« Open Thread - 24 February 2016 | Main | "THROUGH THE DETECTIVE'S LENS" by Michael Brenner »

25 February 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Probably the russian generals killed by bomb in Syria were the generals opposing the war with the west.


I would argue that the 19th century had a lot more class than this.


Todays statement from Breedlove, in which he reverses and misrepresents any number of historical facts, can be found here:


Those misrepresentations aside, here is his "take away" quote:"We must not allow Russian actions in Syria to serve as a strategic distraction that leads the international community to give tacit acceptance to the situation in Ukraine as the “new normal.”


I'm reminded of "The Devil's Chessboard" and "Brothers" by David Talbot.
The USA must dominate by any means necessary. So "we" "won" WWIII (AKA The Cold War). The world became a more dangerous place, IMO.


Those Russian briefings are a masterful bit of PR.


Truth is the first casualty. The stories told to direct the emotions of the populace in the direction desired by their rulers may have very little truth in them.


What Russian Generals?

It's an unconfirmed claim by Anhar al Sham, about killing "dozens" of Generals,

(A source has confirmed that other than M2MM Delegations to Damascus, there are only 4 Russian Generals in Latakia)

And there isn't even confirmation or other claims of a car bomb in Latakia on that day.

C Webb

"News Flash! - The Soviet Union is long dead and gone. We won that one but seem unable to move on to a world in which Russia is not necessarily an enemy of the US."

Okay, ....round 2.

Have you read the this guys essays? (Putin's brain) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-03-31/putins-brain


This ones a good read....

I would be interested to hear your thoughts about this.

Ted B

Seems that there is Zero 'serious' news to back-up/clarify the J-Post's article re "dozens of Russian Generals go boom." FWIW the story is downsized from generals to officers:


Must be news off day in Tel Aviv. Punt.


What does TLOLFSC stand for?


Said Romney: "This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. "



That's a very accurate caption photo. I hope those who read naval history remember what happened with gunboat diplomacy in 1905.

They might want to remind those in the Executive Branch with short term memory problems of this:



"The Little Old Lady From South Carolina" pl



SU-24 can not "jam" AEGIS DDG. Two of them are simply different weight categories in terms of what really matters in ECM (ECCM)--output power. 8.5 Kilotons of displacement of Arleigh Burke-class DDG simply have more power, much more. SU-24 could trick SPY-1D radar but it can not jam it. For that it would require something on the order of Admiral Gorshkov-class Frigate or A-50 AWACS. In fact, it was not SU-24 which spooked USS Donald Cook, it was totally different weapon system.


C Webb

You may have missed my endless and constantly boringly reiterated loathing of political scientists (except Michael Brenner) and their idle bloviating. "The Land Power?" "The Sea Power?" Oh, come on... I remember a Soviet specialist Foreign Area Officer (FAO) telling me long ago that if the USSR ceased to exist the US and Russia would still e deadly enemies. I asked why. The answer was basically that they are "The Land Power," and we are "The Sea Power' or some such BS. And then there is the opinion of a crackpot neo-Bolshevik that war is inevitable and we might as well get it over with. Are you really pushing crap like that? pl


I would say that it was Hans Morgenthau (among many others) who pushed crap like that in 1957 Spruance Lecture at Naval War College. By 1960s USSR was anything but Bolshevik country, by 1980s it was something else altogether. In fact, "never again" mentality was a dominant societal mood, which could be expected from the nation which lost 27 million in war.



That is what Fulk says as well. pl



"totally different weapon system."

Yes, which they possess and negates our electronic advantage. Kind of like the Russian vs. Japanese navies at Toshima.


It has nothing to do with negating. It has everything to do with Bastion (and related systems) to track, lock and develop firing solution. No ship in the world wants to face Mach=3 anti-shipping missile with the elements of artificial intellect. Especially if it is a salvo of those.


The range of these missiles is anywhere (take a wild guess) from 300 to 500 kilometers. If I would be you, I would be looking and Turkish Navy's situation. But again, Russia does not want to use these systems. This is not NFL game, people die when this happens. Let's put it this way, there is, currently, no NATO AD system which can intercept those.

P.S. Those missiles have a separate ECM (ECCM) suite.

robt willmann

The idea of dominance as a policy means that other countries are supposed to say, "Yes, Master." This does not mean that the only issue is whether the other countries are strong enough militarily to cause the U.S. to pause and think about whether invading the other country would be successful. That is a factor for those who would like to dominate and be king of the world, and is the basis of the [Paul] Wolfowitz doctrine (remember him?). As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, his Defense Planning Guidance for 1994-1999 was leaked to the New York Times newspaper in 1992. The idea was to prevent the emergence of a new "rival", and the article is here--


The main issue in the idea of dominance is not the military strength of the other country, but whether it will indeed go along with what the U.S. wants it to do. This is why Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran are on the list to dominate. Iran is the only one left that has not been hit with massive destruction of property, injury, and death, as well as the tearing up of its social fabric and the destruction (except for Syria to date) of its governmental structure.

But while the Bush jr. and Obama administrations were smashing their way down the list, Russia and China were increasing their economic and military capabilities. Now they are on the list, too, but the regime change would be approached in a different way, primarily by trying to cause economic problems and social unrest within them. This is how the pot got to be boiling in Ukraine and Syria, followed by the quick creation and encouragement of violence. But it will be somewhat tougher to create enough unrest to topple the governments of Russia and China. Russia saw the handwriting on the wall and is slowing the train down in Syria. And besides, on the technique of causing social unrest, Russia and China might return the favor over here, given the fragile economy of the U.S.


Jamming at its best:




I am a little crushed by your loathing of political scientists. My first degree on GI bill following my brief forays into SE Asia was in political science. I chose the field because it seemed (and I proved) that it was possible to get a BS from a major university with one's blood alcohol level constantly above 0.10 for the two year required to finish the upper division coursework.

Of course, once one sobers up and discovers just how scarce jobs are, one goes back and completes a chemistry degree to get a job.

Babak Makkinejad

Before Hans Morgenthau was a Bernard Baruch - went to Marshall and asked him about US starting a war with USSR - must have been 1948.

Marshall replied: "It is a very bad idea."

Babak Makkinejad

You wrote:

"Iran is the only one left that has not been hit with...the tearing up of its social fabric..."

It was not because of lack of effort. NATO states tried just that for 5 years.

To your broader point - about dominance - I think it is generally resented - at the individual and at the group level. I think some countries like to be dominated and told what to do - just like some people - but there also those whom attempts at dominance only enrages them.

I know this first hand and also from my interactions with people from other countries.

C Webb

As I see it, people tell stories to make sense of the world. I don't necessarily agree with all the stories, but I listen to them. Some aspects are closer to the truth and some are bull crap.

The story about the land power and the sea power is an old story.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad