This is an interesting interview with Andrei Martyanov. He is a Russian military expert who emigrated to the United States. In it he argues that the stranglehold of American propaganda by the mainstream media has created a dangerous situation – one in which the “fake news” is believed by the American leadership.

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. 

- Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning 

He explains that the American leadership, knowing full well that the media is a propaganda tool, actually believes much of the propaganda that they create. This is true on all levels.

The American leadership actually believes this “news”. Not only the “fake news” from CNN, MSNBC an WaPo but also from the conservative and alternative “Right wing” media.

He argues that this is extraordinarily dangerous.

This belief in American propaganda is dangerous because it creates a situation where foolish men in leadership positions can make some very serious mistakes.

The majority of travelers I have met see foreign lands entirely through  the filter glasses of their home front. Their worldview is shaped by  government schools, Hollywood actors, television programming, mainstream  pressing, and the resulting illusion of “us being the good guys.” When  they travel, they carry a lifetime supply of brainwash shampoo with  them. A backpack full of sheep’s wool over their eyes. And a dumbed-down  uniform of sweatshop t-shirts, shorts and sandals that sores the eye of  the beholder.

-Doug Casey, International Man 

Mistakes, Leadership mistakes, that could absolutely devastate the United States. The leadership of a healthy and functioning nation needs good and accurate intelligence. It cannot rely own it’s own propaganda to base decisions upon.

History is full of stories of the destruction of cities, nations and empires that fell due to the bad Intel, and decisions by the top leadership. Read about the destruction of Hungary by Genghis Khan, if you don't believe me.

Or, consider the Marketing strategy of Gillette with their "Men are inherently foul pigs" campaign (to sell razors).

Or, consider Hollywood and their bevy of all-female re-writes of famous movies. Movies that no one will watch. Like "Oceans 8".

Or, consider what happened to NFL football, when the team owners permitted the players to protest against America.

Now, consider what might happen to America if it believes the narrative that both Russia and China are backwards, third-world shit holes and are no match for the United States military...

Ah. Andrei . You do not need to believe him. You just need to consider that he has some good ideas and makes some valid points.

Now, I find that he has some good points, especially his appraisal on the ignorance of the Washington “insider” class. His ideas are able to explain much of the strange decision processes that originate out of Washington DC today.

Andrei wrote…

Time after time the American military has failed to match lofty  declarations about its superiority, producing instead a mediocre record  of military accomplishments. 

Starting from the Korean War the United States hasn’t won a single war against a technologically inferior, but  mentally tough enemy.  

• Vietnam
• Syria
• Lybia
• Somalia
• Yemen
• Lebanon
• Iraq

The technological dimension of American “strategy” has completely overshadowed any concern with the social, cultural,  operational and even tactical requirements of military (and political)  conflict. 

With a new Cold War with Russia emerging, the United States  enters a new period of geopolitical turbulence completely unprepared in  any meaningful way—intellectually...

... economically, 

... militarily...

...or culturally

... to face a reality which was hidden for the last 70+ years  behind the curtain of never-ending Chalabi moments...

... and a strategic delusion concerning Russia, whose history the US viewed through a Solzhenitsified caricature kept alive by a powerful neocon lobby, which  even today dominates US policy makers’ minds.  

The book  Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning  explores the  dramatic difference between the Russian and US approach to warfare,  which manifests itself across the whole spectrum of activities from art  and the economy, to the respective national cultures; 

Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning   illustrates the  fact that Russian economic, military and cultural realities and power are no longer what American “elites” think they are by addressing  Russia’s new and elevated capacities in the areas of traditional warfare as well as cyberwarfare and space; 

Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning  studies in depth several ways in which the US can simply stumble into conflict with Russia and what must be done to avoid it. 

Martyanov’s former Soviet military background  enables deep insight into the fundamental issues of warfare and military  power as a function of national power—assessed correctly, not through  the lens of Wall Street “economic” indices and a FIRE economy, but  through the numbers of enclosed technological cycles and culture, much  of which has been shaped in Russia by continental warfare and which is  practically absent in the US. 

-Amazon

Indeed, a point that I have “hammered” over and over again, is the idea that the most dangerous propaganda is the news reports that we WANT to believe.

Propaganda works best when we WANT to believe the lies told to us.

Such as 11 million Uighur Muslims are in reeducation concentration camps in Xinjiang China. That America must "do something" to free the poor Muslim innocents! All, yes ALL of conservative news is full of these stories and the figure of 11 million is bantered about without question.

Except...

No one can point out where these concentration camps are. 

You cannot find them on Google Earth. And you should. After all, the population of New York City is 6 million people. So a concentration camp housing 11 million people would be over twice the size of New York city. It would be pretty fucking big. Bigger than the largest city in America, and then some.

You would be able to see it from the Moon.

If there were 11 concentration camps in Xinjiang, China, (each one million people in size) then you would be able to easily locate all eleven Atlanta, Georgia sized complexes on Google Earth. Where are all these concentration camps?

Simple math.

Simple thought process.

... Propaganda. Don't fall for it.

Anyways, he makes a great point.

Our American leadership has taken to actually believing what is being repeated day in and day out by the lying American mainstream press. And this is very dangerous.

You might not like his opinions, but please just view his point of view as something that you will not hear from the mainstream, or alt-conservative news. As such it is a valuable alternative view point.

One that should be taken seriously.

The interview.

Yvonne Lorenzo interviews Andrei Martyanov …

Yvonne Lorenzo: I’d like to discuss the central thesis of your first book, Losing Military Supremacy. Aside from a civil war in the late 1800s, the United States has never experienced the effects of a devastating war fought on its own soil by foreign nation and believes it is invulnerable and won’t be attacked. To the contrary, Russians to this day know the price of war. If you would be so kind to summarize, if possible, the key points you wished to make known about Russia.

"America believes that it is invulnerable and won’t ever be attacked." 

Andrei Martyanov: In a sense, my new book, The Real Revolution in Military Affairs, is a continuation of my first one—Losing Military Supremacy.

The difference is that I get more in depth into the tactical, operational and technological issues—to a degree that is possible in what amounts to a geopolitical study—to demonstrate and drive my point home…

… that the current American political elites are utterly delusional on the nature of modern warfare…

… especially in a peer-to-peer scenario of which the United States hasn’t faced since WW II.

My point is very simple…

…the ignorance of the American ruling class of modern warfare is such that it has become a clear and present danger for the world…

… since, while improbable at this stage, it is totally plausible to see at some point of time someone in the US political top losing it…

…and unleashing a confrontation with Russia, or China…

…being fully convinced, mostly by Hollywood or [Tom] Clancy-esque pseudo military fiction…

…that the United States and NATO can attack Russia and survive.

That, America could attack Russia or China and it would remain unscathed and devastate the rest of the world and America would not suffer at all.

That’s the danger…

…especially in a country whose elites completely lost their mind and are delusional…

…or reside in what I define as a Perpetual Chalabi Moment.

American leadership, on both sides of the political spectrum, plus the oligarchy that controls them are completely delusional and out of touch with the American citizens, the rest of the world, and the comparative technological strengths of America.

The arms race.

The US did lose the arms race.

The arms race was not lost in 2018 or even 2015, however; it was lost much earlier and it was mostly due to the US media-propaganda machine…

… which kept it secret from the US public.

It still continues to do so but it is increasingly difficult to keep it under wraps when information, including imagery of what Russia does in this field becomes increasingly available.

But that is just part of the issue: I write about predictors—the real economy, scientific development, education, etc.—for war’s outcomes [are] non-stop.

Other people have written about these predictors. Not once do they agree with the narrative coming out of the American mainstream media.

In the end, when I state that the US elites have no clue about the size and complexity of Russia’s economy, it is one thing…

…but when I state that they basically have no clue about their own economy, not Wall Street’s cooking of books, I can rely on some serious American professionals in the field.

After all, it was Trump’s White House which initiated Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States.

The report was prepared by an Inter-agency Task Force in September 2018 and reads as an epitaph to the US machine-building complex…

… and the issue is not just massive de-industrialization…

… or the lack of a labor force which can fill in for departing old-timers…

…with many in the new generation of Americans being mostly interested in pot and drugs or in avoiding any productive labor…

…nor money alone can solve the problem of America’s declining military strength, which was always overstated to start with.

It is the culture, an institutional one, which is responsible for this decline.

The decline of American culture

The United States is very good at building extremely expensive and dubiously effective (against a competent enemy) power projection forces, which by definition are offensive and aggressive.

Once one gets into the issues of actual defense, the picture changes dramatically for the United States.

Read this assessment of the true and actual American defense picture from townhall.com.  "We Are Going To Lose The Coming War With China" by Kurt Schlichter. It opens up in a separate tab.

It is enough to mention the whole non-stop hysteria about Turkey buying and activating the S-400 complex, with India already having a 5 billion dollar contract signed with Russia, and many Arab states lining up for Russian-made air and anti-missile systems, not to mention combat aircraft, such as a contact for SU-35s between Egypt and Russia signed, following next.

All of it creates an extremely emotional reaction in the United States, but the fact that Russian military technology is in some key defense fields better than anything out there was never in doubt.

It is enough to recall Vietnam, but in the time of radio and printed media it was easier to control narratives.

The American media blitz on this subject is constant and unyielding.

Today it is extremely difficult.

Russia always built weapons to effectively kill the enemy—such is Russia’s experience with warfare, much of which being invasions of foreign powers.

The United States has zero historic experience with defending the US proper against powerful and brutal enemies.

While the Revolutionary war had some moments of brutality, as did the American civil war, neither wars EVER approached the level of absolute depraved scorched earth devastation that Russia, Europe, and China have experienced.

It is something that America has NEVER experienced.

Mexico never invaded. Canada never invaded. Russia never invaded. Cuba never invaded. Bermuda never invaded.

It is a cultural difference, a profound one and it manifests itself across the whole spectrum of activities, not just the respective military-industrial complexes.

In other words, Russians MUST build top of the line weaponry, because the safety of Russia depends on it.

Tom Clancy Delusion

Yvonne Lorenzo: You’ve written about what I’d call the “Tom Clancy Delusion” on your blog. This recent article, “The CIA’s Jack Ryan Series Is ‘Regime-Change’ Propaganda Aimed At Venezuela” noted:

 Dr. Matthew Alford of the University of Bath, author of National  Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in  Hollywood, told MintPress that the new Amazon product is a “disgrace of a  series,” unfairly demonizing a nation at a time when the United States  has its boot on the throat of Venezuelan society.

“The  new Jack Ryan series comes in the context of four movies stretching  back decades that have all had Department of Defense and/or CIA support  at the scriptwriting phrase,” he noted, labeling Jack Ryan as a classic  “national security entertainment product”.

The  character of Jack Ryan first appeared in Cold War era Clancy stories  such as The Hunt for Red October and The Cardinal of the Kremlin, where  the heroic Ryan battles the dark forces of the Soviet Union. 

The series  was put on hiatus but has recently returned, bringing with it much of  the same Cold War mentality and rhetoric. 

Ryan has been previously  played on screen by Hollywood stars such as Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford  and Ben Affleck.

Alford’s  book, which he co-wrote with Tom Secker, describes the enormous  influence that the national security state has on popular culture. 

Based  on Freedom of Information requested documents, the two calculated that  between 2004 and 2016, the Department of Defense was directly involved  in the production of 977 Hollywood movies or television shows, many of  which were carefully scripted, edited and curated by government agents  in order to present a certain viewpoint of the world to the public. 

For  example, the writers of Homeland were revealed to have private meetings  with ex-CIA officials before each season.

From  big budget movies like Ironman and Transformers to surprisingly banal  television productions like The Biggest Loser, Mythbusters or American  Idol, virtually every movie or television show featuring the military or  intelligence figures has been edited, scripted or funded by the  Department of Defense in order to cast the government in the best  possible light. 

Those that do not comply with the Department of  Defense’s requests are not given privileged access to, or use of,  military resources and may be attacked by the state as being unpatriotic  or deceptive.

The  constant flow of pro-security state messages has an effect on the  public. 

Researchers found that respondents who were shown torture scenes  from the television series 24 were more likely to subsequently support  the government’s policies of torture in sites like Guantanamo Bay and  Abu Ghraib. 

This held even for liberal college students. 

Andrei Martyanov: The first person of repute who challenged Tom Clancy’s fantasies was professor Roger Thompson in his seminal 2006 book Lessons Not Learned, in which he correctly asked a question how an insurance agent who never served a day in uniform and had undergraduate degree in English can write competently on any issue related to modern combat and technology.

In Clancy’s case it was clear that he was promoted, he openly writes about it in his book, by former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, for purely propaganda reasons.

Most of what Clancy wrote was cringe-worthy pop-literature, which could be described as incompetent military-intelligence porn.

Ouch!

Clancy never made it a secret that his Jack Ryan character was written from…Tom Clancy himself. A good testimony about late Clancy himself.

Why Jack Ryan was written as a spy as opposed to as insurance agent remains a complete mystery to me, but, I guess, whatever sells books for the late Tom Clancy.

These digs… oh, boy!

In Soviet/Russian military environment Clancy’s “literature” overwhelmingly was treated with ironic smile at best, and with Homeric laughter at worst.

Yup. How the rest of the world feels about this kind of literature, and movies.

But that pretty much describes the “level” of American “knowledge” and awareness of Russia in general and her military in particular—a caricature.

It is, however, one thing to promote caricatures in pop-art, totally another when a caricature becomes a working model for decision making at the top political level.

That is dangerous.

And his point is very, very valid…

As General Latiff of DARPA correctly noted—most of what the US public and political class know about war is from entertainment, from Hollywood to the literature of such “professionals” like the late Clancy.

The Generals won’t save us.

Yvonne Lorenzo: I quoted (retired) Major Danny Sjursen earlier. He wrote a piece title, “The Generals Won’t Save Us From The Next War” for the American Conservative. I want to reproduce an excerpt and then ask you to comment. Your disdain for the political class is well known but what about the generals in power? How capable and knowledgeable are they? How competent?

Why should any sentient citizen believe that these commanders’ former  subordinates—a new crop of ambitious generals—will step forward now and  oppose a disastrous future war with the Islamic Republic? 

Don’t believe  it! 

Senior military leaders will salute, about-face, and execute  unethical and unnecessary combat with Iran or whomever else (think  Venezuela) Trump’s war hawks, such as John Bolton, decide needs a little  regime changing.

Need  proof that even the most highly lauded generals will sheepishly obey  the next absurd march to war? Join me in a brief trip down an ever so  depressing memory lane. 

Let us begin with my distinguished West Point  graduation speaker, Air Force General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs  Richard Myers. 

He goes down in history as as a Donald Rumsfeld lackey  because it turns out he knew full well that there were “holes” in the  Bush team’s inaccurate intelligence used to justify the disastrous Iraq  war. 

Yet we heard not a peep from Myers, who kept his mouth shut and  retired with full four-star honors.

Then,  when Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki accurately (and somewhat  courageously) predicted in 2003 that an occupation of Iraq would  require up to half a million U.S. troops, he was quietly retired. 

Rummy  passed over a whole generation of active officers to pull a known  sycophant, General Peter Schoomaker, out of retirement to do Bush the  Younger’s bidding. 

It worked too. 

Schoomaker, despite his highly touted  special forces experience, never threw his stars on the table and called  BS on a losing strategy even as it killed his soldiers by the hundreds  and then the thousands. 

Having heard him (unimpressively) speak at West  Point in 2005, I still can’t decide whether he lacked the intellect to  do so or the conscience. 

Maybe both.

After  Bush landed a fighter plane on a carrier and triumphantly announced  “mission accomplished” in Iraq, poor Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez,  the newest three-star in the Army, took over the hard part of conquest:  bringing the “natives” to heel. 

He utterly failed, being too reliant on  what he knew—Cold War armored combat—and too ambitious to yell “stop!”  

Soon after, it came to light that Sanchez had bungled the  investigation—or cover-up (take your pick)—of the massive abuse scandal  at Abu Ghraib prison.

General John Abizaid was one of the most disappointing in a long line of subservient generals. 

It seems Abizaid knew better: he knew the Iraq war  couldn’t be won, that it was best to hand over control to the Iraqis  posthaste, that General David Petraeus’s magical “surge” snake oil  wouldn’t work. 

Still, Abizaid didn’t quit and retired quietly. 

He’s now  Trump’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which is far from comforting.

Lieutenant  General H.R. McMaster was heralded as an outside-the-box thinker. 

And  indeed, he was a Gulf War I hero, earned a Ph.D., taught history at West  Point, and wrote a (mostly) well-received book on Vietnam. 

Yet when  Trump appointed him national security advisor, he brought only  in-the-box military beliefs with him into the White House. 

He then  helped author a fanciful National Defense Strategy that argued the U.S.  military must be ready at a moment’s notice to fight Russia, China,  Iran, North Korea, and “terror.” 

Perhaps at the same time! 

No nuance, no  diplomatic alternatives, no cost-benefit analysis, just standard  militarism. 

These days, McMaster is running around decrying what he  calls a “defeatist narrative” and arguing for indefinite war in the  Middle East.

Then  there was the other Washington insider and “liberal” favorite, one of a  trio of “adults in the room,” General Jim Mattis. 

Though sold to the  public as a “warrior monk,” Mattis offered no alternative to America’s  failing forever wars. 

In fact, when he decided his conscience no longer  allowed him to stay in the Trump administration, his reason for leaving  was that the president had called for a reduction of troops in  Afghanistan after 18 senseless years. 

U.S.-supported Saudi terror  bombings that killed tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians? A  U.S.-backed Saudi blockade that starved at least 85,000 Yemeni children  to death? Yeah, he was fine with that. 

But a modest troop withdrawal  from a losing 18-year-old war in landlocked Central Asia, that he  couldn’t countenance.

Then  there’s the propensity for politics and pageantry among senior military  officers. 

This was embarrassingly and unconscionably on display in the  tragic cases of Private First Class Jessica Lynch and Corporal Pat  Tillman. 

When, during the initial invasion of Iraq, the young Lynch’s  maintenance convoy got lost, she was captured and briefly detained by  Saddam’s army. 

Knowing a good public relations opportunity when they saw  it, Bush’s staff and the generals concocted a slew of comforting lies:  Lynch was a hero who had fought to her last bullet (she’d never fired  her rifle), she’d been tortured (she hadn’t), her combat-camera equipped  commando rescue had come just in the nick of time (she was hardly  guarded and in a hospital). 

Who cares if it was all lies, if this young  woman’s terrifying experience was co-opted and embellished? The Lynch  story was media fodder.

More  tragic was the Pat Tillman escapade. 

Tillman was an admirable outlier,  the only professional athlete to give up a million dollar contract to  enlist in the military soon after 9/11. 

Tillman and his brother went all  in, too, choosing the elite Army Rangers. It was quite the story.  

Rumsfeld even wrote the new private a congratulatory letter. Then  reality got in the way. Tillman was killed in Afghanistan during a  friendly fire incident that can only be described as gross incompetence.  

Almost immediately, President Bush’s staff and much of the Army’s top  brass went to work crafting the big lie: a heroic narrative of Tillman’s  demise, replete with dozens of marauding Taliban fighters and a one-man  charge befitting the hard-hitting former NFL defensive back. 

Promoted  to corporal posthumously, he was awarded the Silver Star. Some of his  fellow Rangers were instructed to lie to the Tillman family at the  memorial service regarding the manner of Pat’s death.

Only  Bush’s neophytes and the Army’s complicit generals didn’t count on the  tenacity of Tillman’s parents. 

They waged something nearing war with the  U.S. military for several years until they found out the truth,  unearthing a cover-up that implicated Bush’s civilians and many of the  military’s four-star generals (including Stanley McChrystal, John  Abizaid, and Richard Myers). 

The Tillman family got their congressional  hearing, but the sycophantic representatives on the Hill refused to  seriously criticize the top brass and no one was seriously punished. 

Andrei Martyanov: I don’t know the exact answer to this question. I am positive that there are many highly educated and competent people in US Armed Forces but there is no denial of the fact that some segments of the US top brass are more politicians than military leaders. It is not unique to the United States Armed Forces, but the record of failures is in the open and everyone can make their own conclusions.

Fighting Russia is the goal of the political class

Yvonne Lorenzo: Your latest book, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs provides further detail on Russia’s technological advancements. A layman, I see America as principally using bombing as artillery and proxy fighters (see Syria) on the ground—not too competent. I’ve read enough to be dangerous—having no military background—but wars can’t be won by bombing campaigns alone, even against a mediocre target (I think you called Iraq’s army third-rate).

Fighting Russia, which appears to be the goal of the political class, is not what they will expect, even if the confrontation doesn’t rise to a nuclear exchange.

I’d appreciate your summarizing some of the key points of this book but I have to ask, having read some of The Saker’s writings…

… can Russia be overwhelmed by thousands upon thousands of slow missiles, like the TLAMs…

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile ( TLAM ) is a long-range, all-weather, jet-powered, subsonic cruise missile that is primarily used by the United States Navy and Royal Navy in ship- and submarine-based land-attack operations. It was designed and initially produced in the 1970s by General Dynamics as a medium- to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. The missile's modular design accommodates a wide variety of warhead , guidance, and range capabilities. 

- Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia 

… or will Russia use their “800 Pound Gorilla” in your parlance, that is…

A leaked memo confirms that Russia is developing Kanyon, the world's most powerful nuclear weapon, with twice the power of any ever tested. 

This is 2x, or double the destructive power of the most dangerous and largest nuclear weapon ever designed;  The Soviet RDS-202 hydrogen bomb (code name Ivan  or Vanya), known by Western nations as Tsar Bomba. 

Russia's New 'Satan' Nuclear Weapons System Could Wipe Out Texas or France.  Russia has for months been testing a giant nuclear weapons delivery system that can carry 10 heavyweight warheads—enough power to wipe out Texas or France. This is the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile known in Russia as "Satan 2" 

Mar 06, 2018 · Russia announced it is about to test its Satan 2 missile, a nuclear weapon so powerful it could destroy a country size the of Texas or France in seconds. While its official name is RS-28 Sarmat, NATO officials have given the weapon the nickname Satan 2, the Mirror reports. 

… does Russia have enough weapons, from cruise missiles, to defensive, to hypersonic, not to be overwhelmed…

… and are American generals aware of the risk if it does should they engage in hostilities?

Rumors of Kanyon (or Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6, as it’s known in Russia) first started swirling in 2015 following a leak on Russian television. Soon after, the nation confirmed the weapon’s existence, while claiming the leak was a mistake.

However, as defense analyst and military historian H. I. Sutton told Futurism, this leak of the latest nuclear posture review is the first official recognition of Kanyon by U.S. officials.

“The  unclassified posture review document doesn’t really tell defense  analysts anything new, but it does establish Kanyon as a military fact,”  said Sutton. “Until now, many observers had regarded the system as  ‘fake news.’ I think that this was partly because the stated  specifications are so incredible and partly because it is hard to  understand how it will be used.”

Incredible Devastation

“Incredible” is perhaps putting it mildly.

Based on leaked Russian documents,  Kanyon is a nuclear-armed autonomous torpedo capable of traveling  10,000 kilometers (6,213 miles) with a 100-megaton thermonuclear weapon  as its payload. That’s at least twice as powerful as any nuclear weapon  ever tested. According to nuclear bomb simulator Nukemap, it would instantly kill 8 million people and injure an additional 6.6 million if dropped on New York City.

Kanyon’s  weapon wouldn’t be dropped, though. It would arrive via the ocean and  bring with it a massive artificial tsunami that would blanket the  coastal area in radioactive water. If the warhead is “salted” with the  radioactive isotope Cobalt-60, as some have reported, a detonation could render contaminated areas uninhabitable by humans for an entire century.

“Kanyon is unique in every respect,” said Sutton. “There really is nothing like it in any navy’s inventory.” 

- US Report Confirms Russia Is Developing the World’s Most Powerful Nuclear Weapon. The 100-megaton thermonuclear weapon isn't "fake news." 

I noted your comments on Professor Cohen’s latest on Ukraine posted to Unz.com on November 14th but his most recent video in PushBack from The Grayzone he said that in all the years he studied Russia and America he’d never thought the two nations would go to war.

Yet now he fears this possibility. I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Willy Wimmer discussed on RT ‘We are on a path of war again’: 30 years after the Berlin Wall fell, Europe betrays its own hopes (By Willy Wimmer). He said:

It is a kind of Anglo-Saxon policy not to have cooperation on the  European continent – mainly between the Russians, the French, the Poles  and the Germans. They want to have a line of confrontation in this area  and therefore are against all promises. [As a result] NATO was extended  to the East.

I  was responsible for the organization of the German Armed Forces on the  German territory following reunification. 

We did not want foreign troops in former East Germany. 

We did not want to have British or French troops there; we wanted to have only German ones. 

We wanted to explain  to the world that there was no desire to enlarge NATO up to the new  borders with Russia that were created in 1992.

It was against all the ideas we had after reunification. 

What is happening now is some kind of Anglo-Saxon policy that was created even before WWI.  

We are on the path of war again. 

That is so much against the will of  our people.

This is also against the will of the Dutch, the French, the Spanish and the  Italians. 

We see it as a disaster that a US president that is willing to  cooperate with the Russian President Vladimir Putin – President  [Donald] Trump – has to face such a disastrous policy organized by the  US deep state, which is against our national interests and the national  interests of all other western Europeans…

***

But,  when you now come to Rostock, Dresden or Leipzig they are learning  Russian again, they go to theaters to watch Russian performances and  listen to Russian music. 

They have re-established their links with  Russia, and if they could do what they want to do, they would be the big  economic partners of Russia these days.

Things  have really changed for the Russian Federation and with regard to  Russia. 

People in Dresden, Saxony’s capital, are absolutely proud that  Russian President Vladimir Putin once served there. 

That is the reality  these days, despite what the American mainstream media say.

Would Russia engage in tank battles and soldier-to-soldier combat if NATO attacked, or would they use stand-off weapons that you discuss just to obliterate command  and control centers, the sources of munitions, etc.? 

Mr. Wimmer clearly  sees that some Germans, as opposed to the “vassal” government, want better relations with Russia as opposed to war, including cold war. 

Andrei Martyanov: The issue of TLAMs: in a conventional configuration, I don’t think that they can do much damage to Russia, especially considering Russia’s unique anti-air and anti-missile defense.

A few possible leakers in conventional configuration will not do much damage; a few leakers in a nuclear configuration, however, is a completely different game. Hence Russia’s worry about Aegis Ashore installations in Romania and Poland. That’s the main worry.

"Leakers" missile weapons systems that are able to bore through national defenses.

In a conventional scenario, Russia will not be overwhelmed and even conventional response-head on (otvetno-vstrechnyi) strike will be extremely damaging to NATO and the US.

That first strike (in Russian parlance, a retaliatory strike, or otvetno-vstrechnyi udar) follows Russia’s military doctrine, which mandates such strikes to compensate for Russia’s conventional inferiority vis-à-vis NATO and the United States. 

- Eastern European Missile Defense: Russia's Threat ... 

Valeri Gerasimov was explicit couple of years ago in his interview about Russia having enough stand-off weapons at every strategic direction to provide a reliable deterrence.

Even in conventional exchange Russia can launch weapons at the US proper with Russian bombers not leaving Russia’s aerospace.

The X-101 cruise missile has a range in excess of 5,500 kilometers. Russia continues to increase her deterrence with 3M22 Zircon getting ready to be tested from Admiral Gorshkov frigate very soon, with Kazan SSGN of project 885 planned to launch the hyper-sonic Zircon from underwater early next year.

All this changes deterrence dynamics completely because the United States cannot defend her coasts and in depth against such systems.

Russia can intercept the bulk of US and NATO cruise missiles; the US cannot do so against Russia.

Yvonne Lorenzo: As I write this on December 3rd, 2019, Vesti News posted this video on the Zircon: Putin Unveils Zircon Hypersonic Missiles! Stresses Importance of Beefing Up Russia’s Navy!

Yvonne Lorenzo: Let me ask you about Colonel Douglas Macgregor. A recent piece for Strategic-Culture, Douglas Macgregor: America’s De Gaulle, Unheeded Prophet of Houthi Victory and Saudi Fall described him thus:

The brilliant Houthi military victory over the Saudis fulfilled the  predictions in military doctrine made by America’s own De Gaulle, a  retired US Army Colonel, Douglas Macgregor with an outstanding combat  and command record who has been treated over the past 20 years by most  of his own country’s four star generals and civilian theorists with  contempt: Just as the French Army ignored DeGaulle’s armored warfare  doctrines 90 years, when they were being read and applied passionately  by the generals of Germany.

Macgregor  observed after the Houthi victory in September that that there was no  reason for surprise. Sure enough, two and a half years earlier, in  testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on March 7,  2017, he stated:

“The skies over the battlefield will be crowded with loitering munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones). These agile cruise missiles are designed to engage beyond line-of-sight ground targets. With proximity-fused, high-explosive warheads, these systems will remain airborne for hours, day or night. Equipped with high resolution electro-optical and infrared cameras, enemy operators will locate, surveil, and guide the drones to targets on the ground… When these loitering missiles are integrated into the enemy’s Strike Formations armed with precision guided rocket artillery that fires high explosive, incendiary, thermobaric, warheads including sub-munitions with self-targeting anti-tank and anti-personnel munitions warfare as we know it changes.”

Macgregor  was even more prescient in predicting the previous Houthi precision  missile strikes that wiped out half the production capacity of Saudi  Arabia’s oil refineries earlier in September. 

Those attacks  humiliatingly exposed the ultra-expensive, endlessly praised US missile  defense systems sold to Riyadh as worthless dinosaurs.

Yet,  writing in his book “Transformation Under Fire” published back in 2003,  Macgregor had said: “The idea is to link maneuver and strike assets  through a flatter operational architecture empowered by new terrestrial  and space-based communications throughout the formation… Long-range,  joint precision fires and C4ISR [Command, Control, Communications,  Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] offer the  possibility to reach over enemy armies to directly strike at what they  hope to defend or preserve. 

Precision strategic strikes closely  coordinated and timed with converging Army combat forces would present a  defending enemy with an insoluble dilemma.”

As you see, he’s retired and  never became a general. 

At least he appears to oppose war with Russia and Iran and China, from his appearances on Tucker Carlson that I’ve seen. Can you comment on the above piece and how Russia might respond if America used such techniques? It seems to me Russia would also be able  to implement such techniques. 

Andrei Martyanov: Douglas Macgregor is a brilliant man but his testimony is about…

… fighting an enemy which does not posses C4ISR [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] capabilities comparable to that of the United States.

Russia does and we have to be very clear on that distinction.

Fighting a modern combined arms war against such opponents as North Korea or even Iran the United States will have massive leverage, at least initially, before boots get on the ground, in terms of stand-off operations.

Once boots hit the ground, well, then it will change. But fighting peers, such as China, let alone Russia—…

…I simply cannot see how the United States will stay away from escalation to a nuclear threshold, because the scale of losses will be catastrophic both in men and materiel.

 It’s EXTREMELY unlikely that the US can stop modern nuclear weapons from  Russia.  There is ZERO evidence that any of the US anti-missile  technologies would be sufficient to stop a MIRV warhead – let alone  multiple MIRV warheads – traveling at the speeds a modern missile can  achieve. In a war with Russia, literally hundreds if not thousands of  warheads would be heading towards the US. No missile defense system  known can handle that. 

- Richard Steven Hack on 09/19/2017 at 3:40 PM 

In the end, Macgregor is on the record:

In 110 days of fighting the German army in France during 1918, the U.S.  Army Expeditionary Force sustained 318,000 casualties, including 110,000  killed in action. 

That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.

Only… on American soil.

Ignoring  this reality is the road to future defeats and American decline. It’s  time to look beyond the stirring images of infantrymen storming  machine-gun nests created by Hollywood and to see war for what it is and  will be in the future: 

the ruthless extermination of the enemy with accurate, devastating firepower from the sea, from the air, from space  and from mobile, armored firepower on land. 

The United Sates is not in a position to take this scale of losses, not to mention having its rear, from staffs to munition depots and airfields being under relentless and devastating fire impact from operational to a strategic depth—a condition the US Army simple has no experience with. 

As even RAND people admitted:

“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” RAND analyst David Ochmanek told a security conference on Thursday. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.”

In war games with either Russia, China or both, almost always, the United States loses.

I’ve been writing about this for years.
 
It’s good that some people are beginning to get it. I hope—although I don’t hold my breath—their opinions will be heard at the political top.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Recent articles have posted on cooperation between Russia and China, not just the well know business deals but cultural and Chinese students coming to Russia. See these articles, “Top Russian nuclear university eyes future cooperation with China” and “Film about WWII sniper ‘Lady Death’ kicks off ‘2019 Russian Film Exhibition’ in Beijing” posted on China’s Global Times.

I’d appreciate your thoughts about the Russian-Chinese relationship/partnership.

Andrei Martyanov: The answer is extremely simple—Russian-Chinese cooperation is not only natural, but it was inevitable, considering the state of the combined West and, especially so, of the United States.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Andrei, you posted this on your blog on November 26th, 2019, “New S-400 Contract For Turkey?” which I want to discuss not only because of your observations, but because in the past (and I’m not picking on him) Paul Craig Roberts wrote in effect that Russia must be more aggressive with America to avoid a shooting war, quoting him, “The Russian government’s failure to stand up to Washington’s bullying guarantees more bullying. Sooner or later the bullying will cross a line, and Russia will have to fight.”

However, in this post of yours I cited above you commented:

So, [the] Turks are already running, it seems, detection routines with  F-16 and F-4 as targets. 

Turks will, already do, want more. 

The Turks  know what comes next, and it is S-500—they want it. 

The reason is  simple: look at [a] map of Turkey and see how much [of the] Eastern  Mediterranean she will be able to cover—pretty much all of it. Just in  case. 

And it is not just for reasons of Greece and gas fields, but for  reasons of Israel. The Turkish path towards a leadership in [the]  Islamic world lies through the fate of Palestine.

So,  a lot of thing are riding on those systems for Turkey and, just a  hunch, SU-35s will follow.

I’m surprised the Turks haven’t start testing against any F-35s, unless Turkey had to return them to America; 

I’d love  to see the reaction if they did, which so far has included this:  

“‘Erdogan thumbs his nose at Trump’: US senator says Turkey crossed  ‘another red line’ with S-400 test, calls for new sanctions.” 

As you also wrote recently: “How about State Department creating a new Office of S-400 Weekly Complaints and Threats Towards Turkey (OSWCTTT). Should be a pretty nice sinecure for some bureaucrat. Should pay well too—rent and real estate prices inside the Beltway are atrocious. Foggy Bottom especially.”

And I see in the way they’ve turned Turkey away from American dominance, or Western dominance, that Russia’s diplomatic team, of course under the leadership of President Putin, have performed a Jujitsu move against the West more effective than using force.

Of course, the Turks are no angels as this article, “ISIS Captives Offer a Convenient Pawn in Turkey’s Syria Chess Game” by the respected Vanessa Beeley notes although I suspect they won’t turn on Russia.

What are your thoughts?

Andrei Martyanov: As a Russian proverb says: “Diplomacy is the art to say to your counterpart that he is an idiot in the politest manner.”

In reality, the Russian version is very profane, so I softened it a bit. Russians do not operate on the so called “values-based,” ideological that is, principle in foreign policy. Russians actually DO consider the other side’s interests and concerns and that is what makes Russian diplomacy so effective.

This, plus, of course, military power. As another Russian saying goes: “If you do not want to talk to Lavrov, you will talk to Shoigu.”

With Turkey, Russia does accommodate many Turkish interests; the Turks feel that.

This is as much as I can respond to, because I am not in the position to pass deep and knowledgeable judgment on Turkey’s policies since I do not know the region that well.

I am sure, however, that Turks have a very good idea about what Russia offers technologically and economically.

The Turkish officer crews for S-400 underwent an extensive training in Russia so they do not need any additional argumentation in favor of the system they were trained on.

The F-35 is irrelevant here, apart from the fact that Turks cannot use, I believe, from the top of my head, those two aircraft which they had and which will be returned to the US.

Yvonne Lorenzo: In this interview with John Pilger, “American Exceptionalism Driving World to War – John Pilger,” he discusses the risk of “hot war” instigated by America against Russia. Here’s an excerpt:

Question: You have worked for over five decades as a war reporter and  documentary film-maker in Vietnam, elsewhere in Asia, Africa and Latin  America. 

How do you see current international tensions between the US,  China and Russia? 

Do you think the danger of war is greater now than in  previous times?

John  Pilger: In 1962, we all may have been saved by the refusal of a Soviet  naval officer, Vasili Arkhipov, to fire a nuclear torpedo at US ships during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

Are we in greater danger today? 

During  the Cold War, there were lines that the other side dared not cross.  

There are few if any lines now;

The US surrounds China with 400 military  bases and ...
...sails its low-draught ships into Chinese waters and...
...flies its drones in Chinese airspace. 

American-led NATO forces mass on the same Russian frontier the Nazis crossed...
...the Russian president is insulted as a matter of routine. 

There is no restraint and none of the diplomacy that kept the old Cold War cold. 

In the West, we have acquiesced as bystanders in our own countries, preferring to look away (or at our smart phones) rather than break free of the post-modernism entrapping us with its specious “identity” distractions.

Question:  You traveled extensively in the US during the Cold War years. You witnessed the assassination of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy in  1968. 

It seems the American Cold War obsession with “communism as an  evil” has been replaced by an equally intense Russophobia towards  modern-day Russia. 

Do you see a continuation in the phobia from the Cold  War years to today? What accounts for that mindset?

John  Pilger: The Russians refuse to bow down to America...
...and that is intolerable. 

They play an independent, mostly positive role in the  Middle East, the antithesis of America’s violent subversions...
...and that  is unbearable. 

Like the Chinese, they have forged peaceful and fruitful alliances with people all over the world...
...and that is unacceptable to the US Godfather. 

The constant defamation of all things Russian is a symptom of decline and panic...
...as if the United States has departed the  21st century for the 19th century...
...obsessed with a proprietorial view of the world. 

In the circumstances, the phobia you describe is hardly  surprising. 

Andrei Martyanov: As in any event, war between Russia and the US is possible, but how probable it is, is a completely different matter. Some probability of Russia and the United States actually fighting each other certainly exists.

It is not very high, I think, but it does exist.

We all have to do our utmost to prevent this scenario becoming a reality.

Paradoxically, Russia’s very real military strength today is a guarantor or, at least, a robust deterrent against such a nightmarish scenario.

As I said, the US military does understand the implications, even when American politicians don’t.

I always repeat that I feel much better when Gerasimov and Milley talk to each other than when Lavrov is forced to explain basic things to Pompeo.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Hypersonic weapons, impressive as they are, rely on Newtonian physics. There was—to me—a term that you would call “Runglish”, Russian-English, discussing “New physical principles” which I finally understood to mean “new principles of physics” relating to the new Peresvet laser, which I think you’ve speculated on its purpose but is highly secret.

However, all this technology is used for military purposes; what I find it sad about deteriorating relations with Russia because the best of the West and Russia could accomplish a great deal sharing and developing non-military technology.

I’m reminded of this wonderful video of a Russia cosmonaut’s interactions with an American astronaut and seeing the world below they have disdain for politicians.

I Need More Space: Russian Cosmonaut Fyodor Yurchikhin’s long road to the stars

What are your thoughts and how can Russians and American in this environment of “Russophobia” which is a polite, diplomatic word for hatred of Russians, cooperate as we two are doing now for peaceful and good purposes?

I worry both your doors and mine, for simply communicating with one another, will be kicked in one day by someone from the government, as happened with Max Blumenthal.

Can we both pessimistic and hopeful?

Andrei Martyanov: As I stated repeatedly, the combined West committed cultural suicide in Russia.

Yes, Russians are open to mutually beneficial cooperation, with space being one of those exhibit A cases where international cooperation manifests itself in the most profound and positive way.

Sadly, with the current US political “elites” who are Russophobic in the extreme, any prospects of serious Russian-American cooperation look very grim.

The world is in the process of unprecedented geopolitical realignment which increasingly degrades the position of the United States and Russia is at the center of this process.

The Obama Administration destroyed Russian-American relations totally and I don’t see any improvement, bar some symbolic gestures, such as, I hope, President Trump visiting Moscow on May 9th next year, because the American political class’s Russophobia is systemic and was nurtured for generations.

Plus, the United States is not an agreement-capable entity because it is ungovernable, as the last three years so dramatically demonstrated.

Russia is aware of that—no agreement signed with the United States is worth the paper it is written on.

"... no agreement signed with the United States is  worth the paper it is written on." I think that China would agree.

We can only hope that things will change for the better in the future but this change may come only through the United States reassessing its role in history and the world…

…a process which may take decades, serious tribulations and, hopefully, emergence of new American elites that would be able to formulate real American national interests.

***

After I asked Andrei my last question, this Russian video posted on YouTube: so much for future cooperation between America and Russia in space, because of sanctions Americans cannot be carried to the space station by Russians any longer:

US Will Be Stranded On Earth! Baikonur Cosmodrome Sends Very Last American Into Space!

I’d like to thank Andrei for his kind answers to my questions and highly recommend his books and his writings on his blog and on Unz.com for those who wish to escape the Matrix and find a knowledgeable Russian perspective on events and military matters; Martyanov is the antidote to Tom Clancy disease.

I want to close by noting Andrei Martynov’s recent blog post “Ishenko Delivers” that referenced an article by Rostislav Ishenko entitled “In Bulgaria, a Russian Soldier” the title itself a reference to the song “Alyosha,” which I am familiar with from the album Wait for Me by the late exceptional baritone Dimitri Hvorsostovky. The below passage Ishenko wrote is moving, as is the song.

It was 1970. I was five years old. 

I came to visit my grandmother. To  the White Church. Near Kiev. 

My grandmother is from the Urals. 

My  grandfather (on my father’s side) started the war near Stalingrad, and  ended on the Dnieper (six wounds, four of them heavy, two shell shocks,  medals “For Military Merit” and “For Courage,” the Order of the “Red  Star” and “World War II” degrees). 

The commander of a machine gun  company. He fought for an incomplete year. From October 1943 he was no  longer sent to the front (and his division arrived near Stalingrad in  November 1942). 

He died (in 1956) at 36 years old, from the consequences  of a concussion (as a young major, in a colonel’s position).

In  1970, I was five years old (to be exact, then four and a half).  

Grandmother was a teacher of French. At the same time and a class  teacher. I came to visit her. Contrary to usual, I didn’t go straight  home, but (for some reason unknown to me) I went to the school where she  taught. 

I think that she needed to complete the work with the class,  and the school was five to seven minutes’ walk from home. 

Here I am, as a  future student, and they brought me to see how the children learn.

For  about fifteen minutes I studied desks in an empty classroom (which at  that time did not differ from the gymnasium at the beginning of the  century) and read what was written on the board. 

And then she went with  her grandmother to the porch of the school, where her class (and other  classes) performed. 

Now I don’t remember what the holiday was, but I  suspect it is May 9th. Because I went out onto the porch (they rather  took me out, I was too small to go out myself), just as the girls from  my grandmother’s class (8–10, already without pioneer ties and, as for  me, adult aunts) sang “Alyosha.” 

I haven’t heard the song so often since  then, but I remember it well, because, in the words, “He doesn’t give  flowers to girls, they give him flowers,” the entire female team of the  school, which was standing next to me, wept.

It  was the 70th year. 

My grandmother was 48 years old. 

Exactly at that age  (in 2014) I left Kiev. 

The city where four generations of my ancestors  lived, in which my mother survived the occupation (and met the Red Army  at the age of three), became not just a stranger, but a hostile one. 

I  can be forced to return there, but I cannot be persuaded or persuaded to  do so voluntarily. 

It’s like in a war. 

All who survived and won are  proud of the Victory, and while their fellow soldiers were alive, they  met and remembered the days of old. 

But they themselves did not dream of  returning to the dugout under shelling, nor did they want to experience  the “pleasure” of the attack (to their full height on the prepared  defense) for their children. 

Russians have in their collective memory the trauma of a war that killed millions, a subject Martyanov has discussed in depth especially in his first book;

…in that respect, they are different from Americans and I question the sanity of the rulers…

…especially the feckless political class…

…of the West who make the Russians foes.

Perhaps only the people of the two nations—if they are enough in number in America—can prevent war from coming, because I am uncertain if the American military can reign in the powers that control them.

Or perhaps it is the fate for Russia to humble America, the way she did Nazi Germany, not necessarily by military might—at least I pray.

I suspect the process has started already.

Sadly, we know which side is most at fault for this deterioration of relations between our nations.

Reminders… China.

China and Russia will mutually work together militarily to counter American aggression.

As a history buff I must point out that ALL Major Wars started from  misconceptions (they enemy is weak, cannot hit the broad side of the  barn etc) AND starred new disruptive weapons (the Machine Gun in WW1 vs  Calvary/Infantry charges, Aircraft carrier in WW2 vs the MIGHTY  Battleship).  

Will WW3 find the USA under EMP?  Will Russian and Chinese high tech  ECM systems shut off our High Tech Weapons? Ask the commanders of the  two recent US Navy collisions if they think ECM jammed their Command and  Control Systems.  Both of the Ships were very high tech Aegis Warships,  yet were rammed by slow moving clumsy Cargo Ships. 

Will we get our  heads handed to us like the Germans?  

You know that in both world wars the Germans did not expect to lose you know.

Prepare for bad times my friends the petrodollar is almost done. The cost of everything is about to rise quickly.
  
 -NH Michael 

Chinese President Xi Jinping has urged Russia to strengthen bilateral comprehensive cooperation and mutual political support during a meeting with President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou. This action has prompted political analyst Rostislav Ishchenko to assert that both countries are moving towards a political and military alliance.

"De  facto a political and military alliance between Russia and China has  existed for a long time and it is not a secret to anyone. Rumors have repeatedly surfaced that it could be  formalized. But at the recent G20 summit the Chinese leader has for the  first time mentioned the need to 'formalize relations' as openly  as Chinese political and diplomatic traditions permit."

- Ishchenko,  head of the Center for Systems Analysis and Forecasting, wrote  for RIA Novosti. 

Xi Jinping said that both countries should support each other in their efforts to protect national sovereignty and security. The Chinese president added that both nations should step up cooperation in such areas as infrastructure development, energy, aviation, aerospace and cutting-edge technology.

In addition, Russia and China should foster bilateral military exchanges and security cooperation.

Reminders… American Mainstream media

The US is likely to provoke a major war, partly in an attempt to unite a  culturally divided country. But not just a sport war such as we’ve had  in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Probably with China, possibly Russia or  Iran. Perhaps with all three. The US won’t do well, since it will find  that its aircraft carriers, F-35s, and the like are equivalent to  cavalry before WW1 and battleships before WW2. 

- Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions for the 2020s 

Americans, all jazzed up with the mainstream media news, and the mainstream pro-military movies, and a neocon government, is all but “chomping at the bit” to fight and (of course) win a war with either, Russia or China or both…

• Don’t worry, the US would win a nuclear war with Russia
• Can the United States invade Russia and China at the same …
• Jerry Seib: America and Europe Punish Russia
• America Must Make Sure It Can Fight and Win a Nuclear War …
• Russia and America: Stumbling to War | The National Interest
• Only Trump can restore America’s ability to win a nuclear war
• How we can punish Russia for Ukraine – USA TODAY
• “IN ONE DAY IT WILL BURN”: Chilling 30 Year Old Prophesy …
• Could the US win World War III without using nuclear …
• If nuclear war broke out would America win? – Quora
• Could America Win a War Against Russia and China at the …
• Who would win in a war between Russia and the US? – Quora
• How would a war between the US and China play out?
• How would a war between America and Russia/China end?

Lord help us all.

---

I hope that you all enjoyed this post. I have other posts along this nature in the SHTF index. You can access it here…

SHTF Articles

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.