US [about $200,000 for undergrad degree] and who can afford that...?

    Here is a snapshot of US household wealth, in quintiles...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/boavay20d/Census_Quintiles.jpg


    Realistically it is only the top 20 percent of families that can afford this...other factors are that technical professions are valued little in a society that glorifies vanity and money...hence young people whose families can afford to educate them choose to go into professions like business or law and not science or engineering...

    A book could be written on this decline in technical capability of the US and how it is a systemic problem at the core of the US 'civilizational' model...

    Many children from poor working families [think of the bottom 60 percent of the graph above] who are gifted and motivated with a natural interest in math and science...will never get the opportunity to reach their potential in America...

    A few years ago a great film was made about the true story of Homer Hickam, who grew up in a coal mining family in West Virginia of the late 1950s, and managed, against all odds, to fulfill his dream and become a Nasa scientist...October Sky...

    Unfortunately, these stories are so rare that they exist mainly in the world of the silver screen...

    This is especially true of minority children...despite the nonsense about 'black IQ' we see everywhere...the fact of the matter is that there are many gifted black children with mathematical aptitudes far above average...[this type of aptitude is not meaningfully measured in the psycho-quackery that is IQ testing]...

    Here is a list of African-American astronauts...

    It is of course a short one, and something of a miracle that these admirable individuals even achieved what they did...but the list of what 'might have been' is a far longer and tragic one...

    Look at the education achievements of Cuba...from banana republic to world leader...the country spends 10 percent of GNP on education...twice that of the US...very few gifted children slip through the cracks in such a system...but this cannot come about in a system where national priorities do not even consider the issue of developing human potential...

    the fact of the matter is that there are many gifted black children with mathematical aptitudes far above average…[this type of aptitude is not meaningfully measured in the psycho-quackery that is IQ testing]…

    But it is at the math departments at universities where we see very few (if any) blacks at all. How do all these math geniuses slip through the cracks – especially when any black who can count to 10 can get a college scholarship?

    As for Cuba, what in the world of technological advancement is Cuba noted for? They have a decent medical system for a third world country but training people to be physicians isn’t the same as training theoretical physicists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. MarkinLA says:
    @AnonFromTN
    By definition, propaganda means lying: you don’t need propaganda to tell the truth. However, on the scale of one to one hundred, the lie index of CNN is about 90, of BBC – about 80, of RT – about 20-25. That’s why they don’t need so much money.

    Anglo-Saxon tradition plays a role, too. Orwell had inside knowledge of the subject and expressed it best: CNN, NYT, BBC and others of their ilk invent “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Their key secret is shamelessness: on the day of vicious Georgian attack on Tskhinval in 2008 all TV networks in the US reported the event as it is. Yet from the next day onward they reversed their stories by 180 degrees without missing a beat. Indeed, Germans and Russians have a lot to learn yet.

    I didn’t watch TV for about 10 years, and have no intention of watching it ever again. I would recommend this to every person in every country: nothing has such a high concentration of lies and stupidity as TV.

    You are right in one thing: MIC of all countries loves this kind of stories, as they say “give me more money”, ostensibly from an unbiased observer.

    Propaganda is not about lying. It is about convincing. Sometimes you lie, sometimes you tell the truth, sometimes you say nothing. The point is to persuade people that you are telling the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    That’s theory. However, you need different tings to convince people with different levels of intelligence and professional training. Say, a biologist with rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry would immediately see that all White Helmet videos are fakes, whereas a Joe from the street without any scientific knowledge or understanding would be duly impressed. Same with Skripal false-flag op. In reality propaganda is designed for ignoramuses, rightly assuming that intelligent and/or educated people are hopeless. Lies repeated many times do the job fine.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Propaganda is telling people what to think, education is teaching people to think for themselves
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Jake says:
    @MarkinLA
    USA wars, overwhelming use of hardware.

    That is a feature and not a bug. That was America's strategy for winning the war with the least amount of casualties. We didn't have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy.

    “We didn’t have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy.”

    The American Elites see white Middle America as no better than peasants whose lives can be tossed away with no loss. If you fail to grasp that, you may well miss everything else that is important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Maybe now but they couldn't get away with it during WWII.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. MarkinLA says:
    @Jake
    "We didn’t have a lot of peasants whose lives the elites considered to be worthless to throw at the enemy."

    The American Elites see white Middle America as no better than peasants whose lives can be tossed away with no loss. If you fail to grasp that, you may well miss everything else that is important.

    Maybe now but they couldn’t get away with it during WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    "Worthless Peasants"

    ...if you choose to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @MarkinLA
    Propaganda is not about lying. It is about convincing. Sometimes you lie, sometimes you tell the truth, sometimes you say nothing. The point is to persuade people that you are telling the truth.

    That’s theory. However, you need different tings to convince people with different levels of intelligence and professional training. Say, a biologist with rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry would immediately see that all White Helmet videos are fakes, whereas a Joe from the street without any scientific knowledge or understanding would be duly impressed. Same with Skripal false-flag op. In reality propaganda is designed for ignoramuses, rightly assuming that intelligent and/or educated people are hopeless. Lies repeated many times do the job fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Very good point...most of the disneyland narrative created by 'our' dispensers of information rely specifically on the technical ignorance of the masses...

    Remember the discussion here on that missile strike in Syria back in April...?

    The official narrative was that 74 cruise missiles carrying a total of 37 tons of TNT hit a one-acre site near Damascus...the sheeple of course believed it...despite the simple fact that such a massive bombardment would flatten a small city...

    Just a look at the post-bombing photos and the fact of completely undamaged buildings and even small trees and light poles just meters away...combined with a basic knowledge of blast radius and overpressure and what that does to structures...was enough to completely debunk this as surely as the supposed existence of lizard-men...

    PS...you may recall that none other than our friend Tampon Phil...who actually has some engineering background...contested and protested mightily the obvious conclusion of the analysis presented by myself...

    He first argued that the photo was 'fake' [later revising that, after supposedly examining his computer monitor with a 'device' to ascertain evidence of shattered windows in nearby buildings, thereby confirming the photo as real]...

    With that challenge having failed, he argued that the warheads on those missiles 'must have been' removed and replaced with 'dummies' so as not to do much damage'...LOL...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. 1RW says:
    @AnonFromTN
    By definition, propaganda means lying: you don’t need propaganda to tell the truth. However, on the scale of one to one hundred, the lie index of CNN is about 90, of BBC – about 80, of RT – about 20-25. That’s why they don’t need so much money.

    Anglo-Saxon tradition plays a role, too. Orwell had inside knowledge of the subject and expressed it best: CNN, NYT, BBC and others of their ilk invent “comrade Ogilvy” stories all the time. Their key secret is shamelessness: on the day of vicious Georgian attack on Tskhinval in 2008 all TV networks in the US reported the event as it is. Yet from the next day onward they reversed their stories by 180 degrees without missing a beat. Indeed, Germans and Russians have a lot to learn yet.

    I didn’t watch TV for about 10 years, and have no intention of watching it ever again. I would recommend this to every person in every country: nothing has such a high concentration of lies and stupidity as TV.

    You are right in one thing: MIC of all countries loves this kind of stories, as they say “give me more money”, ostensibly from an unbiased observer.

    Propaganda may lie, may be truthful, if biased, or any shade in between. What makes it propaganda is that it promotes a point of view – like advertising. It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps – credibility makes propaganda more efficient. While CNN, BBC are veritable juggernauts of outer party employment – and thus have the manpower to rewrite, edit, and manage it all reality, RT runs on a shoestring. So it’s much easier to merely selectively report hard facts.

    Having said this, perhaps it would do some good to get a good handle on what words mean before using them with other people

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    "It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps – credibility makes propaganda more efficient."

    Maybe you should have written RT is SOMETIMES truthful otherwise what you are saying doesn't make sense. Truth isn't propaganda.

    A well known buffoon - Noam Chomsky - said that if the western media wanted to be more convincing,they should invite more dissidents because that won't "hurt their effectiveness as a propaganda tool."

    That is what RT is doing. They invite lots of western dissidents- The Useful idiots.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because in what is essential - the western narrative about the new cold war; 9/11, Syria etc...RT lies as much as BBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, NYT etc....Or if you prefer , RT doesn't lie. RT simply doesn't tell the truth.

    , @jilles dykstra
    The essence of good propaganda is not to lie, but also not to tell th whole truth
    Philip M. Taylor, 'Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day', 1995, Manchester
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Seraphim says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Saker, if you are not working for Lockheed - a proposition I rank at 1 of 10 - then you are minimally circumspect enough to understand that whatever expertise you have, you are seeing things through a fishbowl that creates wild prismatic distortions.

    An admiral, or field marshal, cannot tolerate those distortions. They result in events like the Russo-Japanese War, WW1, or the Pyrrhic triumphs of WW2. Reflections on those events might lead an outside observer to wonder if the Russian penchant for generating miles and miles of cannon fodder has also created a parallel Russian penchant for failing to register it to the accounting tables that the cannon fodder spent, entailed a loss, not a victory. Non-Russians look with some wonder on the Russian preparedness to sacrifice his fellow countryman to the future melodies of patriotic song and consign the means of sacrifice to manuals for the conduct of battle, rather than records of error in the same.

    There are people far better qualified than you to critique the American military enterprise and there's no shortage of error in that enterprise to critique. Don't make so much of the fact that you enjoy and audience for this. You hurt your audience more than you help. I'm not speaking of the American audience.

    Non-Russians look with anxiety on the Russians willingness to fight back. Repressed memories of the fate of Napoleons and Hitlers surface from time to time to sap their cock-sure confidence in the superiority of their military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    I think Andrei's whole point is that American policy makers don't have enough of a proper grasp of history to consider the fate of Napoleon and Hitler. In most Americans' minds, they are the ones that defeated Hitler, not the Soviets. There certainly are no memories, repressed or otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @1RW
    Propaganda may lie, may be truthful, if biased, or any shade in between. What makes it propaganda is that it promotes a point of view - like advertising. It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps - credibility makes propaganda more efficient. While CNN, BBC are veritable juggernauts of outer party employment - and thus have the manpower to rewrite, edit, and manage it all reality, RT runs on a shoestring. So it’s much easier to merely selectively report hard facts.

    Having said this, perhaps it would do some good to get a good handle on what words mean before using them with other people

    “It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps – credibility makes propaganda more efficient.”

    Maybe you should have written RT is SOMETIMES truthful otherwise what you are saying doesn’t make sense. Truth isn’t propaganda.

    A well known buffoon – Noam Chomsky – said that if the western media wanted to be more convincing,they should invite more dissidents because that won’t “hurt their effectiveness as a propaganda tool.”

    That is what RT is doing. They invite lots of western dissidents- The Useful idiots.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because in what is essential – the western narrative about the new cold war; 9/11, Syria etc…RT lies as much as BBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, NYT etc….Or if you prefer , RT doesn’t lie. RT simply doesn’t tell the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    That RT invites those useful to the Russian cause, of course.
    That they're idiots, hardly anyone.
    , @1RW
    As I’ve said, RT reports facts selectively. These facts must either show Russia in a positive light, the US et al in a negative light, or undermine the credibility of rival news outlets.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because it is run by the Russian state, just like basically every news Corp is one.

    As far as Cold War 2 being a conspiracy to make money for the MIC I think that’s too far fetched. The US can’t stop, its elites are either convinced that they are “good guys” and whatever they do is justified by their innate goodness, or they are amoral psychopaths doing whatever advances their personal interests at the time - which is never ever standing up to the delusional “good guys” btw. So the US behaves in an ever more intrusive and obnoxious manner, destroying trust, alienating allies, refusing to recognize other big countries’ spheres of influence. Push back is inevitable regardless of profitability.

    Since the elites are either delusional or thieves it’s easy for the MIC to rip them off, and since profit is the only real motive in capitalism, they (Lockheed, Northrop, et al) must, must try to get as much money for as little effort as possible. The optimal way to reap rewards is not by developing functional weapons economically, no no, that would limit the price per unit and delay the need for new units by making the customer satisfied. We must have weapons that are very high tech and imperfect so they can cost a lot and need constant upgrades. The psychopaths will ignore this if you give them a cut, the “good guys” are easy to fool.
    , @AnonFromTN
    By my count RT has a long way to go to lie as often as CNN, BBC, Fox, or NYT. In the last few years on a scale of one to one hundred the lie index of CNN and NYT was ~90%, that of BBC and FOX at ~80%, whereas that of RT ~20-25%.
    It’s not that RT is inherently good, they would lie more, if necessary. It’s just that the narrative of the State Department and US vassals is so false that RT does not even need to lie much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Johnny Rico

    they had US-made weapons
     
    Did they? Which ones?

    The Georgians were completely outnumbered and outflanked. Their loss was an obvious predictable outcome. The reasons for the 2008 war are one thing. The reasons why the Georgians were trounced so quickly are something else. Russian military brilliance or performance isn't provided as one by anybody but Russian propagandists.

    Then you have Russian military performance in Afghanistan and twice in Chechnya. Not good. The Crimea and Syria are the only other two examples of Russian military prowess.

    President Saakashvili would have never starter that war, if he didn’t believe in victory. You don’t launch an aggression, if you think you will be immediately outflanked and overrun. His plan was essentially a repeat of Croatian operation Storm: eradicating Russian-backed statelets would have opened a path for Georgia to quickly join NATO, which was also Washington’s goal.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that “Russia sucks and cannot do shit”. We also know that he relied on American intelligence and satellite data. Obviously US intelligence dropped the ball on Russia that time, and it wasn’t the last time.

    My point is you guys know very little about Russia and its capabilities. Your bravado is mostly a product of ignorance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico

    My point is
     
    How is any of that a response to my comment? You can't just write your point out? You have to play games like that?

    Just answer the questions. One might be tempted to think you don't have the answers and are bullshitting.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that “Russia sucks and cannot do shit”.
     
    Who talks like that? Most of your comment is speculation. Are you drunk? When you are sober revisit the history of that war...the facts.
    , @Seraphim
    Their bravado is the result of ignorance doubled by an incapacity to learn from mistakes. An inability to look at the whole picture. One may notice that all assessments of Russian military capabilities talk only of the first phases of a conflict. So, this kind of 'history' would expatiate on the defeats of the Russians at Austerlitz, Friedland, Borodino, and forget that the Russian-Napoleonic wars ended with the Cossacks washing their feet in the Seine, the demise of Napoleon and the reorganization of Europe on Russian lines. Ditto with WWII. Much about the German victories in the first phases of the war and less about that the Russians entered Berlin. The impression left in peoples' minds is that the Russians have been always beaten and therefore they will be beaten in the future as well!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @MarkinLA
    No but I felt the tone of your post was somewhat condescending to America's military.

    We no longer are in WWI circumstances, when GB sent tens of thousands of British to a certain death by German machine guns, in order to claim the right to divide the spoils of war at the conference table.
    I see nothing heroic in spilling a lot of one’s own blood.
    Also not in spilling a lot of blood on the other side.
    Omaha Beach was a carnage, nearly all the floating tanks sunk, yet the USA troops succeeded.
    Even today, with many of the German bunkers no longer there, though I hate war, I admire the USA troops that went on the beach, seeing the bunkers that still are there.
    When visiting the Arromanches Dday museum a USA veteran said to his wife, could not help overhearing, ‘the Germans could not shoot us all’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @James Brown
    "It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps – credibility makes propaganda more efficient."

    Maybe you should have written RT is SOMETIMES truthful otherwise what you are saying doesn't make sense. Truth isn't propaganda.

    A well known buffoon - Noam Chomsky - said that if the western media wanted to be more convincing,they should invite more dissidents because that won't "hurt their effectiveness as a propaganda tool."

    That is what RT is doing. They invite lots of western dissidents- The Useful idiots.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because in what is essential - the western narrative about the new cold war; 9/11, Syria etc...RT lies as much as BBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, NYT etc....Or if you prefer , RT doesn't lie. RT simply doesn't tell the truth.

    That RT invites those useful to the Russian cause, of course.
    That they’re idiots, hardly anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    "That RT invites those useful to the Russian cause"

    That's why they are called "useful idiots". Lenin's expression, not mine.

    He supposedly used to call those western intellectuals who were writing and talking about "the paradise" the Bolsheviks were building "Useful Idiots".

    By using the expression to refer to some western intellectuals on RT as "Useful Idiots" , I want to say that they're helping Russia and The USA sell "cold war 2". They're serving the MIC of both countries.

    Of course, they don't know what they are doing. Some "Useful Idiots", are decent people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @1RW
    Propaganda may lie, may be truthful, if biased, or any shade in between. What makes it propaganda is that it promotes a point of view - like advertising. It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps - credibility makes propaganda more efficient. While CNN, BBC are veritable juggernauts of outer party employment - and thus have the manpower to rewrite, edit, and manage it all reality, RT runs on a shoestring. So it’s much easier to merely selectively report hard facts.

    Having said this, perhaps it would do some good to get a good handle on what words mean before using them with other people

    The essence of good propaganda is not to lie, but also not to tell th whole truth
    Philip M. Taylor, ‘Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day’, 1995, Manchester

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @MarkinLA
    Propaganda is not about lying. It is about convincing. Sometimes you lie, sometimes you tell the truth, sometimes you say nothing. The point is to persuade people that you are telling the truth.

    Propaganda is telling people what to think, education is teaching people to think for themselves

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. JL says:
    @Seraphim
    Non-Russians look with anxiety on the Russians willingness to fight back. Repressed memories of the fate of Napoleons and Hitlers surface from time to time to sap their cock-sure confidence in the superiority of their military.

    I think Andrei’s whole point is that American policy makers don’t have enough of a proper grasp of history to consider the fate of Napoleon and Hitler. In most Americans’ minds, they are the ones that defeated Hitler, not the Soviets. There certainly are no memories, repressed or otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Paw says:
    @anonymous

    For Americans warfare is killing the other guy in his own country, preferably from afar or above, while making a ton of money in the process.
     
    This is why I don't think there'll be any head-on clash between the US and Russia. It would violate the above principle. American wars are ones of predation, attacking weaker countries when the opportunity presents itself. It's a form of banditry, roving the world in search of the next victim. Parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America are all weak and subject to US whims. That there's a huge mythology attached to US military prowess is just part of the brainwashing that goes on. It's been a winning formula for the US which has avoided the massive casualty rates suffered by other countries. There's always the risk of miscalculation of course but US politics is mostly show biz so it's hard to assess what part of it's warhawk talk is real and what's showboating.

    THE USA and The Western world is not facing anything. They speed up faster and faster into destruction end by all means ..As soon as you permit to rule the world by Banks and Corporations, with no brakes , and their lackeys , Hey pronto…They even fight with anyone , who stands in their way , with peace, other nations ,fight viciously with themselves as the Neocons make it faster , like an Express train…
    Now they even find that Trump is Russian and wants to fight the USA…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @jilles dykstra
    That RT invites those useful to the Russian cause, of course.
    That they're idiots, hardly anyone.

    “That RT invites those useful to the Russian cause”

    That’s why they are called “useful idiots”. Lenin’s expression, not mine.

    He supposedly used to call those western intellectuals who were writing and talking about “the paradise” the Bolsheviks were building “Useful Idiots”.

    By using the expression to refer to some western intellectuals on RT as “Useful Idiots” , I want to say that they’re helping Russia and The USA sell “cold war 2″. They’re serving the MIC of both countries.

    Of course, they don’t know what they are doing. Some “Useful Idiots”, are decent people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @MarkinLA
    Maybe now but they couldn't get away with it during WWII.

    “Worthless Peasants”

    …if you choose to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. 1RW says:
    @James Brown
    "It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps – credibility makes propaganda more efficient."

    Maybe you should have written RT is SOMETIMES truthful otherwise what you are saying doesn't make sense. Truth isn't propaganda.

    A well known buffoon - Noam Chomsky - said that if the western media wanted to be more convincing,they should invite more dissidents because that won't "hurt their effectiveness as a propaganda tool."

    That is what RT is doing. They invite lots of western dissidents- The Useful idiots.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because in what is essential - the western narrative about the new cold war; 9/11, Syria etc...RT lies as much as BBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, NYT etc....Or if you prefer , RT doesn't lie. RT simply doesn't tell the truth.

    As I’ve said, RT reports facts selectively. These facts must either show Russia in a positive light, the US et al in a negative light, or undermine the credibility of rival news outlets.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because it is run by the Russian state, just like basically every news Corp is one.

    As far as Cold War 2 being a conspiracy to make money for the MIC I think that’s too far fetched. The US can’t stop, its elites are either convinced that they are “good guys” and whatever they do is justified by their innate goodness, or they are amoral psychopaths doing whatever advances their personal interests at the time – which is never ever standing up to the delusional “good guys” btw. So the US behaves in an ever more intrusive and obnoxious manner, destroying trust, alienating allies, refusing to recognize other big countries’ spheres of influence. Push back is inevitable regardless of profitability.

    Since the elites are either delusional or thieves it’s easy for the MIC to rip them off, and since profit is the only real motive in capitalism, they (Lockheed, Northrop, et al) must, must try to get as much money for as little effort as possible. The optimal way to reap rewards is not by developing functional weapons economically, no no, that would limit the price per unit and delay the need for new units by making the customer satisfied. We must have weapons that are very high tech and imperfect so they can cost a lot and need constant upgrades. The psychopaths will ignore this if you give them a cut, the “good guys” are easy to fool.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. FB says:
    @AnonFromTN
    That’s theory. However, you need different tings to convince people with different levels of intelligence and professional training. Say, a biologist with rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry would immediately see that all White Helmet videos are fakes, whereas a Joe from the street without any scientific knowledge or understanding would be duly impressed. Same with Skripal false-flag op. In reality propaganda is designed for ignoramuses, rightly assuming that intelligent and/or educated people are hopeless. Lies repeated many times do the job fine.

    Very good point…most of the disneyland narrative created by ‘our’ dispensers of information rely specifically on the technical ignorance of the masses…

    Remember the discussion here on that missile strike in Syria back in April…?

    The official narrative was that 74 cruise missiles carrying a total of 37 tons of TNT hit a one-acre site near Damascus…the sheeple of course believed it…despite the simple fact that such a massive bombardment would flatten a small city…

    Just a look at the post-bombing photos and the fact of completely undamaged buildings and even small trees and light poles just meters away…combined with a basic knowledge of blast radius and overpressure and what that does to structures…was enough to completely debunk this as surely as the supposed existence of lizard-men…

    PS…you may recall that none other than our friend Tampon Phil…who actually has some engineering background…contested and protested mightily the obvious conclusion of the analysis presented by myself…

    He first argued that the photo was ‘fake’ [later revising that, after supposedly examining his computer monitor with a 'device' to ascertain evidence of shattered windows in nearby buildings, thereby confirming the photo as real]…

    With that challenge having failed, he argued that the warheads on those missiles ‘must have been’ removed and replaced with ‘dummies’ so as not to do much damage’…LOL…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @James Brown
    "It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that RT is truthful, and this does not hurt its effectiveness as a propaganda tool. Indeed, it helps – credibility makes propaganda more efficient."

    Maybe you should have written RT is SOMETIMES truthful otherwise what you are saying doesn't make sense. Truth isn't propaganda.

    A well known buffoon - Noam Chomsky - said that if the western media wanted to be more convincing,they should invite more dissidents because that won't "hurt their effectiveness as a propaganda tool."

    That is what RT is doing. They invite lots of western dissidents- The Useful idiots.

    RT is a propaganda outlet because in what is essential - the western narrative about the new cold war; 9/11, Syria etc...RT lies as much as BBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, NYT etc....Or if you prefer , RT doesn't lie. RT simply doesn't tell the truth.

    By my count RT has a long way to go to lie as often as CNN, BBC, Fox, or NYT. In the last few years on a scale of one to one hundred the lie index of CNN and NYT was ~90%, that of BBC and FOX at ~80%, whereas that of RT ~20-25%.
    It’s not that RT is inherently good, they would lie more, if necessary. It’s just that the narrative of the State Department and US vassals is so false that RT does not even need to lie much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    I don't know where you got your stats for your "lie index ", but that is not the point.

    Propaganda is very efficient to fool the western people because western governments are very successful in giving their people lots of "bread and circuses".

    If you manage to give your people " bread and circuses", you can do everything.You can kill lots of people abroad in "self-defense". But even when you kill at home, most people don't care. They're very busy shopping or watching something stupid on telly.

    "It’s just that the narrative of the State Department and US vassals is so false that RT does not even need to lie much."

    My point is that RT -although lying less than western mainstream media-, helps in reinforcing that narrative. How ? By making that narrative (New cold war, for example) more convincing by giving impression that there is a real opposition between the USA and Russia.

    I believe that the same force that has complete control over the USA, also controls Russia.

    Those who know that Russia, in spite of propaganda (western and Russian) is not an independent country, know also that RT is a propaganda outlet which also plays an important role in creating this illusion that most people, in their ignorance, take for reality.

    Yes, RT lies less than CNN,BBC...but that doesn't mean that RT isn't an important tool of the "Zionist international mafia" ;like BBC, CNN, Fox News etc...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @AnonFromTN
    By my count RT has a long way to go to lie as often as CNN, BBC, Fox, or NYT. In the last few years on a scale of one to one hundred the lie index of CNN and NYT was ~90%, that of BBC and FOX at ~80%, whereas that of RT ~20-25%.
    It’s not that RT is inherently good, they would lie more, if necessary. It’s just that the narrative of the State Department and US vassals is so false that RT does not even need to lie much.

    I don’t know where you got your stats for your “lie index “, but that is not the point.

    Propaganda is very efficient to fool the western people because western governments are very successful in giving their people lots of “bread and circuses”.

    If you manage to give your people ” bread and circuses”, you can do everything.You can kill lots of people abroad in “self-defense”. But even when you kill at home, most people don’t care. They’re very busy shopping or watching something stupid on telly.

    “It’s just that the narrative of the State Department and US vassals is so false that RT does not even need to lie much.”

    My point is that RT -although lying less than western mainstream media-, helps in reinforcing that narrative. How ? By making that narrative (New cold war, for example) more convincing by giving impression that there is a real opposition between the USA and Russia.

    I believe that the same force that has complete control over the USA, also controls Russia.

    Those who know that Russia, in spite of propaganda (western and Russian) is not an independent country, know also that RT is a propaganda outlet which also plays an important role in creating this illusion that most people, in their ignorance, take for reality.

    Yes, RT lies less than CNN,BBC…but that doesn’t mean that RT isn’t an important tool of the “Zionist international mafia” ;like BBC, CNN, Fox News etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Whatever you think, there is a real opposition between dying US Empire with its pathetic vassals and every country that refuses to toe its globalist line: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc. Part of the Russian and Chinese elite would choose to be second-rate vassals of the US elites, but that’s not the part that supports Putin and Xi.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Of i would have to read the text, but by this article the assessments about us weakness are probably over the top.

    the us has lost three conflicts in my view.

    war of 1812

    Iraqi war

    Afghanistan

    what the last two demonstrate is that conflicts in which the us does not use constant and overwhelming force and have no clear moral justification are very difficult to sustain. it was the occupation of those two states that have exposed us weaknesses. the military exchanges themselves in nearly every case ended with the us successful and in control. but governing the nation exposed us vulnerability to peacetime management environments in which the military moves from conflict management to governance, despite civilian authorities, the us military became the responsible party for security and peace time operations. having not exercise full command and control of the country from top to bottom, placed the us military in an untenable (long term) posture in what was, and remains a country hostile to us goals. consequently, one has to categorize the the iraq operation as a failure because the country literally fell apart during the us operations. the scenario in Afghanistan remains ever worse for many reasons akin to that of iraq, but in afghanstan there is no real history os a single unified state as in iraq, which compounds. exacerbates the the hurdles in iraq many fold over. the failure to conquer all of the various factions leaves little possibility to stitch a single nation into one. it will most likely result in failure, again not because the military could not defeat in engagements the taliban – those one on one conflicts almost always has the us military on top.

    So making assessments that the us military is incapable based on the environments as opposed to the conflicts themselves – military engagements is in my mind premature. Because what is overlooked is that in neither scenario has the us brought to bear the weight of it’s military capabilities — nothing even close to the initial engagements during the invasions of both countries in which overwhelming force — annihilated both enemy combatants. As i have repeatedly made my case concerning vietnam an overall assessment between russian military and that of the us is that despite the miscalculations — the us is the decided winner in third tier echelon engagements.

    i would remind many here that that while it is accurate to acknowledge no direct first echelon system engagements i.e., as developed states in direct conflict with developed states in which the us is one of the contenders, russia has no such history either. I thing the salient press here is that the us has very limited experience with modern warfare on her shores of the continent. when pearl hard was attacked it was not the front page story in many a rural communities. but it would be a mistake to under estimate a us mainland response. the assessment in the article seems to be that the us will flood like a cheap suit – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. upon attack the us will gird up her loins and fight to the death. russia will in seconds become a ” pinko commie fascist, evil empire.” and she will fight and will do so with heartiness of red blooded rebel or union soldier – moral doubts will be dashed and she will fight – right down to the local inner city gang banger. if one looks at the numbers, the ability to bring destruction and might to any military situation gives any right thinking person pause. Head to head russia is out matched in nearly every category. it’s not just the firepower, it’s the ability to get that firepower anywhere in the world in very short order. we can squabble about the f-35 and her many issues. but the industrial might of the us to put weapons in play has never been matched — and the industrial world as exampled in WWII is astounding. the us citizen will churn out an astounding supply from right here at home.

    I would grant that the us has not known warfare like the russian — and while on the surface that would appear a deficit, I don’t think that is the case. and as for victory by the russians over germany. two factors are ignored. minus the supply by the us and the two front gambit a russian victory would have been impossible had germany concentrated her efforts on russia only – we would not be having this discussion. it’s the size of russia that is a problem in my view. now that size is less concerning if one factors in that russia has alienated many of its own population and the current trend to whiteness as the ethic has only made that issue more problematic for the russians. minus the break aways and possible internal combustible regions, size may not pose as much a problem as in WWII.

    i think i will pause here — i like russia and i am very fond of the russians i have known, i would hate to be a part of spilling their blood.

    recognizing us vulnerability is not the same thing as shivering in my boots in taking on the russia should the need arise and while i think admonitions of huberis are wise — accepting said possible vulnerabilities is not the same thing as hand ringing panic.

    Read More
    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @FB
    You left out Vietnam...or does evac by helicopter off the embassy roof somehow count as a win...?
    , @AnonFromTN
    So, you count Vietnam war with subsequent rooftop evacuation as US victory? An unorthodox take on it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. FB says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    Of i would have to read the text, but by this article the assessments about us weakness are probably over the top.

    the us has lost three conflicts in my view.


    war of 1812

    Iraqi war

    Afghanistan

    what the last two demonstrate is that conflicts in which the us does not use constant and overwhelming force and have no clear moral justification are very difficult to sustain. it was the occupation of those two states that have exposed us weaknesses. the military exchanges themselves in nearly every case ended with the us successful and in control. but governing the nation exposed us vulnerability to peacetime management environments in which the military moves from conflict management to governance, despite civilian authorities, the us military became the responsible party for security and peace time operations. having not exercise full command and control of the country from top to bottom, placed the us military in an untenable (long term) posture in what was, and remains a country hostile to us goals. consequently, one has to categorize the the iraq operation as a failure because the country literally fell apart during the us operations. the scenario in Afghanistan remains ever worse for many reasons akin to that of iraq, but in afghanstan there is no real history os a single unified state as in iraq, which compounds. exacerbates the the hurdles in iraq many fold over. the failure to conquer all of the various factions leaves little possibility to stitch a single nation into one. it will most likely result in failure, again not because the military could not defeat in engagements the taliban - those one on one conflicts almost always has the us military on top.

    So making assessments that the us military is incapable based on the environments as opposed to the conflicts themselves - military engagements is in my mind premature. Because what is overlooked is that in neither scenario has the us brought to bear the weight of it's military capabilities -- nothing even close to the initial engagements during the invasions of both countries in which overwhelming force -- annihilated both enemy combatants. As i have repeatedly made my case concerning vietnam an overall assessment between russian military and that of the us is that despite the miscalculations -- the us is the decided winner in third tier echelon engagements.

    i would remind many here that that while it is accurate to acknowledge no direct first echelon system engagements i.e., as developed states in direct conflict with developed states in which the us is one of the contenders, russia has no such history either. I thing the salient press here is that the us has very limited experience with modern warfare on her shores of the continent. when pearl hard was attacked it was not the front page story in many a rural communities. but it would be a mistake to under estimate a us mainland response. the assessment in the article seems to be that the us will flood like a cheap suit - when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. upon attack the us will gird up her loins and fight to the death. russia will in seconds become a " pinko commie fascist, evil empire." and she will fight and will do so with heartiness of red blooded rebel or union soldier - moral doubts will be dashed and she will fight - right down to the local inner city gang banger. if one looks at the numbers, the ability to bring destruction and might to any military situation gives any right thinking person pause. Head to head russia is out matched in nearly every category. it's not just the firepower, it's the ability to get that firepower anywhere in the world in very short order. we can squabble about the f-35 and her many issues. but the industrial might of the us to put weapons in play has never been matched --- and the industrial world as exampled in WWII is astounding. the us citizen will churn out an astounding supply from right here at home.

    I would grant that the us has not known warfare like the russian -- and while on the surface that would appear a deficit, I don't think that is the case. and as for victory by the russians over germany. two factors are ignored. minus the supply by the us and the two front gambit a russian victory would have been impossible had germany concentrated her efforts on russia only - we would not be having this discussion. it's the size of russia that is a problem in my view. now that size is less concerning if one factors in that russia has alienated many of its own population and the current trend to whiteness as the ethic has only made that issue more problematic for the russians. minus the break aways and possible internal combustible regions, size may not pose as much a problem as in WWII.


    i think i will pause here -- i like russia and i am very fond of the russians i have known, i would hate to be a part of spilling their blood.


    recognizing us vulnerability is not the same thing as shivering in my boots in taking on the russia should the need arise and while i think admonitions of huberis are wise --- accepting said possible vulnerabilities is not the same thing as hand ringing panic.

    You left out Vietnam…or does evac by helicopter off the embassy roof somehow count as a win…?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    reference comment 160, but just in case


    I have on several occasions engaged in long discussions on the vietnam war here and on tac.

    but it is clear from your comment, you don’t when the vietnam war ended for the us and when the embassy was evacuated. it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue the two events and the media and others will play those images for all they are worth politically, but toe the issue of a loss for the us in fact – they have none.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    It's the Italians loss, in my opinion, if they go ahead and cancel it.

    I have a very different view of the F-35 than Martyanov et al.:

    Hence the kind of criminally overpriced and useless weapons system like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship or, of course, the fantastically expensive and no less fantastically vulnerable aircraft carriers.
     
    I think it is a game-changing weapons system as it turns assault vessels into mini-aircraft carriers:

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHa6BTywCFo

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a detachment of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters onboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), marking the first time the jet has deployed operationally onboard a large deck amphibious assault ship. The arrival of the F-35B onboard the L-class ships mark a massive boost in striking power for the roughly 40,000-ton vesselseffectively turning them into light carriers. Indeed, until the United States Navy’s F-35C version becomes operational, the F-35B will be the only stealth aircraft to be found onboard a naval flight deck. "Pairing F-35B Lightning II's with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime," Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said. "This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities."

    In the long term, several operators have announced their intention to supplement or replace their Harrier fleets with the STOVL variant of the F-35 Lightning II, designated as the F-35B.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

    NASA uses the abbreviation SSTOVL for Supersonic Short Take-Off / Vertical Landing,[3] and as of 2012, the X-35B/F-35B are the only aircraft to conform with this combination within one flight.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

    What is your opinion on the F-35, Sean?

    “Vladislav Shurygin, a Zavtra editor[3] and editor-in-chief of ZhP[4].” http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/08/20/trolls-on-tour-how-kremlin-money-buys-western-journalists/ on the F-35:

    Russian military expert about F-35 ‘Lightning II’ (English subtitles)

    Also in this comment Andrei Martyanov states:

    I operate on strictly open data and sources. In interview to Shurygin some people from “North Wind” did notice some improvement in tactics and increased combat cohesion of Ukrainian units.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/novorossiya-sitrep-2/#comment-978733

    No spy confirmed ;-) http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2407975

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @EliteCommInc.
    Of i would have to read the text, but by this article the assessments about us weakness are probably over the top.

    the us has lost three conflicts in my view.


    war of 1812

    Iraqi war

    Afghanistan

    what the last two demonstrate is that conflicts in which the us does not use constant and overwhelming force and have no clear moral justification are very difficult to sustain. it was the occupation of those two states that have exposed us weaknesses. the military exchanges themselves in nearly every case ended with the us successful and in control. but governing the nation exposed us vulnerability to peacetime management environments in which the military moves from conflict management to governance, despite civilian authorities, the us military became the responsible party for security and peace time operations. having not exercise full command and control of the country from top to bottom, placed the us military in an untenable (long term) posture in what was, and remains a country hostile to us goals. consequently, one has to categorize the the iraq operation as a failure because the country literally fell apart during the us operations. the scenario in Afghanistan remains ever worse for many reasons akin to that of iraq, but in afghanstan there is no real history os a single unified state as in iraq, which compounds. exacerbates the the hurdles in iraq many fold over. the failure to conquer all of the various factions leaves little possibility to stitch a single nation into one. it will most likely result in failure, again not because the military could not defeat in engagements the taliban - those one on one conflicts almost always has the us military on top.

    So making assessments that the us military is incapable based on the environments as opposed to the conflicts themselves - military engagements is in my mind premature. Because what is overlooked is that in neither scenario has the us brought to bear the weight of it's military capabilities -- nothing even close to the initial engagements during the invasions of both countries in which overwhelming force -- annihilated both enemy combatants. As i have repeatedly made my case concerning vietnam an overall assessment between russian military and that of the us is that despite the miscalculations -- the us is the decided winner in third tier echelon engagements.

    i would remind many here that that while it is accurate to acknowledge no direct first echelon system engagements i.e., as developed states in direct conflict with developed states in which the us is one of the contenders, russia has no such history either. I thing the salient press here is that the us has very limited experience with modern warfare on her shores of the continent. when pearl hard was attacked it was not the front page story in many a rural communities. but it would be a mistake to under estimate a us mainland response. the assessment in the article seems to be that the us will flood like a cheap suit - when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. upon attack the us will gird up her loins and fight to the death. russia will in seconds become a " pinko commie fascist, evil empire." and she will fight and will do so with heartiness of red blooded rebel or union soldier - moral doubts will be dashed and she will fight - right down to the local inner city gang banger. if one looks at the numbers, the ability to bring destruction and might to any military situation gives any right thinking person pause. Head to head russia is out matched in nearly every category. it's not just the firepower, it's the ability to get that firepower anywhere in the world in very short order. we can squabble about the f-35 and her many issues. but the industrial might of the us to put weapons in play has never been matched --- and the industrial world as exampled in WWII is astounding. the us citizen will churn out an astounding supply from right here at home.

    I would grant that the us has not known warfare like the russian -- and while on the surface that would appear a deficit, I don't think that is the case. and as for victory by the russians over germany. two factors are ignored. minus the supply by the us and the two front gambit a russian victory would have been impossible had germany concentrated her efforts on russia only - we would not be having this discussion. it's the size of russia that is a problem in my view. now that size is less concerning if one factors in that russia has alienated many of its own population and the current trend to whiteness as the ethic has only made that issue more problematic for the russians. minus the break aways and possible internal combustible regions, size may not pose as much a problem as in WWII.


    i think i will pause here -- i like russia and i am very fond of the russians i have known, i would hate to be a part of spilling their blood.


    recognizing us vulnerability is not the same thing as shivering in my boots in taking on the russia should the need arise and while i think admonitions of huberis are wise --- accepting said possible vulnerabilities is not the same thing as hand ringing panic.

    So, you count Vietnam war with subsequent rooftop evacuation as US victory? An unorthodox take on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I have on several occasions engaged in long discussions on the vietnam war here and on tac. I and others have engaged in long detailed ad nauseum discussions on that period of conflict


    but it is clear from your comment, you don't when the vietnam war ended for the us and when the embassy was evacuated. it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue the two events and the media and others will play those images for all they are worth politically, but toe the issue of a loss for the us in fact - they have none.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @James Brown
    I don't know where you got your stats for your "lie index ", but that is not the point.

    Propaganda is very efficient to fool the western people because western governments are very successful in giving their people lots of "bread and circuses".

    If you manage to give your people " bread and circuses", you can do everything.You can kill lots of people abroad in "self-defense". But even when you kill at home, most people don't care. They're very busy shopping or watching something stupid on telly.

    "It’s just that the narrative of the State Department and US vassals is so false that RT does not even need to lie much."

    My point is that RT -although lying less than western mainstream media-, helps in reinforcing that narrative. How ? By making that narrative (New cold war, for example) more convincing by giving impression that there is a real opposition between the USA and Russia.

    I believe that the same force that has complete control over the USA, also controls Russia.

    Those who know that Russia, in spite of propaganda (western and Russian) is not an independent country, know also that RT is a propaganda outlet which also plays an important role in creating this illusion that most people, in their ignorance, take for reality.

    Yes, RT lies less than CNN,BBC...but that doesn't mean that RT isn't an important tool of the "Zionist international mafia" ;like BBC, CNN, Fox News etc...

    Whatever you think, there is a real opposition between dying US Empire with its pathetic vassals and every country that refuses to toe its globalist line: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc. Part of the Russian and Chinese elite would choose to be second-rate vassals of the US elites, but that’s not the part that supports Putin and Xi.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Brown
    ".....but that’s not the part that supports Putin and Xi."

    I think Chinese elite is only interested in making money. If the Americans attack they will defend themselves....But if the USA attack and destroy other countries(including Iran), the Chinese won't do nothing. This is perfectly compatible with Confucianism and Marxism.

    Russia's elite (those who are in power) is part of the Zionist International Mafia. If one just sticks with facts and not with propaganda, this isn't difficult to understand. Putin has been in power more than 20 years...but He is still, according to those great "expert" in Russia, a prisoner of the "atlanticists and traitors."

    Well, everything is possible.

    Iran, Syria, Venezuela are trying to be independent...unfortunately they are alone.

    They can't count on China neither on Russia.

    Iran could count on North Korea. I suspect this is the reason why, suddenly , it became acceptable for the the Zionist International Mafia to make peace with NK.

    Isn't bizarre that suddenly the "worst" dictator in the world -Kim Jong-un- was transformed in a statesman and someone interested in peace ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    It's the Italians loss, in my opinion, if they go ahead and cancel it.

    I have a very different view of the F-35 than Martyanov et al.:

    Hence the kind of criminally overpriced and useless weapons system like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship or, of course, the fantastically expensive and no less fantastically vulnerable aircraft carriers.
     
    I think it is a game-changing weapons system as it turns assault vessels into mini-aircraft carriers:

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHa6BTywCFo

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a detachment of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters onboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), marking the first time the jet has deployed operationally onboard a large deck amphibious assault ship. The arrival of the F-35B onboard the L-class ships mark a massive boost in striking power for the roughly 40,000-ton vesselseffectively turning them into light carriers. Indeed, until the United States Navy’s F-35C version becomes operational, the F-35B will be the only stealth aircraft to be found onboard a naval flight deck. "Pairing F-35B Lightning II's with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime," Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said. "This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities."

    In the long term, several operators have announced their intention to supplement or replace their Harrier fleets with the STOVL variant of the F-35 Lightning II, designated as the F-35B.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

    NASA uses the abbreviation SSTOVL for Supersonic Short Take-Off / Vertical Landing,[3] and as of 2012, the X-35B/F-35B are the only aircraft to conform with this combination within one flight.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

    What is your opinion on the F-35, Sean?

    This is a good example of the F-35 being (intentionally?) talked down, even though it actually has a longer range than the F-18. Maybe it is the Military-industrial complex doing this, so they can get contracts to build stealth tankers or longer range missiles, etc., I don’t know?

    Navy’s F-35 doesn’t have range for real stealth strikes, House report says

    Risks to carriers, absence of stealth tankers puts “necessary targets” out of reach.

    The F-35C’s advertised range is 1,200 nautical miles (roughly 2,200 kilometers), roughly 10 percent longer than that of the F/A-18. But for most strikes, that would require the carriers launching F-35C sorties to be much closer to the coast than falls within the comfort zone. And with advanced air and coastal defense systems—including, for example, the sorts that are popping up on islands in the South China Sea these days—less-than-stealthy tanker planes would give up the whole game.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/navys-f-35-doesnt-have-range-for-real-stealth-strikes-house-report-says/

    One commenter put it well:

    I think an equally fair headline would be

    Quote:

    Navy’s carrier air wings don’t have range for real stealth strikes, even with the F-35C, House report says

    This long-range strike capability, stealth or not, has been missing from the US Navy for a generation. It is a systemic and programmatic failure on the part of Congress (who funds these things) and NAVSEA (who ultimately asks for development money), more so than a specific failing of a single aircraft.

    The F-35 has a multitude of faults, but I’m not sure it should shoulder this one all by its lonesome.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/navys-f-35-doesnt-have-range-for-real-stealth-strikes-house-report-says/?comments=1&post=35372085

    Vox is also trashing the plane/program, makes one wonder…

    This jet fighter is a disaster, but Congress keeps buying it

    Vox
    Published on Jan 26, 2017

    Trump says the F-35 is too expensive and he’s not wrong. But this is what he’s up against.

    There some really good comments under that video defending the project:

    DJ Street Love
    4 months ago
    The most common misconception is that the F-35 has already cost $1 trillion. That figure comes from the entire lifespan of the aircraft in the US armed forces.

    “Regarding the $1 Trillion price tag, in reference to it’s total program cost which will indeed cost approximately 1 trillion dollars. But while this may seem like an outrageous number for a fighter, it is critical to understand that this value is the cost to research and design the aircraft, build 2443 airframes and also pay for their fuel consumption, maintenance, spare engines, spare parts, upgrades and weapons expenditure, from the moment the first F-35 flew in 2006, through to when the F-35 is scheduled to be retired, in the year 2065.”

    Pentagon officials including Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and chief weapons buyer Ellen Lord have highlighted the need to reduce the F-35’s $406.5 billion projected acquisition cost and its estimated $1.2 trillion price tag for long-term operations and support through 2070.

    http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jets/

    Chief Seadawg
    3 months ago
    I have been a huge critic of the F-35, but the program does seem to have hit its stride. Many countries are lining up to purchase it. But the U.S. Navy’s version, the F-35C, still has many unresolved problems, and the Navy will not even declare initial operational capability (IOC) until 2019, at the earliest. Meanwhile, neither the USAF or USMC have declared full operational capability (FOC) on the F-35A or F-35B respectively, and there are no news reports of FOC even being in the works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AnonFromTN
    So, you count Vietnam war with subsequent rooftop evacuation as US victory? An unorthodox take on it.

    I have on several occasions engaged in long discussions on the vietnam war here and on tac. I and others have engaged in long detailed ad nauseum discussions on that period of conflict

    but it is clear from your comment, you don’t when the vietnam war ended for the us and when the embassy was evacuated. it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue the two events and the media and others will play those images for all they are worth politically, but toe the issue of a loss for the us in fact – they have none.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simpleguest
    There is a myriad of striking similarities between the US engagement in Vietnam and that of USSR in Afghanistan.

    One of those similarities is the almost identical way the two militaries disengaged: Americans 3 years before the fall of the regime left behind in Saigon and Soviets also 3 years before the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 1992.

    In both cases the military disengagement was done in an orderly manner, in the case of the Soviets by the symbolic crossing of Amu-Daria of the last Soviet solder in Afghanistan, gen. Boris Gromov.

    Both powers failed to reach their political objectives using military means, so their engagements must be classified as failures or, in other words, defeats.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @FB
    You left out Vietnam...or does evac by helicopter off the embassy roof somehow count as a win...?

    reference comment 160, but just in case

    I have on several occasions engaged in long discussions on the vietnam war here and on tac.

    but it is clear from your comment, you don’t when the vietnam war ended for the us and when the embassy was evacuated. it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue the two events and the media and others will play those images for all they are worth politically, but toe the issue of a loss for the us in fact – they have none.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    No...the confusion [more like delusion] is on your part...everyone knows all the details the Vietnam war...ie the 10,000 aircraft the US lost [over 350 then state of the art F4s to mention just one type]...the Vietnamese air aces and none on the US side...etc etc...

    The fact that US pulled out of the war in 1973, thus losing the war [even wikipedia lists this as a loss], and then that ignominious embassy evac in 1975 was just the cherry on top...

    Get a grip dreamer...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Felix Keverich
    President Saakashvili would have never starter that war, if he didn't believe in victory. You don't launch an aggression, if you think you will be immediately outflanked and overrun. His plan was essentially a repeat of Croatian operation Storm: eradicating Russian-backed statelets would have opened a path for Georgia to quickly join NATO, which was also Washington's goal.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that "Russia sucks and cannot do shit". We also know that he relied on American intelligence and satellite data. Obviously US intelligence dropped the ball on Russia that time, and it wasn't the last time.

    My point is you guys know very little about Russia and its capabilities. Your bravado is mostly a product of ignorance.

    My point is

    How is any of that a response to my comment? You can’t just write your point out? You have to play games like that?

    Just answer the questions. One might be tempted to think you don’t have the answers and are bullshitting.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that “Russia sucks and cannot do shit”.

    Who talks like that? Most of your comment is speculation. Are you drunk? When you are sober revisit the history of that war…the facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Excuse me? In your comment you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were "outflanked". That's not true. They were crushed because American intelligence, American startegy, and American weaponry FAILED. In case you're too dim to realise it, America owns this debacle as much as Saakashvili does.

    https://cs6.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/08/08/6/150218611619713453.jpg
    a pile of American assault rifles at one of the captured Georgian bases
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @EliteCommInc.
    I have on several occasions engaged in long discussions on the vietnam war here and on tac. I and others have engaged in long detailed ad nauseum discussions on that period of conflict


    but it is clear from your comment, you don't when the vietnam war ended for the us and when the embassy was evacuated. it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue the two events and the media and others will play those images for all they are worth politically, but toe the issue of a loss for the us in fact - they have none.

    There is a myriad of striking similarities between the US engagement in Vietnam and that of USSR in Afghanistan.

    One of those similarities is the almost identical way the two militaries disengaged: Americans 3 years before the fall of the regime left behind in Saigon and Soviets also 3 years before the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 1992.

    In both cases the military disengagement was done in an orderly manner, in the case of the Soviets by the symbolic crossing of Amu-Daria of the last Soviet solder in Afghanistan, gen. Boris Gromov.

    Both powers failed to reach their political objectives using military means, so their engagements must be classified as failures or, in other words, defeats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    there are similarities -- big differences

    the us was not an invading force

    the us engaged in a conflict on the behalf of a legitimate recognized state - it was not a civil war

    the us did depart in an orderly manner and supported the s. vietnamese in beating back the violation of the peace agreement - a matter of practice those north vietnamese

    the us did not depart minus a peace agreement, much to the chagrin of the north vietnamese, the russians, chinese and north koreans

    the us was not unable to return based on events at home, not in south vietnam, watergate, church committee hearings, the end of congressional financial support, the resignation of president nixon -- none of which are military contact points -- the political solution had been reached prior --

    the russians never reached any manner of political solution -- and while russians, vietnamese, and all manner of liberals and politically correct polity love to decry vietnam and afgahnistahn as parallel universes -- they are not.

    had vietnamese fell with a us military presence i would have to concede the loss, but that simply is not the case. for all of the issues regarding us involvement in vietnam, it does get a check in the win column, as messy as it may be.

    contrasted to iraq and afghanistan which came unglued during us occupation and has yet to be glued those are a loss and a very likely loss.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. FB says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    reference comment 160, but just in case


    I have on several occasions engaged in long discussions on the vietnam war here and on tac.

    but it is clear from your comment, you don’t when the vietnam war ended for the us and when the embassy was evacuated. it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue the two events and the media and others will play those images for all they are worth politically, but toe the issue of a loss for the us in fact – they have none.

    No…the confusion [more like delusion] is on your part…everyone knows all the details the Vietnam war…ie the 10,000 aircraft the US lost [over 350 then state of the art F4s to mention just one type]…the Vietnamese air aces and none on the US side…etc etc…

    The fact that US pulled out of the war in 1973, thus losing the war [even wikipedia lists this as a loss], and then that ignominious embassy evac in 1975 was just the cherry on top…

    Get a grip dreamer…

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I would love to rehash and re-educate you on the events of that period. Because your last comment focused on the events of 1975, let's just leave you where you came in wrong, and it might be agood idea to avoid referencing Wikipedia on this subject.


    there are very few people who acknowledge the position that i and a few others hold based on events, not media, liberal or brow beaten veterans and politicians mouth for the sake of just avoiding the hassle and the rehash -- it's what refer to in today's parlance as being politically correct.


    but the record is clear -- despite not being popular. since your commentary is that of a long line of "bemoaners" and (laughing) name callers, let's just agree to disagree. The record of those discussions are available to pour threw. I am delighted to stand with the few politically incorrect views of those events.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. FKA Max says: • Website
    @AnonFromTN
    You are unduly tough on State Department trolls. This one’s job is to play “good cop”, pushing his BS insistently, but politely. There are others (I don’t need to name any names, everybody knows them) that play “bad cop”, a truly deranged troll. Have pity on them: no person with a real profession and a modicum of self-respect would work as a troll. They are paid a pittance, commensurate with their qualifications.

    I wish I were paid by the State Department! And yes, I try to be polite and respectful, unlike FB.

    My Unz Review commenting is a labor or love!

    I live in the boonies and day trade, so I need mental and intellectual stimulation, that is the reason why I spend so much time on the Unz Review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    ....labor *of* love...
    , @AnonFromTN
    Then alert them. State Department should be paying you at least something for spreading its propaganda via lengthy posts, often totally off-topic. Looks like a labor of love for money (although The Beatles were right: money can’t buy you love).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    I wish I were paid by the State Department! And yes, I try to be polite and respectful, unlike FB.

    My Unz Review commenting is a labor or love!

    I live in the boonies and day trade, so I need mental and intellectual stimulation, that is the reason why I spend so much time on the Unz Review.

    ….labor *of* love

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. pyrrhus says:
    @FKA Max
    These Russian mercenaries, who had first-hand experiences with/of U.S. military capabilities, seem to have a different opinion. Video sime-stamped to 9 min 55 sec:

    200 Russians Were Killed by US Airstrikes in Syria. Details, Recorded Radio Communications.

    https://youtu.be/XaeDMOWkCwU?t=9m55s

    Exclusive: Russian mercenaries in Syria, Putin's secret army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eka_Jn9K_HU

    Exclusive: Russia's Secret Soldiers Fighting In Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvW3OBJDVS8

    Video time-stamped to 4 min 55 sec:

    James Mattis I ordered annihilation of the Russian mercenaries

    https://youtu.be/GO7WP7Cbz3E?t=4m55s

    A completely irrelevant contribution to this discussion, regardless of truth…Russia has not deployed any advanced weapons systems in Syria, and has intentionally avoided fighting US “advisors” to ISIS and al qaeda….In a real war, US forces in Syria would have been annihilated within an hour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    A completely irrelevant contribution to this discussion, regardless of truth…
     
    It is not!

    You are just as wrong and mistaken - but fortunately well-mannered and better behaved - as commenter FB when he says "it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion" http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2408343

    What the videos I shared show is that the Saker, in my opinion, is projecting Russia's problems, dysfunctions and shortcomings onto the U.S.

    This could be as easily said about Russia as well:


    The fact that the [Russian Federation] is facing a profound crisis, possibly the worst one in its history, is accepted by most observers, except maybe the most delusional ones.
    [...]
    When speaking of this crisis, most people will mention the deindustrialization, the drop in real income, the lack of well-paid jobs, healthcare, crime, immigration, pollution, education, and a myriad of other contributing factors. But of all the aspects of the “[Russian] dream”, the single most resilient one has been the myth of the [Russian Federation] military as “the finest fighting force in history”. [These videos shared by FKA Max] not only comprehensively debunk[] this myth, [they] explain[] step by step how this myth was created and why it is collapsing now
     
    Why do you think the Wagner mercenaries featured in the above videos I shared are signing up to be cannon fodder in Syria, because things are, economically, so great in Russia?

    Are they just doing it for fun and the adventure, because they want to experience the beautiful desert countryside of eastern Syria and since the Russian military is so great, powerful and well-equipped that the probability of being killed is practically zero, they have absolutely no worries?

    Of course not.

    They are either financially desperate and/or often uninformed or misinformed as to the kind of "Himmelfahrtskommando" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmelfahrtskommando they are signing up for.

    The videos I shared, in my opinion, illustrate well how what the Saker wrote in this review actually applies more to Russia than the United States.


    ...the [Russian] political elites and, especially, the [Jewish/Zionist Russian oligarchs] http://www.unz.com/tsaker/no-fifth-column-in-the-kremlin-think-again/#comment-2396189 : they are destroying the [Russian Federation] as a country and they are putting all of mankind at risk of nuclear annihilation.
     
    What I find particularly interesting is that the Saker, Andrei Martyanov and commenters like AnonFromTN all reside in here the U.S., I believe, while espousing these views. Seems just a tad bit hypocritical to me.

    I would take them a lot more seriously if they in fact lived in Russia, like Anatoly Karlin, for example.


    Finally, [the videos FKA Max shared demonstrate] how a combination of delusional narcissism and outright corruption resulted in a [Russian Federation] military capable of wasting truly phenomenal sums of money on “defense” while at the same time resulting in an actual force unable to win a war against anything but a weak and defenseless enemy.
     
    Russia spends 4+% of GDP on defense, while the U.S. spends about 3%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    In 2015 expenditures were even higher at 5+% of GDP:

    https://assets.weforum.org/editor/4VWr9-Zs1ddYClqfPdVjCQFCu22e3cmhj_ZVbTACroA.png

    Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-world-is-spending-more-on-weapons/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @FB
    No...the confusion [more like delusion] is on your part...everyone knows all the details the Vietnam war...ie the 10,000 aircraft the US lost [over 350 then state of the art F4s to mention just one type]...the Vietnamese air aces and none on the US side...etc etc...

    The fact that US pulled out of the war in 1973, thus losing the war [even wikipedia lists this as a loss], and then that ignominious embassy evac in 1975 was just the cherry on top...

    Get a grip dreamer...

    I would love to rehash and re-educate you on the events of that period. Because your last comment focused on the events of 1975, let’s just leave you where you came in wrong, and it might be agood idea to avoid referencing Wikipedia on this subject.

    there are very few people who acknowledge the position that i and a few others hold based on events, not media, liberal or brow beaten veterans and politicians mouth for the sake of just avoiding the hassle and the rehash — it’s what refer to in today’s parlance as being politically correct.

    but the record is clear — despite not being popular. since your commentary is that of a long line of “bemoaners” and (laughing) name callers, let’s just agree to disagree. The record of those discussions are available to pour threw. I am delighted to stand with the few politically incorrect views of those events.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Simpleguest
    There is a myriad of striking similarities between the US engagement in Vietnam and that of USSR in Afghanistan.

    One of those similarities is the almost identical way the two militaries disengaged: Americans 3 years before the fall of the regime left behind in Saigon and Soviets also 3 years before the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 1992.

    In both cases the military disengagement was done in an orderly manner, in the case of the Soviets by the symbolic crossing of Amu-Daria of the last Soviet solder in Afghanistan, gen. Boris Gromov.

    Both powers failed to reach their political objectives using military means, so their engagements must be classified as failures or, in other words, defeats.

    there are similarities — big differences

    the us was not an invading force

    the us engaged in a conflict on the behalf of a legitimate recognized state – it was not a civil war

    the us did depart in an orderly manner and supported the s. vietnamese in beating back the violation of the peace agreement – a matter of practice those north vietnamese

    the us did not depart minus a peace agreement, much to the chagrin of the north vietnamese, the russians, chinese and north koreans

    the us was not unable to return based on events at home, not in south vietnam, watergate, church committee hearings, the end of congressional financial support, the resignation of president nixon — none of which are military contact points — the political solution had been reached prior —

    the russians never reached any manner of political solution — and while russians, vietnamese, and all manner of liberals and politically correct polity love to decry vietnam and afgahnistahn as parallel universes — they are not.

    had vietnamese fell with a us military presence i would have to concede the loss, but that simply is not the case. for all of the issues regarding us involvement in vietnam, it does get a check in the win column, as messy as it may be.

    contrasted to iraq and afghanistan which came unglued during us occupation and has yet to be glued those are a loss and a very likely loss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Funnily untrue. The only difference is that US aggression was started by “Tonkin incident”, which was demonstrated to be false-flag, like Polish “attack” on German radio station in 1939. The USSR did not use that particular gimmick.

    The US was an invading force, with a lot more troops in Vietnam than the USSR ever had in Afghanistan. It was “invited” by the puppets it installed, same as the USSR in Afghanistan. The wars were civil wars, as the outcome showed in both cases. Neither the US in Vietnam nor the USSR in Afghanistan ever reached any political solutions that could last. Both murdered lots of locals, who rightly hated the guts of foreign invaders. I can continue in this vein, but what’s the point?
    , @1RW
    Then the Soviets did not suffer defeat in Afghanistan either because they left in good order and the government they left behind was able to survive 3 years w.o. Soviet troops. Furthermore, the Afghan government collapsed when its sponsor, the USSR collapsed, while the US was preoccupied at worst when Saigon fell.

    But, since the objective was to halt the spread of communism in Vietnam, and all of, rather than half of Vietnam was communist at the end of the war, it’s a fail.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @FKA Max
    I wish I were paid by the State Department! And yes, I try to be polite and respectful, unlike FB.

    My Unz Review commenting is a labor or love!

    I live in the boonies and day trade, so I need mental and intellectual stimulation, that is the reason why I spend so much time on the Unz Review.

    Then alert them. State Department should be paying you at least something for spreading its propaganda via lengthy posts, often totally off-topic. Looks like a labor of love for money (although The Beatles were right: money can’t buy you love).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @EliteCommInc.
    there are similarities -- big differences

    the us was not an invading force

    the us engaged in a conflict on the behalf of a legitimate recognized state - it was not a civil war

    the us did depart in an orderly manner and supported the s. vietnamese in beating back the violation of the peace agreement - a matter of practice those north vietnamese

    the us did not depart minus a peace agreement, much to the chagrin of the north vietnamese, the russians, chinese and north koreans

    the us was not unable to return based on events at home, not in south vietnam, watergate, church committee hearings, the end of congressional financial support, the resignation of president nixon -- none of which are military contact points -- the political solution had been reached prior --

    the russians never reached any manner of political solution -- and while russians, vietnamese, and all manner of liberals and politically correct polity love to decry vietnam and afgahnistahn as parallel universes -- they are not.

    had vietnamese fell with a us military presence i would have to concede the loss, but that simply is not the case. for all of the issues regarding us involvement in vietnam, it does get a check in the win column, as messy as it may be.

    contrasted to iraq and afghanistan which came unglued during us occupation and has yet to be glued those are a loss and a very likely loss.

    Funnily untrue. The only difference is that US aggression was started by “Tonkin incident”, which was demonstrated to be false-flag, like Polish “attack” on German radio station in 1939. The USSR did not use that particular gimmick.

    The US was an invading force, with a lot more troops in Vietnam than the USSR ever had in Afghanistan. It was “invited” by the puppets it installed, same as the USSR in Afghanistan. The wars were civil wars, as the outcome showed in both cases. Neither the US in Vietnam nor the USSR in Afghanistan ever reached any political solutions that could last. Both murdered lots of locals, who rightly hated the guts of foreign invaders. I can continue in this vein, but what’s the point?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. 1RW says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    there are similarities -- big differences

    the us was not an invading force

    the us engaged in a conflict on the behalf of a legitimate recognized state - it was not a civil war

    the us did depart in an orderly manner and supported the s. vietnamese in beating back the violation of the peace agreement - a matter of practice those north vietnamese

    the us did not depart minus a peace agreement, much to the chagrin of the north vietnamese, the russians, chinese and north koreans

    the us was not unable to return based on events at home, not in south vietnam, watergate, church committee hearings, the end of congressional financial support, the resignation of president nixon -- none of which are military contact points -- the political solution had been reached prior --

    the russians never reached any manner of political solution -- and while russians, vietnamese, and all manner of liberals and politically correct polity love to decry vietnam and afgahnistahn as parallel universes -- they are not.

    had vietnamese fell with a us military presence i would have to concede the loss, but that simply is not the case. for all of the issues regarding us involvement in vietnam, it does get a check in the win column, as messy as it may be.

    contrasted to iraq and afghanistan which came unglued during us occupation and has yet to be glued those are a loss and a very likely loss.

    Then the Soviets did not suffer defeat in Afghanistan either because they left in good order and the government they left behind was able to survive 3 years w.o. Soviet troops. Furthermore, the Afghan government collapsed when its sponsor, the USSR collapsed, while the US was preoccupied at worst when Saigon fell.

    But, since the objective was to halt the spread of communism in Vietnam, and all of, rather than half of Vietnam was communist at the end of the war, it’s a fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    i think that this is valiant effort. i don't think there us any evidence that 50% of the country was communist. but more importantly the government was not. but why you would make this suggestion is peculiar and devastating because it was the invasion of afghanistan that ended the soviet union -- well ended it sooner than it would have otherwise retracted.

    your position here bolsters the contention that the us ability to to exert power anywhere on the planet and keep on ticking despite the expenditure of resources not in country but elsewhere in the world is what the us a power to be reckoned with and given that comparison --

    the us role in bleeding the soviet union to the point of exhaustion makes Vietnam a triple win


    1. longevity is application of resources in conflict

    2. consequence to the nation's internal structuration and function

    3. the same applied to outside relational dynamics elsewhere on the globe barely phased if at all

    4. national longevity

    5. not only did the soviet union retract we witnessed the failure of many of its satellite states and worse a complete rejection of their former soviet existence. the fall of saigon minus us presence, im pacted not a single other dynamic substantially to reduce us influence

    no russia lost Afghanistan and more in the undertaking --

    https://www.thoughtco.com/the-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-195102

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Soviet-invasion-of-Afghanistan

    it is not my intention to insult or belittle russia or russians, and i have no doubt that the us would in a head to head suffer and suffer mightily -- but it would be an error to underestimate the resolve of us citizens to engage in a fight for life.


    the us forced not vietnam to a peace agreement, the fact they engaged in dishonoring themselves their country and long longstanding integrity by violating another peace agreement after the us departed -- to start another war -- cannot be held against the us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. FKA Max says: • Website
    @pyrrhus
    A completely irrelevant contribution to this discussion, regardless of truth...Russia has not deployed any advanced weapons systems in Syria, and has intentionally avoided fighting US "advisors" to ISIS and al qaeda....In a real war, US forces in Syria would have been annihilated within an hour.

    A completely irrelevant contribution to this discussion, regardless of truth…

    It is not!

    You are just as wrong and mistaken – but fortunately well-mannered and better behaved – as commenter FB when he says “it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion” http://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-losing-military-supremacy-the-myopia-of-american-strategic-planning-by-andrei-martyanov/#comment-2408343

    What the videos I shared show is that the Saker, in my opinion, is projecting Russia’s problems, dysfunctions and shortcomings onto the U.S.

    This could be as easily said about Russia as well:

    The fact that the [Russian Federation] is facing a profound crisis, possibly the worst one in its history, is accepted by most observers, except maybe the most delusional ones.
    [...]
    When speaking of this crisis, most people will mention the deindustrialization, the drop in real income, the lack of well-paid jobs, healthcare, crime, immigration, pollution, education, and a myriad of other contributing factors. But of all the aspects of the “[Russian] dream”, the single most resilient one has been the myth of the [Russian Federation] military as “the finest fighting force in history”. [These videos shared by FKA Max] not only comprehensively debunk[] this myth, [they] explain[] step by step how this myth was created and why it is collapsing now

    Why do you think the Wagner mercenaries featured in the above videos I shared are signing up to be cannon fodder in Syria, because things are, economically, so great in Russia?

    Are they just doing it for fun and the adventure, because they want to experience the beautiful desert countryside of eastern Syria and since the Russian military is so great, powerful and well-equipped that the probability of being killed is practically zero, they have absolutely no worries?

    Of course not.

    They are either financially desperate and/or often uninformed or misinformed as to the kind of “Himmelfahrtskommando” https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmelfahrtskommando they are signing up for.

    The videos I shared, in my opinion, illustrate well how what the Saker wrote in this review actually applies more to Russia than the United States.

    …the [Russian] political elites and, especially, the [Jewish/Zionist Russian oligarchs] http://www.unz.com/tsaker/no-fifth-column-in-the-kremlin-think-again/#comment-2396189 : they are destroying the [Russian Federation] as a country and they are putting all of mankind at risk of nuclear annihilation.

    What I find particularly interesting is that the Saker, Andrei Martyanov and commenters like AnonFromTN all reside in here the U.S., I believe, while espousing these views. Seems just a tad bit hypocritical to me.

    I would take them a lot more seriously if they in fact lived in Russia, like Anatoly Karlin, for example.

    Finally, [the videos FKA Max shared demonstrate] how a combination of delusional narcissism and outright corruption resulted in a [Russian Federation] military capable of wasting truly phenomenal sums of money on “defense” while at the same time resulting in an actual force unable to win a war against anything but a weak and defenseless enemy.

    Russia spends 4+% of GDP on defense, while the U.S. spends about 3%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    In 2015 expenditures were even higher at 5+% of GDP:

    Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-world-is-spending-more-on-weapons/

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Outstanding interviews:

    Putin Is Anointed King, But Big Capital Has the Real Power - RAI with A. Buzgalin (7/12)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n078pGXFuxg

    On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says after the chaotic ‘90’s, the Russian oligarchs needed a stronger central state to defend their class interests, but Putin’s individual power should not be exaggerated - with host Paul Jay

    Source: http://www.unz.com/video/therealnews_putin-is-anointed-king-but-big-capital-has-the-real-power-ra/

    Russia’s Threat Is Overhyped – Brandon J. Weichert – Seth & Chris Show


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Fch1rwHAc

    Source: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-other-new-revolutionary-russian-weapons-systems-asats/#comment-2422997
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @utu
    I keep saying that Martyanov is God sent for the MIC.

    The term you want is godsend

    That is: Martyanov is a godsend for the MIC!

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. wraith67 says:

    Probably somewhat difficult to state accurately whether US ISR capabilities are better or worse than Russia’s, Martyanov couldn’t possibly know. And while it is possible that the Kremlin has a pretty good idea what the capabilities are, it’s unlikely their source operators are laying out the aperture sizes of Predator cameras in the bar over a few vodkas to anybody interested in listening.

    Another aspect of these “The US isn’t all that” pieces is that people mistake the results of the Afghan conflict and the previous Iraq campaigns from 2003-2014 as a deficiency in capabilities as opposed to a lack of will, political correctness and sheer terror at potential MSM narratives. The Taliban leadership, as well as a leaders of the warlord factions (Haqqani, Hekmatyar, etc) reside full time in Pakistan and have been complacent over the years because we hadn’t pursued them there. Suffice to say their OPSEC is poor and we know where they sleep, as well as where/when they have their annual shura about the upcoming war efforts in Afghanistan. In any case, the decision not to kill 90+% of the leadership (with literally one or two JDAMs) there is a political one, not a military one. Similarly, the DoD/Civilian leadership has never cracked the code on asymmetric warfare and the enemies tactic of surrounding themselves with noncombatants and/or conducting operations out of facilities protected under Geneva/Haague. To be frank, playing by Geneva (Marquis de Queensbury) rules against an adversary who can’t be bothered is a losing proposition as we note from 16 years of failure. Nobody had these issues in WWII; spies, illegal combatants, saboteurs, assassins, terrorists and the like were summarily dealt with.

    As to taking out a carrier group – the vulnerabilities have been written about in a number of different outlets – it’s not been done, so at this point is simply conjecture. No one has seen a demonstration of Russia’s hypersonic missiles yet, the US had designs for a nuclear cruise missile with theoretically unlimited range in the 60s – it was never put into production, and as far as anybody knows, nobody else has assembled those either.

    It is very likely that the US encountering a first-world adversary would go poorly for the US, especially if they didn’t have air superiority. US personnel haven’t dealt with accurate mortar and artillery fire in over 40 years, much less facing somebody familiar with the use of the sights on a rifle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. @1RW
    Then the Soviets did not suffer defeat in Afghanistan either because they left in good order and the government they left behind was able to survive 3 years w.o. Soviet troops. Furthermore, the Afghan government collapsed when its sponsor, the USSR collapsed, while the US was preoccupied at worst when Saigon fell.

    But, since the objective was to halt the spread of communism in Vietnam, and all of, rather than half of Vietnam was communist at the end of the war, it’s a fail.

    i think that this is valiant effort. i don’t think there us any evidence that 50% of the country was communist. but more importantly the government was not. but why you would make this suggestion is peculiar and devastating because it was the invasion of afghanistan that ended the soviet union — well ended it sooner than it would have otherwise retracted.

    your position here bolsters the contention that the us ability to to exert power anywhere on the planet and keep on ticking despite the expenditure of resources not in country but elsewhere in the world is what the us a power to be reckoned with and given that comparison –

    the us role in bleeding the soviet union to the point of exhaustion makes Vietnam a triple win

    1. longevity is application of resources in conflict

    2. consequence to the nation’s internal structuration and function

    3. the same applied to outside relational dynamics elsewhere on the globe barely phased if at all

    4. national longevity

    5. not only did the soviet union retract we witnessed the failure of many of its satellite states and worse a complete rejection of their former soviet existence. the fall of saigon minus us presence, im pacted not a single other dynamic substantially to reduce us influence

    no russia lost Afghanistan and more in the undertaking —

    https://www.thoughtco.com/the-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-195102

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Soviet-invasion-of-Afghanistan

    it is not my intention to insult or belittle russia or russians, and i have no doubt that the us would in a head to head suffer and suffer mightily — but it would be an error to underestimate the resolve of us citizens to engage in a fight for life.

    the us forced not vietnam to a peace agreement, the fact they engaged in dishonoring themselves their country and long longstanding integrity by violating another peace agreement after the us departed — to start another war — cannot be held against the us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @1RW
    North Vietnam was communist, while South Vietnam was I dunno, a kleptocracy at the beginning of the conflict (for the US anyway). At the end of the conflict there was no north or south Vietnam, there was only a unified communist Vietnam. So objective not achieved.

    Also, the USSR did not collapse because of Afghanistan. This is a self serving myth that US made up. The USSR was dismantled by its party elites in order to for them to rob it and become fabulously wealthy. Many succeeded in their objective. The Afghan war produced 15,000 Soviet casualties in about ten years of fighting. This is utterly sustainable for a country of 300 million. Nor was the war effort terribly costly - advanced weapons were not used, T-54 tanks were adequate for Afghans, while the complex T-80, T-64, and T-72 machines were positioned for the European theatre. The Soviets won their engagements - much like the US won theirs against VC and NVA due to superior equipment and massive firepower advantage.

    Finally, I don’t, and I don't think too many others dismiss the US military as useless and impotent. There is a lot of space on the spectrum between unassailably powerful and utterly useless. The US is on that spectrum, it’s not on either end.

    Finally, no one wants to attack the US homeland. Put your damn “Red Dawn” fantasy away. The US homeland will be vaporized by nukes, or it will remain untouched. Invasion is off the table. You can’t invade with Hypersonic ship killing missiles. You can degrade America’s ability to mess with others, but you can’t invade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Sean says:
    @FKA Max
    It's the Italians loss, in my opinion, if they go ahead and cancel it.

    I have a very different view of the F-35 than Martyanov et al.:

    Hence the kind of criminally overpriced and useless weapons system like the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship or, of course, the fantastically expensive and no less fantastically vulnerable aircraft carriers.
     
    I think it is a game-changing weapons system as it turns assault vessels into mini-aircraft carriers:

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHa6BTywCFo

    America Can Now Fly F-35s off of Assault Ships - Here's Why That's a Big Deal The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a detachment of Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighters onboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), marking the first time the jet has deployed operationally onboard a large deck amphibious assault ship. The arrival of the F-35B onboard the L-class ships mark a massive boost in striking power for the roughly 40,000-ton vesselseffectively turning them into light carriers. Indeed, until the United States Navy’s F-35C version becomes operational, the F-35B will be the only stealth aircraft to be found onboard a naval flight deck. "Pairing F-35B Lightning II's with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime," Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said. "This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities."

    In the long term, several operators have announced their intention to supplement or replace their Harrier fleets with the STOVL variant of the F-35 Lightning II, designated as the F-35B.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet

    NASA uses the abbreviation SSTOVL for Supersonic Short Take-Off / Vertical Landing,[3] and as of 2012, the X-35B/F-35B are the only aircraft to conform with this combination within one flight.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

    What is your opinion on the F-35, Sean?

    Probably the air force are overly concerned with their appearance.

    I think the F35 a poor, or not entirely trusted, man’s F22. With limited numbers of the Raptor maintaining the US lead and uprated F16s there was no need for the F35. They would not let Israel have the F22, the F35 is way to transfer technology (Israel is fitting it with extra fuel tanks that compromise its invisibility to radar, and modifying advanced computer features). The A10 (actually an Army-commissioned plane that the Air Force never wanted) has been retained, which tells you all you need to know about the ground attack capabilities of the F35. The B52′s would probably have to be used/sacrificed to prevent a battlefield nuke first use in the event of a tank breakthrough, although Western Europe is too built up for a tank drive to succeed now.

    The traditional Russian, and the future Chinese strategy may not be so Top Gun-ish:

    ONE program from 1981, called Eurisko, was designed to teach itself a naval role-playing game. After playing ten thousand matches, it arrived at a morally grotesque strategy: to field thousands of small, immobile ships, the vast majority of which were intended as cannon fodder. In a national tournament, Eurisko demolished its human opponents, who insisted that the game’s rules be changed. The following year, Eurisko won again—by forcing its damaged ships to sink themselves.

    I can imagine a strategy in which large numbers of small primitive tanks and planes or just obsolete inventory are fielded to distract one sides cutting edge weaponry, with the really effective weapons surviving as a result. Fortunately the West’s next war will be against China and actually fought by the Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    This was tough pill to swallow for me hahahaha ;-) ...

    McGillis came out as a lesbian in April 2009 during an interview with SheWired.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_McGillis#Personal_life

    Top Gun • Take My Breath Away • Berlin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5h5JrzJMtQ

    Thank you, Sean.

    The A10 (actually an Army-commissioned plane that the Air Force never wanted) has been retained, which tells you all you need to know about the ground attack capabilities of the F35.
     
    Great aircraft! Very glad they are keeping it, regardless of the status or capabilities of the F-35:

    The Air Force also said that the A-10 was more vulnerable to advanced anti-aircraft defenses, but the Army replied that the A-10 had proved invaluable because of its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and limited logistics needs on ground support systems.[125]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Future

    K.I.S.S.

    While popular usage has transcribed it for decades as "Keep it simple, stupid", Johnson transcribed it as "Keep it simple stupid" (no comma), and this reading is still used by many authors.[7] There was no implicit meaning that an engineer was stupid; just the opposite.[3]

    The principle is best exemplified by the story of Johnson handing a team of design engineers a handful of tools, with the challenge that the jet aircraft they were designing must be repairable by an average mechanic in the field under combat conditions with only these tools. Hence, the "stupid" refers to the relationship between the way things break and the sophistication available to repair them.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle#Origin

    A-10 Warthogs fly by

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17h04ag1YHg
    , @FKA Max
    Sean,

    this is little braggadocios of me ;-) , but this is one of my dad's friends, and one of my teenage heroes:

    John Foley: Lessons From Flying in the Movie "Top Gun"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fod7d6LvE0o

    John Foley: Ambassadors of Good Will in the Soviet Union

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAVQyZlP_14

    Blue Angels trip in Moscow, Russia, 1992

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h88Zk_8k5Rk

    In early September 1992 U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Team Blue Angels was the first western demo team ever visited Russia. In this video: Kubinka air force base, Swifts and Russian Knights aerobatic teams flying together with Blue Angels F/A-18. Original movie: Blue Angels: Around The World at the Speed of Sound.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. i am fully aware that my position is a minority position in every quarter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Sean
    Probably the air force are overly concerned with their appearance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7IgwDqJhno

    I think the F35 a poor, or not entirely trusted, man's F22. With limited numbers of the Raptor maintaining the US lead and uprated F16s there was no need for the F35. They would not let Israel have the F22, the F35 is way to transfer technology (Israel is fitting it with extra fuel tanks that compromise its invisibility to radar, and modifying advanced computer features). The A10 (actually an Army-commissioned plane that the Air Force never wanted) has been retained, which tells you all you need to know about the ground attack capabilities of the F35. The B52's would probably have to be used/sacrificed to prevent a battlefield nuke first use in the event of a tank breakthrough, although Western Europe is too built up for a tank drive to succeed now.

    The traditional Russian, and the future Chinese strategy may not be so Top Gun-ish:


    ONE program from 1981, called Eurisko, was designed to teach itself a naval role-playing game. After playing ten thousand matches, it arrived at a morally grotesque strategy: to field thousands of small, immobile ships, the vast majority of which were intended as cannon fodder. In a national tournament, Eurisko demolished its human opponents, who insisted that the game’s rules be changed. The following year, Eurisko won again—by forcing its damaged ships to sink themselves.
     
    I can imagine a strategy in which large numbers of small primitive tanks and planes or just obsolete inventory are fielded to distract one sides cutting edge weaponry, with the really effective weapons surviving as a result. Fortunately the West's next war will be against China and actually fought by the Russians.

    This was tough pill to swallow for me hahahaha ;-)

    McGillis came out as a lesbian in April 2009 during an interview with SheWired.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_McGillis#Personal_life

    Top Gun • Take My Breath Away • Berlin

    Thank you, Sean.

    The A10 (actually an Army-commissioned plane that the Air Force never wanted) has been retained, which tells you all you need to know about the ground attack capabilities of the F35.

    Great aircraft! Very glad they are keeping it, regardless of the status or capabilities of the F-35:

    The Air Force also said that the A-10 was more vulnerable to advanced anti-aircraft defenses, but the Army replied that the A-10 had proved invaluable because of its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and limited logistics needs on ground support systems.[125]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Future

    K.I.S.S.

    While popular usage has transcribed it for decades as “Keep it simple, stupid”, Johnson transcribed it as “Keep it simple stupid” (no comma), and this reading is still used by many authors.[7] There was no implicit meaning that an engineer was stupid; just the opposite.[3]

    The principle is best exemplified by the story of Johnson handing a team of design engineers a handful of tools, with the challenge that the jet aircraft they were designing must be repairable by an average mechanic in the field under combat conditions with only these tools. Hence, the “stupid” refers to the relationship between the way things break and the sophistication available to repair them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle#Origin

    A-10 Warthogs fly by

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Typos: This was *a* tough pill to swallow... ...this is *a* little braggadocios of me...

    Tom Cruise Puking in the Making of Top Gun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd5v0uDJ4eA

    Tom Cruise on Training for Top Gun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l36BVi8K1uo

    Tom reacts to Kenny Loggins playing 'Highway to the Danger Zone' during his entrance and reveals that this is the first time they have ever met. Tom also recalls vomiting in a jet while training for the movie Top Gun.

    I just saw that they are coming out with Top Gun 2. I wonder if they will be using it to promote the F-35 and/or as anti-Putin/Russian propaganda?

    Tom Cruise Begins 'Top Gun 2' Filming! | TMZ TV

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJsjsH4K00
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Sean
    Probably the air force are overly concerned with their appearance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7IgwDqJhno

    I think the F35 a poor, or not entirely trusted, man's F22. With limited numbers of the Raptor maintaining the US lead and uprated F16s there was no need for the F35. They would not let Israel have the F22, the F35 is way to transfer technology (Israel is fitting it with extra fuel tanks that compromise its invisibility to radar, and modifying advanced computer features). The A10 (actually an Army-commissioned plane that the Air Force never wanted) has been retained, which tells you all you need to know about the ground attack capabilities of the F35. The B52's would probably have to be used/sacrificed to prevent a battlefield nuke first use in the event of a tank breakthrough, although Western Europe is too built up for a tank drive to succeed now.

    The traditional Russian, and the future Chinese strategy may not be so Top Gun-ish:


    ONE program from 1981, called Eurisko, was designed to teach itself a naval role-playing game. After playing ten thousand matches, it arrived at a morally grotesque strategy: to field thousands of small, immobile ships, the vast majority of which were intended as cannon fodder. In a national tournament, Eurisko demolished its human opponents, who insisted that the game’s rules be changed. The following year, Eurisko won again—by forcing its damaged ships to sink themselves.
     
    I can imagine a strategy in which large numbers of small primitive tanks and planes or just obsolete inventory are fielded to distract one sides cutting edge weaponry, with the really effective weapons surviving as a result. Fortunately the West's next war will be against China and actually fought by the Russians.

    Sean,

    this is little braggadocios of me ;-) , but this is one of my dad’s friends, and one of my teenage heroes:

    John Foley: Lessons From Flying in the Movie “Top Gun”

    John Foley: Ambassadors of Good Will in the Soviet Union

    Blue Angels trip in Moscow, Russia, 1992

    In early September 1992 U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Team Blue Angels was the first western demo team ever visited Russia. In this video: Kubinka air force base, Swifts and Russian Knights aerobatic teams flying together with Blue Angels F/A-18. Original movie: Blue Angels: Around The World at the Speed of Sound.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. 1RW says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    i think that this is valiant effort. i don't think there us any evidence that 50% of the country was communist. but more importantly the government was not. but why you would make this suggestion is peculiar and devastating because it was the invasion of afghanistan that ended the soviet union -- well ended it sooner than it would have otherwise retracted.

    your position here bolsters the contention that the us ability to to exert power anywhere on the planet and keep on ticking despite the expenditure of resources not in country but elsewhere in the world is what the us a power to be reckoned with and given that comparison --

    the us role in bleeding the soviet union to the point of exhaustion makes Vietnam a triple win


    1. longevity is application of resources in conflict

    2. consequence to the nation's internal structuration and function

    3. the same applied to outside relational dynamics elsewhere on the globe barely phased if at all

    4. national longevity

    5. not only did the soviet union retract we witnessed the failure of many of its satellite states and worse a complete rejection of their former soviet existence. the fall of saigon minus us presence, im pacted not a single other dynamic substantially to reduce us influence

    no russia lost Afghanistan and more in the undertaking --

    https://www.thoughtco.com/the-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-195102

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Soviet-invasion-of-Afghanistan

    it is not my intention to insult or belittle russia or russians, and i have no doubt that the us would in a head to head suffer and suffer mightily -- but it would be an error to underestimate the resolve of us citizens to engage in a fight for life.


    the us forced not vietnam to a peace agreement, the fact they engaged in dishonoring themselves their country and long longstanding integrity by violating another peace agreement after the us departed -- to start another war -- cannot be held against the us.

    North Vietnam was communist, while South Vietnam was I dunno, a kleptocracy at the beginning of the conflict (for the US anyway). At the end of the conflict there was no north or south Vietnam, there was only a unified communist Vietnam. So objective not achieved.

    Also, the USSR did not collapse because of Afghanistan. This is a self serving myth that US made up. The USSR was dismantled by its party elites in order to for them to rob it and become fabulously wealthy. Many succeeded in their objective. The Afghan war produced 15,000 Soviet casualties in about ten years of fighting. This is utterly sustainable for a country of 300 million. Nor was the war effort terribly costly – advanced weapons were not used, T-54 tanks were adequate for Afghans, while the complex T-80, T-64, and T-72 machines were positioned for the European theatre. The Soviets won their engagements – much like the US won theirs against VC and NVA due to superior equipment and massive firepower advantage.

    Finally, I don’t, and I don’t think too many others dismiss the US military as useless and impotent. There is a lot of space on the spectrum between unassailably powerful and utterly useless. The US is on that spectrum, it’s not on either end.

    Finally, no one wants to attack the US homeland. Put your damn “Red Dawn” fantasy away. The US homeland will be vaporized by nukes, or it will remain untouched. Invasion is off the table. You can’t invade with Hypersonic ship killing missiles. You can degrade America’s ability to mess with others, but you can’t invade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    i won't rehash that history it's on the record in battled details here and on tac. by the time north vietnam began its second war, the us was no longer present . . . that loss sadly belongs to the s. vietnamese and i think the us let them down. but for the us, 1973 by the record as opposed liberal andmedia fantasy and the beat down politically incorrect

    s. vietnam was a win. here we will just have to agree to disagree - but my views rest on fata sets and events as they occurred.

    as for the rest i am content to allow history to be the teller.

    a systems theory analysis/ note previous source cites
    http://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf


    my comments are in response to the article and subsequent comments with respect to vietnam.

    the article challenges the ability of the us to engage successfully one on one.

    In such a conflict w are not talking about proxy battles, but full spectrum warefare that includes invasion. the author of the article makes it clear that one area of analysis goes to the us citizens first hand experience in conus as opposed to that of russian history. my response is to that particular issue. in which the the question of will to fight is a factor and while i had not considered "red dawn"
    i see no reason why such a scenario should not be considered.


    i appreciate technology but i come from an old school regarding warfare --

    regardless of air superiority or that of the sea -- eventually one must own, occupy and control the ground


    so invasion is in play. if you don't think that russian strategists have not considered this, then you are woefully mistaken.

    that you rely on a nuclear scenario would suggest that such a head to head conflict is moot. i disagree.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Seraphim says:
    @Felix Keverich
    President Saakashvili would have never starter that war, if he didn't believe in victory. You don't launch an aggression, if you think you will be immediately outflanked and overrun. His plan was essentially a repeat of Croatian operation Storm: eradicating Russian-backed statelets would have opened a path for Georgia to quickly join NATO, which was also Washington's goal.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that "Russia sucks and cannot do shit". We also know that he relied on American intelligence and satellite data. Obviously US intelligence dropped the ball on Russia that time, and it wasn't the last time.

    My point is you guys know very little about Russia and its capabilities. Your bravado is mostly a product of ignorance.

    Their bravado is the result of ignorance doubled by an incapacity to learn from mistakes. An inability to look at the whole picture. One may notice that all assessments of Russian military capabilities talk only of the first phases of a conflict. So, this kind of ‘history’ would expatiate on the defeats of the Russians at Austerlitz, Friedland, Borodino, and forget that the Russian-Napoleonic wars ended with the Cossacks washing their feet in the Seine, the demise of Napoleon and the reorganization of Europe on Russian lines. Ditto with WWII. Much about the German victories in the first phases of the war and less about that the Russians entered Berlin. The impression left in peoples’ minds is that the Russians have been always beaten and therefore they will be beaten in the future as well!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @1RW
    North Vietnam was communist, while South Vietnam was I dunno, a kleptocracy at the beginning of the conflict (for the US anyway). At the end of the conflict there was no north or south Vietnam, there was only a unified communist Vietnam. So objective not achieved.

    Also, the USSR did not collapse because of Afghanistan. This is a self serving myth that US made up. The USSR was dismantled by its party elites in order to for them to rob it and become fabulously wealthy. Many succeeded in their objective. The Afghan war produced 15,000 Soviet casualties in about ten years of fighting. This is utterly sustainable for a country of 300 million. Nor was the war effort terribly costly - advanced weapons were not used, T-54 tanks were adequate for Afghans, while the complex T-80, T-64, and T-72 machines were positioned for the European theatre. The Soviets won their engagements - much like the US won theirs against VC and NVA due to superior equipment and massive firepower advantage.

    Finally, I don’t, and I don't think too many others dismiss the US military as useless and impotent. There is a lot of space on the spectrum between unassailably powerful and utterly useless. The US is on that spectrum, it’s not on either end.

    Finally, no one wants to attack the US homeland. Put your damn “Red Dawn” fantasy away. The US homeland will be vaporized by nukes, or it will remain untouched. Invasion is off the table. You can’t invade with Hypersonic ship killing missiles. You can degrade America’s ability to mess with others, but you can’t invade.

    i won’t rehash that history it’s on the record in battled details here and on tac. by the time north vietnam began its second war, the us was no longer present . . . that loss sadly belongs to the s. vietnamese and i think the us let them down. but for the us, 1973 by the record as opposed liberal andmedia fantasy and the beat down politically incorrect

    s. vietnam was a win. here we will just have to agree to disagree – but my views rest on fata sets and events as they occurred.

    as for the rest i am content to allow history to be the teller.

    a systems theory analysis/ note previous source cites

    http://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf

    my comments are in response to the article and subsequent comments with respect to vietnam.

    the article challenges the ability of the us to engage successfully one on one.

    In such a conflict w are not talking about proxy battles, but full spectrum warefare that includes invasion. the author of the article makes it clear that one area of analysis goes to the us citizens first hand experience in conus as opposed to that of russian history. my response is to that particular issue. in which the the question of will to fight is a factor and while i had not considered “red dawn”
    i see no reason why such a scenario should not be considered.

    i appreciate technology but i come from an old school regarding warfare —

    regardless of air superiority or that of the sea — eventually one must own, occupy and control the ground

    so invasion is in play. if you don’t think that russian strategists have not considered this, then you are woefully mistaken.

    that you rely on a nuclear scenario would suggest that such a head to head conflict is moot. i disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @1RW
    S. Vietnam was a strategic loss. At the tactical and operational levels the US won. Yet the end state was the opposite of US strategic objectives, ergo the loss.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Johnny Rico

    My point is
     
    How is any of that a response to my comment? You can't just write your point out? You have to play games like that?

    Just answer the questions. One might be tempted to think you don't have the answers and are bullshitting.

    Somebody must have told Saakashvili that “Russia sucks and cannot do shit”.
     
    Who talks like that? Most of your comment is speculation. Are you drunk? When you are sober revisit the history of that war...the facts.

    Excuse me? In your comment you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were “outflanked”. That’s not true. They were crushed because American intelligence, American startegy, and American weaponry FAILED. In case you’re too dim to realise it, America owns this debacle as much as Saakashvili does.


    a pile of American assault rifles at one of the captured Georgian bases

    Read More
    • Replies: @1RW
    Also the Georgians stupidly opened by bombarding a city and getting into a death ground ( for the Russians) fight with a Russian peacekeeping battalion. Had they instead seized and blocked the Roki tunnel, Russia would have been unable to deploy quickly and Georgia would have had far longer to consolidate any gains and perhaps create reality on the ground.

    This suggests that either the instructor (Americans) or the student ( Georgians) is worthless at operational art. Or both.
    , @Johnny Rico

    you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were “outflanked”
     
    No I didn't. You have reading comprehension issues. That's what YOU comprehended and wrote. Go back and read slowly.

    Assault rifles? Really?


    American weaponry FAILED
     
    So you're saying the Georgians lost because a bunch of M-16s jammed?

    It had nothing to do with the fact that there were 60,000+ Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - more than 3 times the size of the entire Georgian military and that the Russians had been preparing this war for months. Right?

    American intelligence had a very poor understanding of what was going on there and advised Saakhashvili not to do what he did. American strategic attention was focused elsewhere at the time.

    Are you really this dumb? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you might be drunk. Try a little harder. You really don't know anything about that war, do you?

    The first rule for when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. 1RW says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    i won't rehash that history it's on the record in battled details here and on tac. by the time north vietnam began its second war, the us was no longer present . . . that loss sadly belongs to the s. vietnamese and i think the us let them down. but for the us, 1973 by the record as opposed liberal andmedia fantasy and the beat down politically incorrect

    s. vietnam was a win. here we will just have to agree to disagree - but my views rest on fata sets and events as they occurred.

    as for the rest i am content to allow history to be the teller.

    a systems theory analysis/ note previous source cites
    http://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf


    my comments are in response to the article and subsequent comments with respect to vietnam.

    the article challenges the ability of the us to engage successfully one on one.

    In such a conflict w are not talking about proxy battles, but full spectrum warefare that includes invasion. the author of the article makes it clear that one area of analysis goes to the us citizens first hand experience in conus as opposed to that of russian history. my response is to that particular issue. in which the the question of will to fight is a factor and while i had not considered "red dawn"
    i see no reason why such a scenario should not be considered.


    i appreciate technology but i come from an old school regarding warfare --

    regardless of air superiority or that of the sea -- eventually one must own, occupy and control the ground


    so invasion is in play. if you don't think that russian strategists have not considered this, then you are woefully mistaken.

    that you rely on a nuclear scenario would suggest that such a head to head conflict is moot. i disagree.

    S. Vietnam was a strategic loss. At the tactical and operational levels the US won. Yet the end state was the opposite of US strategic objectives, ergo the loss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    I would call a retreat from the battlefield a tactical loss. True, the US had some tactical victories in Vietnam, but in the final battle (s) (the only one that really counts) they retreated from the field of battle and suffered tactical defeat (s) which sealed the strategic defeat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. 1RW says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Excuse me? In your comment you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were "outflanked". That's not true. They were crushed because American intelligence, American startegy, and American weaponry FAILED. In case you're too dim to realise it, America owns this debacle as much as Saakashvili does.

    https://cs6.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/08/08/6/150218611619713453.jpg
    a pile of American assault rifles at one of the captured Georgian bases

    Also the Georgians stupidly opened by bombarding a city and getting into a death ground ( for the Russians) fight with a Russian peacekeeping battalion. Had they instead seized and blocked the Roki tunnel, Russia would have been unable to deploy quickly and Georgia would have had far longer to consolidate any gains and perhaps create reality on the ground.

    This suggests that either the instructor (Americans) or the student ( Georgians) is worthless at operational art. Or both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    "Your dog is not respecting the border."

    https://youtu.be/bv00Weif0Sw
    , @Philip Owen
    I have never understood the failure of the Georgians to block the Roki tunnel. Surely it would have been mined in triplicate from at least two command centres, and covered by artillery not to mention being the first air defence priority. How many people had to be bribed?

    Sorry, the Russians held it already. OK throw every missile and plane you have at it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. dax2 says:

    Big wars have always been fought based on the levels of confidence the military leaders will have on their ability to defend a homeland and avoid a permanently ruinous war that kills a nation.

    That us and israeli military leaders entertain thoughts of military superiority virtually guarantee their massive defeat in an uncontrolled war. Wiih bigger and more sophisticated economies to destroy, they will always end up worse. A rich roman, german or american empire will always be fantastically ruined by a major war.

    The mechanics of a brutally efficient war win never changed in simplicity and disembowelment strikes since the stone age.

    Against israel, for instance, farsi and arab forces just have to destroy the food distribution and international replenishment trade and finance system. 50k to 300k missiles with 50km to 500 km range need to be lofted over israel, with hardest-hitting missiles coated with stealth composites and lots of fake missiles thrown in to sucker up all ABM defenses. These missile clouds will then be followed on by a million islamic warriors on foot, tricycles and pickup trucks carrying many cheap thermobarics and mobile antiaircraft missiles speeding across the entire breadth of israel at 5-30kph to finish off the civilian population. Israeli nuclear weapons wont work once the islamic warriors are within israel. Fancy aircraft like f-35s and f-22s wont matter either as they, like other israeli weapons, are too expensive to sustain in a major war lasting months or years. Defeating the israeli military capability myth is rather easy. Sure, it will cost the farsis and arabs 5 million dead warriors – a disaster they can easily absorb as israel will cease to exist forever.

    Taking out the us military superiority myths will follow the same routes for disposing off and collapsing the israeli military forces in just a few months. You also need to take into consideration that us-nato forces rely a lot on imports to mass-produce advanced weapons. Weapons that wont work once resupply imports are very, very easily stopped. Those hypersonic weapons will take out key defense and offense basestars in minutes, to make matters a lot worse. And nobody will help israel or the usa once the big bombs fall, so no one will help them buy time to recover and mount sustainable counterstrikes.

    Russian and us-nato leaders are more than aware that us-style military plans wont actually work in modern big wars where extremely massive and extremely quick attacks will be the rule. The myths of military invincibilty created by israeli and american propagandists are factually suicidal as the truth will really, really hurt their clueless people more.

    The only credible american warrior who fully understood war truths is mike tyson. He rightly said that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  188. @AnonFromTN
    Whatever you think, there is a real opposition between dying US Empire with its pathetic vassals and every country that refuses to toe its globalist line: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc. Part of the Russian and Chinese elite would choose to be second-rate vassals of the US elites, but that’s not the part that supports Putin and Xi.

    “…..but that’s not the part that supports Putin and Xi.”

    I think Chinese elite is only interested in making money. If the Americans attack they will defend themselves….But if the USA attack and destroy other countries(including Iran), the Chinese won’t do nothing. This is perfectly compatible with Confucianism and Marxism.

    Russia’s elite (those who are in power) is part of the Zionist International Mafia. If one just sticks with facts and not with propaganda, this isn’t difficult to understand. Putin has been in power more than 20 years…but He is still, according to those great “expert” in Russia, a prisoner of the “atlanticists and traitors.”

    Well, everything is possible.

    Iran, Syria, Venezuela are trying to be independent…unfortunately they are alone.

    They can’t count on China neither on Russia.

    Iran could count on North Korea. I suspect this is the reason why, suddenly , it became acceptable for the the Zionist International Mafia to make peace with NK.

    Isn’t bizarre that suddenly the “worst” dictator in the world -Kim Jong-un- was transformed in a statesman and someone interested in peace ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Chinese, as well as Russian, elites are interested in making money, no doubt. But they are also interested in keeping the money they made. As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover. Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. myself says:
    @animalogic
    Bastogne. Kasserine Pass (the entire War of Succession considered from the South) etc. "Mere" battles, but offer insights into US "back-against-the-wall" actions.
    It's not a question that US service men can not fight - they can. However, as the early months of Korea show, the US style of war contains an inherent...brittleness.

    However, as the early months of Korea show, the US style of war contains an inherent…brittleness.

    An observation from a Chinese commander, regarding his American opponents during the Korean War:

    “Americans are very good at killing their enemies – this, we admire. But they are also afraid to die – this, we do not”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Nobody want to die PERIOD. However even more important nobody want to die in an unnecessary war in a foreign country.


    Bravery has a lot to do with where, when, and what you are fighting for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. myself says:
    @Bill jones
    I'm going to have to stop reading Unz. I've got my own bloody reading list to take care of.

    It can be addicting. Take a break, get some fresh air, come back when you’re ready.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Felix Keverich
    Excuse me? In your comment you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were "outflanked". That's not true. They were crushed because American intelligence, American startegy, and American weaponry FAILED. In case you're too dim to realise it, America owns this debacle as much as Saakashvili does.

    https://cs6.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/08/08/6/150218611619713453.jpg
    a pile of American assault rifles at one of the captured Georgian bases

    you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were “outflanked”

    No I didn’t. You have reading comprehension issues. That’s what YOU comprehended and wrote. Go back and read slowly.

    Assault rifles? Really?

    American weaponry FAILED

    So you’re saying the Georgians lost because a bunch of M-16s jammed?

    It had nothing to do with the fact that there were 60,000+ Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia – more than 3 times the size of the entire Georgian military and that the Russians had been preparing this war for months. Right?

    American intelligence had a very poor understanding of what was going on there and advised Saakhashvili not to do what he did. American strategic attention was focused elsewhere at the time.

    Are you really this dumb? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you might be drunk. Try a little harder. You really don’t know anything about that war, do you?

    The first rule for when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Interesting story. Too bad that it’s false. If Russian troops were preparing for this war, how come they reached Tskhinval two days late (Ossetians complained about that bitterly)?
    , @Felix Keverich
    Excuses, excuses. Let's face it, Americans are not very good at winning wars that involve some actual fighting.

    Saakashvili was brought to power in a US-backed coup, his regime was owned and controlled by United States and his aggression against South Ossetia was sanctioned at the top level of American government, it's just that US expected a very different outcome.

    American intelligence had a very poor understanding
     
    At last you are right. American intelligence suffered a pretty comprehensive failure, which wouldn't be their last.
    , @Avery
    {.... and advised Saakhashvili not to do what he did. }

    How could you possibly know that?
    It is highly unlikely that Saakashvili would launch such a major attack without some kind of assent from US.

    As to foreign supplied weaponry: according to an article in Times*

    [But if the Israelis were looking to downplay the significance of military ties, they weren't helped by comments like Yakobashvili's — or by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's enthusing at a press conference earlier this week that "the Israeli weapons have been very effective."]

    and

    [President Saakashvili has noted that both his minister responsible for negotiations over South Ossetia (Yakobashvili) and his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, had lived in Israel before moving to post-Soviet Georgia. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the Georgian leader this week enthused that in Tbilisi, "both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews." Working through the Georgian Defense Ministry (and with the approval of its Israeli counterpart), Israeli companies are reported to have supplied the Georgians with pilotless drones, night-vision equipment, anti-aircraft equipment, shells, rockets and various electronic systems]
    ________
    * http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1834785,00.html
    , @wraith67
    Actually US intelligence was watching the whole thing unfold. The analysis right before the Russians rolled in was that 'they'd done it before (show of force, rolling up to the border, etc) so it was likely that it was going to be the same thing they usually do' - paraphrasing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @1RW
    Also the Georgians stupidly opened by bombarding a city and getting into a death ground ( for the Russians) fight with a Russian peacekeeping battalion. Had they instead seized and blocked the Roki tunnel, Russia would have been unable to deploy quickly and Georgia would have had far longer to consolidate any gains and perhaps create reality on the ground.

    This suggests that either the instructor (Americans) or the student ( Georgians) is worthless at operational art. Or both.

    “Your dog is not respecting the border.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @James Brown
    ".....but that’s not the part that supports Putin and Xi."

    I think Chinese elite is only interested in making money. If the Americans attack they will defend themselves....But if the USA attack and destroy other countries(including Iran), the Chinese won't do nothing. This is perfectly compatible with Confucianism and Marxism.

    Russia's elite (those who are in power) is part of the Zionist International Mafia. If one just sticks with facts and not with propaganda, this isn't difficult to understand. Putin has been in power more than 20 years...but He is still, according to those great "expert" in Russia, a prisoner of the "atlanticists and traitors."

    Well, everything is possible.

    Iran, Syria, Venezuela are trying to be independent...unfortunately they are alone.

    They can't count on China neither on Russia.

    Iran could count on North Korea. I suspect this is the reason why, suddenly , it became acceptable for the the Zionist International Mafia to make peace with NK.

    Isn't bizarre that suddenly the "worst" dictator in the world -Kim Jong-un- was transformed in a statesman and someone interested in peace ?

    Chinese, as well as Russian, elites are interested in making money, no doubt. But they are also interested in keeping the money they made. As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover. Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.
     
    Generally correct but there are some specific issues related strictly to contemporary Russian "elites", which modern West (or whatever goes under this title) can not grasp. In fact, oligarchy as it was formed in 1990s in Russia doesn't exist anymore. I am omitting here altogether a very profound role Russian Armed Forces and Security apparatus always played in Russian history. "Smotryashie" are not real oligarchs--recent events proved it beyond any doubt.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    My humble opinion they are not just thieves but murderers who started people of vital resources killing millions in the process. They all should have everything expropriated and get hung for their crimes. Putin is an enabler. He is the guy who is trying to make theft that happened during Eltsin years permanent and sort of legitimate. Probably he and all of them waiting for older generations to die off hence non stop propaganda and dumbing down on TV.
    , @James Brown
    "But they are also interested in keeping the money they made"

    Russian elite are keeping their money in western banks and western "secret" fiscal paradise.
    Russian's oligarchs (robbers) when they ran away they tend to go the USA or UK.

    "As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover."

    The USA and UK -most powerful mafia and terrorist states- are providing the cover.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Johnny Rico

    you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were “outflanked”
     
    No I didn't. You have reading comprehension issues. That's what YOU comprehended and wrote. Go back and read slowly.

    Assault rifles? Really?


    American weaponry FAILED
     
    So you're saying the Georgians lost because a bunch of M-16s jammed?

    It had nothing to do with the fact that there were 60,000+ Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - more than 3 times the size of the entire Georgian military and that the Russians had been preparing this war for months. Right?

    American intelligence had a very poor understanding of what was going on there and advised Saakhashvili not to do what he did. American strategic attention was focused elsewhere at the time.

    Are you really this dumb? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you might be drunk. Try a little harder. You really don't know anything about that war, do you?

    The first rule for when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.

    Interesting story. Too bad that it’s false. If Russian troops were preparing for this war, how come they reached Tskhinval two days late (Ossetians complained about that bitterly)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Do you have any references for your comment? I've been over this before. I don't really feel the need right now to invent the wheel again just because you and Felix missed the last discussion of 2008 on UNZ. Maybe tomorrow.

    There are a few books published on the subject. Do they have libraries in Tennessee yet?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @1RW
    S. Vietnam was a strategic loss. At the tactical and operational levels the US won. Yet the end state was the opposite of US strategic objectives, ergo the loss.

    I would call a retreat from the battlefield a tactical loss. True, the US had some tactical victories in Vietnam, but in the final battle (s) (the only one that really counts) they retreated from the field of battle and suffered tactical defeat (s) which sealed the strategic defeat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    good grief


    another old gambit - there are lengthy discussions on those issues and your understanding of leaving the battlefield is rebuffed by the record. the us cannot be held accountable for the inability or unwillingness of n. vietnam, the soviets, china and n. korea abiding by treaties.


    well,


    you have to know what us strategy was.


    1. secure vietnam and protect the s. vietnamese government -- vietnam could determine for themselves their polity

    2. establish some agreement to ensure peace -- even of that meant sometime in the future the states unified by consent.

    the us presence was to ensure that --- and while i think our departure was premature and worse -- that was accomplished in 1973.

    minus the us presence that strategy does not exist.


    but if you want to engage in the linguistic holistic high context games of ideological perspectives fine.

    the soviets are gone and vietnam is turning their communist card for one of capitalist markets

    the strategy to end communist endeavors such as devoured south vietnam was successful and apparently remains quite robust.

    The us wins in 1973 and
    they win in 1989 as the entire soviet strategy in its entirety collapses, faking with it the hops and communist dreams of vietnam right along with it

    ergo - the us wins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @AnonFromTN
    Chinese, as well as Russian, elites are interested in making money, no doubt. But they are also interested in keeping the money they made. As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover. Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.

    Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.

    Generally correct but there are some specific issues related strictly to contemporary Russian “elites”, which modern West (or whatever goes under this title) can not grasp. In fact, oligarchy as it was formed in 1990s in Russia doesn’t exist anymore. I am omitting here altogether a very profound role Russian Armed Forces and Security apparatus always played in Russian history. “Smotryashie” are not real oligarchs–recent events proved it beyond any doubt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    You are right about some, but not all. Those who moved their capital abroad (e.g., Abramovich, Rotenberg, Kerimov, and many others) are true oligarchs. Some emerged in the dark era of 1990s, some got rich later, but it does not matter, they are all in the same boat. They, more than anyone, need a strong state to provide cover and prevent their loot from being stolen by competing thieves.

    Yes, in Russia the military and security apparatus play greater role that in self-appointed “democratic” West. I have no doubt that those were the people who told Yeltsin in 2000 to resign, or else. Good thing they did: they saved Russia from total disintegration. Of course, the country comes back even after that (like after Mongol conquest), but it takes much longer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @AnonFromTN
    Chinese, as well as Russian, elites are interested in making money, no doubt. But they are also interested in keeping the money they made. As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover. Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.

    My humble opinion they are not just thieves but murderers who started people of vital resources killing millions in the process. They all should have everything expropriated and get hung for their crimes. Putin is an enabler. He is the guy who is trying to make theft that happened during Eltsin years permanent and sort of legitimate. Probably he and all of them waiting for older generations to die off hence non stop propaganda and dumbing down on TV.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    I think you are right about oligarchs, but wrong about realpolitik. If we apply moral, or even legal standards, the elites and the whole political class of every country (including Russia and the US) should be hanged, or at least jailed for life without parole.

    However, history shows that in this case new people coming to power are no less criminal than the old. Besides, revolutions are very destructive, punishing largely the people who are robbed by the old and new elites alike. I think Putin tries to avoid revolutions, both for his own sake and for the sake of the country.
    , @gmachine1729
    I am a millennial who is rather ashamed of my generation. Relative to the older ones, it is so incompetent and so idiotically liberal in its social attitudes. I despair to think what they will make of the world decades later, especially given the types selected for by the current system in America that is, sadly, setting the global standard.

    The music kids listen to nowadays is also mostly trash. There are very few people like me, who actually appreciate Soviet Red Army music, for which I've compiled a music video list. There are also very few Chinese raised in America like me who care to learn the Chinese language and culture amidst idiotic American liberal anti-communist market democratic fundamentalist political correctness manufactured by and for a degenerate socioeconomic elite. The culture in China has much degenerated as well though they seem to have done a better job preserving it than Russia did. I get the feeling that Chinese, especially in China, are generally less delusional about liberalism than Russians are, though the Russians in the US I have interacted with tend to be a biased sample. Still, I have a very high respect for Russians. They exhibit a very pure pursuit of excellence and have an extremely strong STEM culture and tradition, and Chinese could really learn a lot from that. For an elaboration of that, see this. Most of the Chinese parents I've seen are quite disappointing in their knowledge and mindset, though of course, there are also some really good ones. But at the elite level, the Chinese still pale in comparison, and in fact, the older generation of Chinese may even be better there notwithstanding substantial economic improvement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Johnny Rico

    you made a claim that Georgian forces were crushed in 2008, because they were “outflanked”
     
    No I didn't. You have reading comprehension issues. That's what YOU comprehended and wrote. Go back and read slowly.

    Assault rifles? Really?


    American weaponry FAILED
     
    So you're saying the Georgians lost because a bunch of M-16s jammed?

    It had nothing to do with the fact that there were 60,000+ Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - more than 3 times the size of the entire Georgian military and that the Russians had been preparing this war for months. Right?

    American intelligence had a very poor understanding of what was going on there and advised Saakhashvili not to do what he did. American strategic attention was focused elsewhere at the time.

    Are you really this dumb? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you might be drunk. Try a little harder. You really don't know anything about that war, do you?

    The first rule for when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.

    Excuses, excuses. Let’s face it, Americans are not very good at winning wars that involve some actual fighting.

    Saakashvili was brought to power in a US-backed coup, his regime was owned and controlled by United States and his aggression against South Ossetia was sanctioned at the top level of American government, it’s just that US expected a very different outcome.

    American intelligence had a very poor understanding

    At last you are right. American intelligence suffered a pretty comprehensive failure, which wouldn’t be their last.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {..., his regime was owned and controlled by United States}

    .......and Israel.

    His defense minster from November 10, 2006 to December 5, 2008 Davit Kezerashvili is an Israeli(!)
    (Georgia-Russia War was Aug 7, 2008 – Aug 16, 2008).
    Another former minister, Temur Yakobashvili, is also an Israeli.
    These two were/are public figures.
    Who knows how many non-public figures there were in Saakashvili government who were working to advance their own employers' interests?
    Does anyone doubt that Saakashvili government was thoroughly infiltrated by US/NATO and Israeli assets?
    , @Johnny Rico
    Whatever. Your narrative is the cartoon-version of history Putin provided Oliver Stone in 2014. But you've made it a little sexier and Hollywood-ready. Complete with a pile of M-16s. It's probably not going to end up in any textbooks but people here seem to like it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Andrei Martyanov

    Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.
     
    Generally correct but there are some specific issues related strictly to contemporary Russian "elites", which modern West (or whatever goes under this title) can not grasp. In fact, oligarchy as it was formed in 1990s in Russia doesn't exist anymore. I am omitting here altogether a very profound role Russian Armed Forces and Security apparatus always played in Russian history. "Smotryashie" are not real oligarchs--recent events proved it beyond any doubt.

    You are right about some, but not all. Those who moved their capital abroad (e.g., Abramovich, Rotenberg, Kerimov, and many others) are true oligarchs. Some emerged in the dark era of 1990s, some got rich later, but it does not matter, they are all in the same boat. They, more than anyone, need a strong state to provide cover and prevent their loot from being stolen by competing thieves.

    Yes, in Russia the military and security apparatus play greater role that in self-appointed “democratic” West. I have no doubt that those were the people who told Yeltsin in 2000 to resign, or else. Good thing they did: they saved Russia from total disintegration. Of course, the country comes back even after that (like after Mongol conquest), but it takes much longer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    They, more than anyone, need a strong state to provide cover and prevent their loot from being stolen by competing thieves.
     
    They do not formulate nor influence in any meaningful way the concept of Russia's national security. I remember long ago when Vagit Alekperov gave the lecture in General Staff Academy where he used Gazprom, among others, as an example of "other" national interests--remarkably, he had a point. But then again--Alekperov is highly educated and experienced man. They might be interested in it, that is true, and for their pure monetary reasons, but none of people you mentioned can have any bearing on what is formulated within strictly "Sluzhivyi Class". In some sense it is in parallel, albeit, of course, with huge allowances for US specifics, with Trump and Bannon--Bannon, himself a former military professional, I am sure, was instrumental both in helping to establish a serious link between Trump and those constantly mentioned during campaign 240 highest ranking military and intelligence officers as well as employing those high level military professionals for least influencing Trump's rather non-orthodox, for US entrenched political establishment, approaches to geopolitics and foreign policy. Moreover, consider this simple fact--the moment historic Russia got its head to be an agronomist and party bureaucrat and the other a drunkard, none with military background whatsoever--we all know the rest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @AnonFromTN
    Chinese, as well as Russian, elites are interested in making money, no doubt. But they are also interested in keeping the money they made. As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover. Otherwise thieves from other countries would appropriate “honestly stolen” riches under one pretext or another. This consideration, not any noble feelings, explains the “patriotism” of current Russian and Chinese elites.

    “But they are also interested in keeping the money they made”

    Russian elite are keeping their money in western banks and western “secret” fiscal paradise.
    Russian’s oligarchs (robbers) when they ran away they tend to go the USA or UK.

    “As numerous stories of Ukrainian oligarchs show, for a mega-thief (that’s a member of the elite in any country) to keep his/her loot, s/he needs a strong state to provide cover.”

    The USA and UK -most powerful mafia and terrorist states- are providing the cover.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Sergey Krieger
    My humble opinion they are not just thieves but murderers who started people of vital resources killing millions in the process. They all should have everything expropriated and get hung for their crimes. Putin is an enabler. He is the guy who is trying to make theft that happened during Eltsin years permanent and sort of legitimate. Probably he and all of them waiting for older generations to die off hence non stop propaganda and dumbing down on TV.

    I think you are right about oligarchs, but wrong about realpolitik. If we apply moral, or even legal standards, the elites and the whole political class of every country (including Russia and the US) should be hanged, or at least jailed for life without parole.

    However, history shows that in this case new people coming to power are no less criminal than the old. Besides, revolutions are very destructive, punishing largely the people who are robbed by the old and new elites alike. I think Putin tries to avoid revolutions, both for his own sake and for the sake of the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    It could have been done without revolution when Putin came to power. He would have had backing of vast majority of population and military. Now it is more difficult. I do not know what Putin was thinking then. He is moving carefully but the irony is, the system built is so unjust and unfair that eventually it will blow in revolution or something else. Zinoviev called it horned rabbit. Pretty fitting. There oos no core ideology hence all sorts of remedies used including bringing back religion. When such issues are not resolved and allowed to fester the outcome is obvious sooner or later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @AnonFromTN
    You are right about some, but not all. Those who moved their capital abroad (e.g., Abramovich, Rotenberg, Kerimov, and many others) are true oligarchs. Some emerged in the dark era of 1990s, some got rich later, but it does not matter, they are all in the same boat. They, more than anyone, need a strong state to provide cover and prevent their loot from being stolen by competing thieves.

    Yes, in Russia the military and security apparatus play greater role that in self-appointed “democratic” West. I have no doubt that those were the people who told Yeltsin in 2000 to resign, or else. Good thing they did: they saved Russia from total disintegration. Of course, the country comes back even after that (like after Mongol conquest), but it takes much longer.

    They, more than anyone, need a strong state to provide cover and prevent their loot from being stolen by competing thieves.

    They do not formulate nor influence in any meaningful way the concept of Russia’s national security. I remember long ago when Vagit Alekperov gave the lecture in General Staff Academy where he used Gazprom, among others, as an example of “other” national interests–remarkably, he had a point. But then again–Alekperov is highly educated and experienced man. They might be interested in it, that is true, and for their pure monetary reasons, but none of people you mentioned can have any bearing on what is formulated within strictly “Sluzhivyi Class”. In some sense it is in parallel, albeit, of course, with huge allowances for US specifics, with Trump and Bannon–Bannon, himself a former military professional, I am sure, was instrumental both in helping to establish a serious link between Trump and those constantly mentioned during campaign 240 highest ranking military and intelligence officers as well as employing those high level military professionals for least influencing Trump’s rather non-orthodox, for US entrenched political establishment, approaches to geopolitics and foreign policy. Moreover, consider this simple fact–the moment historic Russia got its head to be an agronomist and party bureaucrat and the other a drunkard, none with military background whatsoever–we all know the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    for least influencing Trump’s rather non-orthodox,
     
    Correction, to be read "AT least".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Johnny Rico

    they had US-made weapons
     
    Did they? Which ones?

    The Georgians were completely outnumbered and outflanked. Their loss was an obvious predictable outcome. The reasons for the 2008 war are one thing. The reasons why the Georgians were trounced so quickly are something else. Russian military brilliance or performance isn't provided as one by anybody but Russian propagandists.

    Then you have Russian military performance in Afghanistan and twice in Chechnya. Not good. The Crimea and Syria are the only other two examples of Russian military prowess.

    How does Russia’s performance in Afghanistan compare to the US government’s? See Roderick Braithwaite’s book “Afgantsy” for the infrastructure and cultural improvements the Russians made and tried to make.

    Also, does the USA face a rival superpower funding and arming the Afghans, as the US government did for Russia’s Afghan opponents?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    Actually there was no Russia in Afghanistan, it was Soviet Union. Not the same thing really. I think Russia is more capable, modern, and effective than Soviet Union. A big difference is that Russia is more ethnically cohesive than the Soviet Union was.
    , @Johnny Rico
    I'm not comparing the performance of Russians and Americans in Afghanistan. That discussion belongs somewhere else. It is in many ways apples and oranges.

    The thread is ostensibly about The US losing military dominance with my understanding in this particular sub-thread about the Georgia 2008 War that Russia was "dominant over" or "defeated" the US in some way. It is not something that I would argue but I can see how others might feel that way. Certainly Russian nationalist take pride in sticking it to Uncle