Monday, December 31, 2018

You Can Read Me Now In US Naval Institute Blog.

Russian Navy, Mission Found?

You may read my new piece on some doctrine-technology issues in today's USNI Blog post. Link is below. 

Let's Try Q & A And Whatever Else Sticky Post

Here is the post which I will try to keep sticky for people to ask questions and share their thoughts which are not on topic. This, I think is known as Open Thread. Fire away.

You May Read Me on Unz Review Too.

1. I got my first piece published on Unz Review today, so you may check it out there

2. You can read my piece on some peculiarities of Russo-Chinese "alliance" at Unz Review. Here:

The Russo-Chinese "Alliance" Explained 

3. Here is the latest One. 

Russia's Stand-Off Capability: The 800 Pound Gorilla in Syria

4. On INF Treaty.   

 The Sand Castle INF Treaty

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

What Is The Tune?


Dancing to Russia's Tune--is the title of the latest "analysis" from Foreign Policy magazine which pretends to be an expert publication on foreign policy subject and this "analysis" is nothing more than lament. As any recent laments from US media and "analysts", this piece is an exhibit A of most of American "elites" lack of any grasp of the nature of military power and of its appropriate application. It is not surprising for the environment which still continues to sincerely believe that the United States defeated Hitler in WW II and that, as some propose, was very successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I derived (it was easy) long ago an obverse of classic Clausewitz's dictum that diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means. For people who really care about causality, that is about relation between cause and effect, it is not difficult to understand military-political dynamics in Syria. One doesn't have to be a military professional  to understand a simple fact that, apart from Syria's and Iranian efforts, it was Russia's entrance in the conflict in Syria which completely changed the balance of power there and defeated a terrorist international there. Of course, Russians were diplomatically active on Syrian "front" even before entering the conflict. But no matter how one extols, deservedly so, diplomatic abilities of Sergei Lavrov, even his virtuoso diplomacy means nothing without military force. As Russian strategic dictum goes: if you don't want to speak to Lavrov, you will speak to Shoigu. Here, what is stated by FP pundit:

Moscow’s growing diplomatic clout in the Syrian endgame has been made possible, in part, by Washington’s passivity. The Donald Trump administration has focused more on fighting the Islamic State and fending off Iran than on shaping the political future of the war-ravaged country. “Syria is an example of how U.S. diplomacy is not front and center,” one U.N. Security Council diplomat said. “The U.S. has lost ground to Russia on that issue.”
Even if the United States wanted to play a bigger role in postwar Syria, its disengagement has weakened its ability to do so, said retired Marine Gen. John Allen, the former U.S. envoy for the anti-Islamic State coalition. “In many respects, the political trajectory has been decided by the Russians,” Allen said last month. “And sadly, the United States has little capacity now to exert leadership in this process or to participate.”
The "growing Moscow's diplomatic clout" in Syria has nothing to do with "Washington's passivity". In fact, Washington was extremely active in Syria supporting and arming a variety of anti-Assad forces (including Al-Qaeda affiliates) and was not "focused" on fighting Islamic State. The "focus" description is a hilarious statement. Washington was busy with wrecking Syrian State under, what's new, completely false "assumptions". In reality, of course, the main driver behind Washington's effort was and remains mostly Israeli and Saudi interests in the region, which can not tolerate any kind of secular Arab government. US didn't lose ground diplomatically--diplomacy as such, as a civilized, peaceful negotiated firm promotion of national interests does not exist in Washington anymore. FP author, obviously, is not well-versed, despite being some "diplomatic correspondent", in the art of diplomacy, which is also a euphemism for a compromise. American so called "diplomacy" today has nothing to do with diplomacy-proper. Most American "diplomats" are trained in only one thing--to give ultimatums and blackmail. They are utterly unqualified to conduct foreign policy in civilized and sensible manner. In fact, most of them are not diplomats at all, as James Bruno described Obama's State Department in 2014:
I may add--most of those people have not a clue about the role military power plays in international relations--such obliviousness is expected from people most of whom always were and are completely detached from any realities of the warfare and its effects. In this sense it really makes no difference what party affiliation those people have--the cancer of exceptionalism and illiteracy in war metastasized by now into most American government and media institutions. Foreign Policy magazine, once one considers a tripe it publishes regularly, or gives a tribune to such insane neocons as Max Boot, is one such institution. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that instead of looking deep into the real reasons for, as they formulate: 
But with the United States taking a back seat in Syria, a parallel diplomatic push seems to be exactly what is taking place.

They continue to provide platitudes dressed in some media lingo reminiscent of speeches at the Communist Party Congresses without naming a single real reason for why the US foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster both for the outside world and the US itself.  The United States took a back seat because it's effort to destroy Syrian State was defeated militarily. It was defeated by doggedness and, often, heroism, of the Syrian Arab Army,which bled white for years but still offered some resistance to Jihadist armies on service of the US and its "allies" in the region. It was defeated by support of Iran and Hezbollah to Syrian government. In the end, it was decisively routed when Russia stepped in militarily and ensured that enough amount of high explosives was delivered with precision to the jihadist to reduce their numbers and capabilities in such a way that no amount of foreign "aid" will change the outcome. Judging by the latest news from the fronts--the process of removal is ongoing and is very successful.  Moreover, refusal of Saudi Arabia to support those "rebels" pretty much closes off any legitimization of Jihad in Syria. In this sense, especially after Vladimir Putin's talk on the phone with Saudi King on 21 December 2017, the endgame does indeed plays out to a  "Russian Tune". But it should be understood that this tune is not a sound of Lavrov's voice, however important, but of the Russian munitions hitting terrorist targets. The distinction is crucial precisely for the reasons of letting diplomacy not war decide the issue. In the end, if you don't want to speak to Lavrov, you will speak to Shoigu. 

 

Friday, January 5, 2018

It Is Friday... We Go Epic;-))

Those who didn't have their hair in the most places stand in "attention" from this music and this movie--they never served in any navy. It kinda gets you--what has been lost. A masterpiece by Hanz Zimmer. 


Or as Nigthwish did a rendition.


P.S. In the related Epic category. The movie was incredibly stupid but, man... the Music!! ;-) 

In related "news", what was Ivan Drago's Rank--after 32 years I still don't have an answer, LOL

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Admiral Korolev About Russia's Navy.

As I stated not for once in the last several years--Russia is not interested in challenging US maritime dominance. There is simply no need to do that:

As famous Russian anecdote goes: no matter how many times Russians will assemble crib (or sowing machine in some versions), the result will always be the same--AK-74. Same with the Russian Navy, which can only exist as a Sea Denial force. As Russian Navy's Commander-In-Chief Admiral Korolev stated yesterday--non-nuclear strategic containment (deterrence) becomes Russian Navy's primary task and State Armament Program 2018-2027 reflects this in full. I already can hear sobbing and weeping of Russia's "navalists", especially those who never served a day on any naval ship and study military history from weapon systems' booklets handed out at arms exhibitions, or from (wrong) books, but Russia in this case acts precisely as she should. 

It is understandable that building aircraft carriers, and I mean Russian version of CVNski, in their opinion, is the only way to go since, again--in their opinion, this is the only way to have an "ocean-going fleet". This whole Russian "ocean-going fleet" fetish, which implies that Russia doesn't have one, on their part is a good sign of their lack of education on serious operational matters. Indeed, how can the Navy which has advanced nuclear submarine (both SSGNs and SSBNs) component which deploys regularly to the.... ocean be considered non-ocean-going fleet is beyond my feeble mind, but what do I really know. 

1. Even today Russia's Navy is an "ocean-going" fleet is one considers a very simple fact that it goes there in a manner which perfectly suits current Russian naval necessities. Indeed, can Russian Navy send ships to the ocean? Of course it can. Such as many deployments of Russian ships recently to this very "ocean". Such as this one. I will abstain here from speculating on how many Russian subs are currently on combat patrol in Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans but this IS what is called an "ocean-going".  Russia does have number of those subs on patrol as I type this.

2. Korolev, however, does mention building of a Green Water Navy, which, by definition Russian Navy already is. Of course, the "thing" in this world of military lingo and generalizations is a Blue Water navy. That is the navy which can do, among other things, a global "projection of power". The question in this case is this: does Russia need such a global "power projection"? Answering this question competently is a must if one wants to remain well-grounded in operational reality. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. It must be nuanced. Regional? Certainly, such as a Mediterranean, as events in Syria have shown, but globally? Does Russia need "power projection" against Kongo? New Zealand? Absolutely not.

3. Yet, as Paul Atreidis's strategic dictum goes: "one who can kill a thing, controls a thing"(c). Russia builds the Navy capable to kill any navy in the world. This is Containment 101. This task is on several orders of magnitude more important for Russia than any "power projection" capabilities, which come a very distant second in the current global transformation the world is going through. The only difference in this unfolding reality is HOW FAR from Russia's shores will Russian Navy be able to destroy aggressor's navy?

As it stands now and as it projects itself to 2020-2022 Russian Navy's capability, augmented by other forces' capabilities, a reliable Exclusion Zone, or No-Go zone, will extend (very roughly, of course) up to 3000 kilometers (1620 nautical miles) from Russia's shores. It will be at this distance at which operations of heterogeneous forces (submarines, surface ships, patrol and missile-carrying aviation with its fighter escorts) will be able to deliver a salvo of missiles which will destroy any naval force deploying for attack on Russia. All this will be done in purely conventional (non-nuclear) framework. I described those A2/AD "bubbles" not for once. Those bubbles are not getting weaker or shrink, to the contrary--they are getting stronger and expand. While Admiral Richardson's statement:
Russian Bastion-P supersonic anti-ship missile systems are not impenetrable... Nor do formidable Russian... air defense systems such as the S-400... necessarily render the airspace they protect into no-go zones for the carrier air wing.  
May be somewhat true, under some very rare specific circumstances, introduction of hyper-sonic missiles renders the whole concept of a classic US Navy's CVN and its battle group completely obsolete. In essence a classic dichotomy of Shield vs Sword is not valid anymore. Modern hyper-sonic weapons will penetrate any air and missile defense of any modern navy and they will sink or kill a mission with very high probability. Those salvos will be launched from the underwater, ground and air and they will get through. This is a new paradigm in the naval warfare and it overturns completely any geopolitical designs American neocons had on Eurasia. This is a tectonic shift of historic proportions, but about this--later. 


  

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

France Being Culturally Enriched.

Now "native" French taking it a bit further in enriching France and attack a Police car, overturn it and then beat the shit out of the female cop. Obviously, no weapons are being drawn by Police since they are...French Police, they "are not trained to handle this kind of violence"(c)


But, here is the actual footage from one of the Paris' suburbs, so judge by yourself. 


But I am sure, President Macron and French legislators will do their utmost to address this problem of this rowdy "French" youth--they will surrender. /sarc. Meanwhile, French did it to themselves so I am kinda torn here: on one hand I mourn France which is long-long gone, so, I might as well stop doing this, on the other hand--France had a chance with Marine Le Pen, it blew it, voting instead for necrophiliac globalist mama's boy with the mentality of a wussy local bank loan officer. So let French eat their pie. I am sure they will enjoy it. As Elena Chudinova foretold in her seminal The Mosque of Notre Dame

French may not know this, but they have been betrayed and sold out long ago. The "collaborationists" are already there, living in their luxurious houses. The barbed wire is coming soon. French have only themselves to blame.