What do you think?
Rate this book
Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning
"Marytanov explains why and how the US armed forces have lostthe military supremacy they thought they once had and how Russia,which supposedly had been defeated in the Cold War, succeedednot only in catching up with USA, but actually surpassing it in manykey domains such as long range cruise missiles, diesel-electricsubmarines, air defenses, electronic warfare, air superiority andmany others. Andrei Martyanov's book is an absolute 'must read'for any person wanting to understand the reality of modern warfareand super-power competition."THE SAKER While exceptionalism is not unique toAmerica, the intensity of their conviction and its globalramifications are. This view of its exceptionalism has led the US togrossly misinterpret—sometimes deliberately—the causativefactors of key events of the past two centuries. Accordingly, thewrong conclusions have been derived, and very wrong lessonslearned. Nowhere has this been more manifest than in Americanmilitary thought and its actual application of military power.Time after time the American military has failed to match loftydeclarations about its superiority, producing instead a mediocrerecord of military accomplishments. Starting from the Korean Warthe United States hasn’t won a single war against a technologicallyinferior, but mentally tough enemy.The technological dimension of American “strategy” hascompletely overshadowed any concern with the social, cultural,operational and even tactical requirements of military (andpolitical) conflict. With a new Cold War with Russia emerging, theUnited States enters a new period of geopolitical turbulencecompletely unprepared in any meaningful way—intellectually,economically, militarily or culturally—to face a reality which washidden for the last 70+ years behind the curtain of never-endingChalabi moments and a strategic delusion concerning Russia,whose history the US viewed through a Solzhenitsified caricaturekept alive by a powerful neocon lobby, which even todaydominates US policy makers’ minds.Martyanov’s former Soviet military background enables deepinsight into the fundamental issues of warfare and military poweras a function of national power—assessed correctly, not throughthe lens of Wall Street “economic” indices and a FIRE economy,but through the numbers of enclosed technological cycles andculture, much of which has been shaped in Russia by continentalwarfare and which is practically absent in the US.
287 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 26, 2018
51 people are currently reading
262 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
May 9, 2021
Absolutely awesome book.
I got it on audio. I think it would have been better if read in a Russian accent, with a contemptuous tone, it would have been very entertaining as well as deeply informative, perhaps I've watched too many James Bond type films.
Its so packed with fascinating detail, I'll have to get a physical or kindle copy to look up the various weapon systems mentioned, some of which I have heard of.
The author is obviously a very patriotic Russian, although I think he implied or stated he is now an American citizen, or at least has lived in the USA for some time.
He spends quite a bit of the book talking about how WWII was for the Soviet Union. I admit that from time to time the Soviet's less than wonderful track record did come to mind, but it could easily be pointed out that all significant participants in that war sometimes did things that were perhaps to be regretted, and I suppose that if my country were constantly being rubbished I too might find myself giving an equally passionate defense of my nation. But the point is, the Soviet Union suffered in that war on a scale which is unimaginable in the West, and that has had a deep effect on the Russian psyche. On the other hand, the USA, has had no experience of war on it's territory. The Civil War doesn't count, because that was a civil war, the War of 1812 and the attack on Pearl Harbour simply do not compare to the Nazi invasion or Napoleon's invasion for that matter, or the Mongol Hordes. Britain suffers from this as well, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, we did get bombed a bit and had missile attacks, but if memory serves me well, 60,000 Britons died as a result of the blitz, but to put that into perspective, I think a similar number of French civilians died as a result of allied bombing, and the British Empire together with the USA managed to slaughter at least ten times that number of German civilians through bombing raids. For Britons, and more so Americans, wars are always far away. We are far too casual about these things. Russians, are not.
The book addresses the ongoing clown show in American politics, 'leadership' and what looks like social disintegration, (although not mentioned in the book, this also applies to the UK and some other Western countries, albeit less violently and dramatically) which wouldn't be quite quite so disturbing, if our delusional glorious leaders (whatever bonkers direction the USA goes in, you can guarantee the UK will be right by its side) did not appear to think they run the world and naughty children like Russia need to be put in their place and learn who's boss. Actually it's worse than that, I understand that ultimately they would like to break Russia up into more manageable parts. Someday, our leaders may be too provocative and the mayhem that would result from that, bearing in mind Russia's capabilities, would be something best avoided.
Perhaps the most important thing that the book points out, is that the USA (and this is true of the UK as well - less anyone think I'm on some sort of anti-American rant) has in recent decades invested vast fortunes in military technologies which are obsolete. They are great for beating up the third world, but would cease to exist very quickly should a real conflict with Russia happen. Its rather like the French reliance on the Maginot line at the start of World War II. That's where we are now and it might be helpful if somebody in head office understood this.
I don't have any connections to Russia. Back in 1996, I flew on Aeroflot to Thailand (Aeroflot had the cheapest flights) which included a stopover for several hours in Moscow airport. That's the only time I've been there and the only interactions I've had with any Russians were very brief chats with cabin crew on those flights. I'm not a Russophile or Putin fan boy, but I do think treating Russia and Russians with the respect they deserve might be helpful to world peace.
I got it on audio. I think it would have been better if read in a Russian accent, with a contemptuous tone, it would have been very entertaining as well as deeply informative, perhaps I've watched too many James Bond type films.
Its so packed with fascinating detail, I'll have to get a physical or kindle copy to look up the various weapon systems mentioned, some of which I have heard of.
The author is obviously a very patriotic Russian, although I think he implied or stated he is now an American citizen, or at least has lived in the USA for some time.
He spends quite a bit of the book talking about how WWII was for the Soviet Union. I admit that from time to time the Soviet's less than wonderful track record did come to mind, but it could easily be pointed out that all significant participants in that war sometimes did things that were perhaps to be regretted, and I suppose that if my country were constantly being rubbished I too might find myself giving an equally passionate defense of my nation. But the point is, the Soviet Union suffered in that war on a scale which is unimaginable in the West, and that has had a deep effect on the Russian psyche. On the other hand, the USA, has had no experience of war on it's territory. The Civil War doesn't count, because that was a civil war, the War of 1812 and the attack on Pearl Harbour simply do not compare to the Nazi invasion or Napoleon's invasion for that matter, or the Mongol Hordes. Britain suffers from this as well, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, we did get bombed a bit and had missile attacks, but if memory serves me well, 60,000 Britons died as a result of the blitz, but to put that into perspective, I think a similar number of French civilians died as a result of allied bombing, and the British Empire together with the USA managed to slaughter at least ten times that number of German civilians through bombing raids. For Britons, and more so Americans, wars are always far away. We are far too casual about these things. Russians, are not.
The book addresses the ongoing clown show in American politics, 'leadership' and what looks like social disintegration, (although not mentioned in the book, this also applies to the UK and some other Western countries, albeit less violently and dramatically) which wouldn't be quite quite so disturbing, if our delusional glorious leaders (whatever bonkers direction the USA goes in, you can guarantee the UK will be right by its side) did not appear to think they run the world and naughty children like Russia need to be put in their place and learn who's boss. Actually it's worse than that, I understand that ultimately they would like to break Russia up into more manageable parts. Someday, our leaders may be too provocative and the mayhem that would result from that, bearing in mind Russia's capabilities, would be something best avoided.
Perhaps the most important thing that the book points out, is that the USA (and this is true of the UK as well - less anyone think I'm on some sort of anti-American rant) has in recent decades invested vast fortunes in military technologies which are obsolete. They are great for beating up the third world, but would cease to exist very quickly should a real conflict with Russia happen. Its rather like the French reliance on the Maginot line at the start of World War II. That's where we are now and it might be helpful if somebody in head office understood this.
I don't have any connections to Russia. Back in 1996, I flew on Aeroflot to Thailand (Aeroflot had the cheapest flights) which included a stopover for several hours in Moscow airport. That's the only time I've been there and the only interactions I've had with any Russians were very brief chats with cabin crew on those flights. I'm not a Russophile or Putin fan boy, but I do think treating Russia and Russians with the respect they deserve might be helpful to world peace.
August 6, 2018
The author basically regurgitates Soviet historiography on World War 2. His idea that Americans have no idea of the sacrifice of the Soviet people is simply nonsense. Harrison Salisbury wrote a popular history "900 Days" on the siege of Leningrad at the height of the Cold War. Nor does the author take seriously the damage Stalin did to the Russian people by total lack of preparation before the war (no food supplies or removal of children from Leningrad if nothing else).
The author's claim there were **only** 4 million in the gulags at any one time is misleading at best - it doesn't take into account the number executed, and dying of hunger and disease. Nor does it take into account the number who were exiled after their terms were up. His comparison with American numbers (half the population at twice the rate of incarceration) is also a sleight of hand - to say nothing about conditions. The gulags were intentionally a slave labor operation to get a cheap supply of labor to areas of the Soviet Union where people could not be enticed to go at any wage (and there was little to buy anyway).
However, I agree with the author about US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. The neocons and liberal interventionists have compiled a dreadful, aggressive record with trillions of dollars wasted and huge amounts of blood spilled. I also agree that any effort to invade Iran will probably finish off the US ability to project power anywhere. It is time for a critical reassessment of where the US is headed. I have no ability to assess the author's claims about Russian weapons, but the United States has been acting aggressively towards Russia for several decades and Russia is finally able to push back. Putin ran rings around Obama. It is time as the author says for serious talks rather than the hyperventilating Russophobia coming from Washington's elites because it is in America's interests to do so.
The author's claim there were **only** 4 million in the gulags at any one time is misleading at best - it doesn't take into account the number executed, and dying of hunger and disease. Nor does it take into account the number who were exiled after their terms were up. His comparison with American numbers (half the population at twice the rate of incarceration) is also a sleight of hand - to say nothing about conditions. The gulags were intentionally a slave labor operation to get a cheap supply of labor to areas of the Soviet Union where people could not be enticed to go at any wage (and there was little to buy anyway).
However, I agree with the author about US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. The neocons and liberal interventionists have compiled a dreadful, aggressive record with trillions of dollars wasted and huge amounts of blood spilled. I also agree that any effort to invade Iran will probably finish off the US ability to project power anywhere. It is time for a critical reassessment of where the US is headed. I have no ability to assess the author's claims about Russian weapons, but the United States has been acting aggressively towards Russia for several decades and Russia is finally able to push back. Putin ran rings around Obama. It is time as the author says for serious talks rather than the hyperventilating Russophobia coming from Washington's elites because it is in America's interests to do so.
May 28, 2019
A much needed anti-dote to the media concocted myths that fuel our notion of ourselves and others. It also serves as a stark warning as to the nature of any future great power conflict, dispelling any notion of there being a "winner" in such a conflict.
October 8, 2021
Enlightening book that places current geopolitical moves by USA in appropriate context. One glaring difficulty I had with this book is the author's definite marked anti Western and anti-American viewpoint, probably begun in his graduate and military education. My own military education which included Air Command and Staff College I think gave me a lot less biased and more open-world view of other militaries including at that time USSR
March 15, 2019
While it can be viewed as biased or even propaganda, one can't ignore some of the arguments made, whether on cultural history, education, technological changes or cost of development.
January 2, 2020
Thought America was strong militarily and Russia weak? Think again.
Once in a generation a book comes along that completely overturns one’s thinking on a topic of fundamental importance. Andrei Martyanov’s, LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY was such a book for me. As a lifelong conservative, and an admirer of early neo-conservative thinkers, it took me a long time to concede the errors of U.S. military power projection since 2001. Even so, I clung to the idea that U.S. military power was unrivalled and ought to remain so to keep a variety of global threats in check (e.g., Communism, Islamism, Iran, China, North Korea, et al.)
So imagine my dismay upon learning from Mr. Martyanov (a former Soviet naval officer turned military analyst who is now a naturalized American citizen) that, far from being invincible, the U.S. military is a hollow force dangerously vulnerable to a new generation of weapons systems such as hypersonic cruise missiles and next-generation radars. And that our aircraft carriers have become sitting ducks, our stealth aircraft and nuclear submarines easily detectable, our anti-ballistic missile systems impotent, and our overseas bases --and even America’s mainland--wide open to cruise missile attack.
Martyanov lays out his thesis step by step, with an abundance of verifiable facts. He begins by explaining how America came by its post-WWII strategic myopia, contrasting the American experience of largely expeditionary-type wars with that of Russia’s repeated fights for survival against Mongol hordes, Teutonic Knights, Ottoman Turks, Napoleon’s Grande Armée, the German Empire (WWI) and Hitler’s Wehrmacht. History has taught the Russians that their weapons and military doctrines must work or Russia will perish. By contrast, America’s latest military weapons are designed primarily to sell at a profit, with a tidy rake-off going to politicians, consultants and think tanks.
The current generation of Russian super-weapons (including cruise missiles, air defense systems, aircraft and silent diesel-electric missile submarines) was conceived during Russia’s Post-Soviet weakness in the 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the Russian attitude as follows: "Our biggest mistake was that we trusted you [the West] too much. You interpreted our trust as weakness, and you exploited that.” The only remedy for NATO expansion and Western bullying was to recover Russia’s military strength.
Having inherited the remnants of the Soviet military industrial complex, Russia set about to design new military weapons and doctrines aimed at countering what they perceived as threats to Russia from the U.S. and NATO. With their national sovereignty at stake, Russian strategic planners focused on countering America’s greatest military strengths and came up with totally original air defense systems, military aircraft and a variety of long-range cruise missiles that have turned America’s vaunted stealth aircraft, carrier battle groups, nuclear submarines, and far-flung overseas military bases from assets into strategic liabilities.
A few examples:
No aircraft carrier or other surface ship on earth is safe from a salvo of Russia’s new supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. American carrier battle groups can project power to defenseless Third World nations but are useless against Russia and China—and perhaps soon, Iran and other customers of Russian weaponry.
Russia has the best air defense systems in the world stationed around its borders. Even our best stealth aircraft are unable to penetrate it. But America has no air defense system at all against Russian long-range cruise missiles.
Since 2008, in Georgia (South Ossetia), the Crimea, Ukraine and now Syria, the Russian military has surprised Western experts with its prowess in electronic warfare, cyber warfare, missile technology and air defense.
Why hasn’t the American public been warned about this? Martyanov describes at length (perhaps at too great length, for some tastes) the narcissistic delusions of America’s national security elites, many of whom have never served a day in uniform, have no math or engineering skills, know little of complex weapons systems, and dare not contradict the myth of American military superiority for fear of losing their jobs, contracts and research grants. The mainstream media know even less, parroting what the experts tell them. So the blind lead the blind while the nation’s coffers are bled dry, America’s fighting men are deployed to exhaustion, and America continues to lose—yes, lose—war after war since WWII.
The only silver lining in this very depressing book may be that both the American left and right might finally come to agree that the time has come for a major change in America’s military posture. Perhaps it’s time for America’s military to stop acting like world policeman—let alone global hegemon—now that the revolution in military technology (led by Russia, not the U.S.) has rendered such a role unsustainable. Today, the consequence of miscalculation or overreach could be the sinking of a carrier battle group, the destruction of an overseas base, or—heaven forbid—a tit-for-tat retaliatory cruise missile attack on targets located within the American Heartland.
Once in a generation a book comes along that completely overturns one’s thinking on a topic of fundamental importance. Andrei Martyanov’s, LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY was such a book for me. As a lifelong conservative, and an admirer of early neo-conservative thinkers, it took me a long time to concede the errors of U.S. military power projection since 2001. Even so, I clung to the idea that U.S. military power was unrivalled and ought to remain so to keep a variety of global threats in check (e.g., Communism, Islamism, Iran, China, North Korea, et al.)
So imagine my dismay upon learning from Mr. Martyanov (a former Soviet naval officer turned military analyst who is now a naturalized American citizen) that, far from being invincible, the U.S. military is a hollow force dangerously vulnerable to a new generation of weapons systems such as hypersonic cruise missiles and next-generation radars. And that our aircraft carriers have become sitting ducks, our stealth aircraft and nuclear submarines easily detectable, our anti-ballistic missile systems impotent, and our overseas bases --and even America’s mainland--wide open to cruise missile attack.
Martyanov lays out his thesis step by step, with an abundance of verifiable facts. He begins by explaining how America came by its post-WWII strategic myopia, contrasting the American experience of largely expeditionary-type wars with that of Russia’s repeated fights for survival against Mongol hordes, Teutonic Knights, Ottoman Turks, Napoleon’s Grande Armée, the German Empire (WWI) and Hitler’s Wehrmacht. History has taught the Russians that their weapons and military doctrines must work or Russia will perish. By contrast, America’s latest military weapons are designed primarily to sell at a profit, with a tidy rake-off going to politicians, consultants and think tanks.
The current generation of Russian super-weapons (including cruise missiles, air defense systems, aircraft and silent diesel-electric missile submarines) was conceived during Russia’s Post-Soviet weakness in the 1990s. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the Russian attitude as follows: "Our biggest mistake was that we trusted you [the West] too much. You interpreted our trust as weakness, and you exploited that.” The only remedy for NATO expansion and Western bullying was to recover Russia’s military strength.
Having inherited the remnants of the Soviet military industrial complex, Russia set about to design new military weapons and doctrines aimed at countering what they perceived as threats to Russia from the U.S. and NATO. With their national sovereignty at stake, Russian strategic planners focused on countering America’s greatest military strengths and came up with totally original air defense systems, military aircraft and a variety of long-range cruise missiles that have turned America’s vaunted stealth aircraft, carrier battle groups, nuclear submarines, and far-flung overseas military bases from assets into strategic liabilities.
A few examples:
No aircraft carrier or other surface ship on earth is safe from a salvo of Russia’s new supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. American carrier battle groups can project power to defenseless Third World nations but are useless against Russia and China—and perhaps soon, Iran and other customers of Russian weaponry.
Russia has the best air defense systems in the world stationed around its borders. Even our best stealth aircraft are unable to penetrate it. But America has no air defense system at all against Russian long-range cruise missiles.
Since 2008, in Georgia (South Ossetia), the Crimea, Ukraine and now Syria, the Russian military has surprised Western experts with its prowess in electronic warfare, cyber warfare, missile technology and air defense.
Why hasn’t the American public been warned about this? Martyanov describes at length (perhaps at too great length, for some tastes) the narcissistic delusions of America’s national security elites, many of whom have never served a day in uniform, have no math or engineering skills, know little of complex weapons systems, and dare not contradict the myth of American military superiority for fear of losing their jobs, contracts and research grants. The mainstream media know even less, parroting what the experts tell them. So the blind lead the blind while the nation’s coffers are bled dry, America’s fighting men are deployed to exhaustion, and America continues to lose—yes, lose—war after war since WWII.
The only silver lining in this very depressing book may be that both the American left and right might finally come to agree that the time has come for a major change in America’s military posture. Perhaps it’s time for America’s military to stop acting like world policeman—let alone global hegemon—now that the revolution in military technology (led by Russia, not the U.S.) has rendered such a role unsustainable. Today, the consequence of miscalculation or overreach could be the sinking of a carrier battle group, the destruction of an overseas base, or—heaven forbid—a tit-for-tat retaliatory cruise missile attack on targets located within the American Heartland.
April 13, 2023
Okay, this book sucks. If you're looking for a distorted takedown of the American defense establishment, enjoy. If you're looking for anything else, this is a waste of time. Unless you're like me and you wanted to see what the arguments were. Honestly expected more of an effort.
The short version is that this is a collection of falsehoods, cherry picked statements, blatant omissions, a re-litigation of WWII, praise for the Soviet Union, and breathless boasting about new Russian technologies.
The longer version is that it's pure propaganda along the lines of RT. I was particularly interested in seeing the arguments after the embarrassing Russian invasion of Ukraine, but was still disappointed. The entire book is an attempt to bring the US stature down and the Russian stature up, which, fair enough, but that doesn't prove a fraction of what he thinks it does. Especially after Putin and his military have been routed by a Ukrainian military they barely considered. Several sections read like promotional pamphlets from a weapons expo, but none of those Russian superweapons appear to have reached their potential, again judging by Ukraine. Their "revolutionary" super missiles and aircraft failed to defeat a weak neighbor and they are back to desperately relying on artillery and trenches like it's WWI, not even WWII.
There are several valid points about things like US defense priorities and how Americans view WWII, but none of them are novel or support his thesis in any way. It's something you could read in any opinion piece by a retired admiral, with the smugness dialed all the way up. Why bother? Does the US use some Russian rockets to get to space? Yes. Does that mean the US military complex "resembles the empty shell that was the Russian military in the 1990's?" Not even a little bit, but he goes right ahead and implies there are more examples he is simply not listing. There are not.
Martyanov spends an absurd amount of time on World War 2. His aim is to demonstrate that the American contribution is overrated and the Soviets are underrated. And also that Patton is way overrated. Again, these things are more or less true but not to the extent Martyanov says. He also has a bizarre conclusion that the Russians are more suited to military matters because they suffered far more casualties generations or centuries ago. I'm not sure what a pissing match about who suffered more casualties has to do with anything, but he hits that point over and over.
In the five years since this book came out, the US military and the NATO alliance is stronger while the Russian military is mired in an embarrassing and devastating quagmire against an enemy it considered insignificant. That alone should send this book into the trash where it belongs.
The short version is that this is a collection of falsehoods, cherry picked statements, blatant omissions, a re-litigation of WWII, praise for the Soviet Union, and breathless boasting about new Russian technologies.
The longer version is that it's pure propaganda along the lines of RT. I was particularly interested in seeing the arguments after the embarrassing Russian invasion of Ukraine, but was still disappointed. The entire book is an attempt to bring the US stature down and the Russian stature up, which, fair enough, but that doesn't prove a fraction of what he thinks it does. Especially after Putin and his military have been routed by a Ukrainian military they barely considered. Several sections read like promotional pamphlets from a weapons expo, but none of those Russian superweapons appear to have reached their potential, again judging by Ukraine. Their "revolutionary" super missiles and aircraft failed to defeat a weak neighbor and they are back to desperately relying on artillery and trenches like it's WWI, not even WWII.
There are several valid points about things like US defense priorities and how Americans view WWII, but none of them are novel or support his thesis in any way. It's something you could read in any opinion piece by a retired admiral, with the smugness dialed all the way up. Why bother? Does the US use some Russian rockets to get to space? Yes. Does that mean the US military complex "resembles the empty shell that was the Russian military in the 1990's?" Not even a little bit, but he goes right ahead and implies there are more examples he is simply not listing. There are not.
Martyanov spends an absurd amount of time on World War 2. His aim is to demonstrate that the American contribution is overrated and the Soviets are underrated. And also that Patton is way overrated. Again, these things are more or less true but not to the extent Martyanov says. He also has a bizarre conclusion that the Russians are more suited to military matters because they suffered far more casualties generations or centuries ago. I'm not sure what a pissing match about who suffered more casualties has to do with anything, but he hits that point over and over.
In the five years since this book came out, the US military and the NATO alliance is stronger while the Russian military is mired in an embarrassing and devastating quagmire against an enemy it considered insignificant. That alone should send this book into the trash where it belongs.
September 18, 2019
Martyanov argues that the U.S. Army was never as strong as it thought it was. That the battles that it fought in World War II pale in comparisons with the Russian battles. He further argues that America simply out produced Japan and Germany... but that with American factory jobs moved overseas the current America superpower is built on hollow ground.
Why I started this book: I've been listening to a lot of audio this month, and this was the next book that I had lined up in my long queue.
Why I finished it: Martyanov's style was distinctive and harsh... pointing out that America is not as great as it has always thought it to be. That we glorify war because we've haven't seen it on American soil... not like the Russians did in WWII. And he does raise interesting questions about the utility of American weapons vs. their use in greasing the military-industrial procurement cycles
Why I started this book: I've been listening to a lot of audio this month, and this was the next book that I had lined up in my long queue.
Why I finished it: Martyanov's style was distinctive and harsh... pointing out that America is not as great as it has always thought it to be. That we glorify war because we've haven't seen it on American soil... not like the Russians did in WWII. And he does raise interesting questions about the utility of American weapons vs. their use in greasing the military-industrial procurement cycles
November 17, 2019
Russia can barely pay its wages, and the pensions are not living pensions, so the officers are selling on the black market the inventory. Truly a country that has surpassed the US!
May 4, 2019
I have to admit I bought this book because the title and premise were intriguing, matching some of my own concerns about the recent, current and future state of the US military. But, wow, what a crazy scenario! I'm prepared to listen to and accept criticism regarding much about our military, particularly the state and status of many of our frontline weapons, a number of which are largely obsolete now, or have never been produced after throwing hundreds of billions away because of scope creep and countless other issues. Legitimate stuff, and some criticisms I've been making for years. And there are many reasons for this, which could probably fill a number of books. Fair enough.
What I did NOT like about this book was the author's continual comparisons between US weapons and modern Russian weapons, ALWAYS gloating over Russian superiority, boasting how their navy could crush are navy like sardines, citing the fact that our most recent nuclear subs are, largely, ancient while Russia just produced eight new "state of the art" nuclear subs with "superior, world class" technology, apparently any one of which has such Superman-like powers, it could completely demolish our entire military in one shot, followed by wiping out the US with a second. Serious superiority issues, and a real attitude problem.
Okay, I lived through much of the Cold War. I've heard enough Commie propaganda over the decades, whether Soviet, Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, North Vietnamese, etc, AS WELL as most of the Arab hardliners like Saddam and Libya's and Syria's typical leaders, among many more, and the boasting, bragging and chest thumping is something that any two bit junior college analyst to identify, define, and moreover, ultimately, with many of these loud mouths, some put their money where their mouth is, and some are total bullshitters, witness Saddam, most of the traditional 20th century Arab powers, the beloved Kims, etc. And, yes, the Russians, because as has been found out in most military encounters between many US advanced weapons vs Soviet advanced weapons, typically through proxies, the Soviets have usually had their asses handed to them. And their house came crumbling down, the giant threat a house of cards. So I take it with a grain of salt when a RUSSIAN analyst starts boasting about how their few new ships could take out all of America's, for all intents and purposes, and I'd love to see the author, via Putin, try to put their money where their mouth is.
Which is not to say his criticism of the reductions in our military personnel, our loss of experience in crucial areas, such as nuclear, our lack of producing virtually any new world class advanced weaponry since the Cold War, at least in quantity, isn't entirely legitimate. It's just his snarky and frankly very odd and suspicious personal circumstances as a person and professional that make this book and it's whole "my penis is bigger than yours" infantile attitude so damn bizarre and frustrating! He's a Russian, was in their navy, left Russia, immigrated to America, became an American citizen and somehow found gainful, if unspecified, employment with some unnamed ... US defense contractor, I believe, possibly working on US weaponry, presumably naval. Now, think about that. The US lets some Russian ex-naval vet immigrate to America, magically become a US citizen, and then let him have freaking clearance to do defense work for our damn military??? Since when does THAT happen? I haven't heard of such things since the Manhattan Project, and those were largely German JEWISH scientists, who had everything to lose if they stayed in Germany. Of course they're working to defeat Hitler. But this guy is working to help the US and make our military better? All the while bragging about how much our military sucks now and how fucking awesome Russia's is??? I mean, you should read some of his claims and assertions. They're inane! He has a warped grasp on reality, particularly when bragging about Russian military technical superiority to anything the US has got. MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE WE'VE ALLOWED GODDAMN RUSSIAN SPIES TO COME WORK IN OUR DAMN DEFENSE INDUSTRY AND SABOTAGE OUR MILITARY!!!!!!! What I want to know is, who the hell approved this, who approved his application for citizenship, was he fully, let alone adequately debriefed when he came here, how many polygraphs has he been given, is his work audited, who's in on it with him, what's his REAL motive, what's his ulterior motive, who is he REALLY working for, and yet, if he's so damn obvious, he wouldn't be so damn obvious now, would he? So makes you wonder if this isn't merely IW, put on by the DoD, if the author even exists at all and we're merely playing at information warfare and propaganda games, and so many other options and possibilities. Frankly, I'm too busy with more important obligations, but if I had the luxury of time, I'd consider doing a little digging, because it seems to me that something's rotten in Denmark.
Ultimately though, let's assume the author is correct in his assessment of the wasting away of US military power, which has some truth to it. Again, fair criticisms to put forth. But the antithetical, virtually rabid, boasting, gloating, stiff dick factor for Russian military technology in its alleged superiority of everything American (which is frankly horseshit, in most cases), when he's supposed to be a US citizen working in OUR defense industry to make our military better, all the while gushing about how damn awesome Russia is and we suck??? Doesn't that strike you as odd? WTH don't we deport him back to Russia if he's got such a hardon for Putin and thinks his new country is pathetic? Why did he even bother coming here? Perchance another Oswald, a US plant? Just a thought, but then I like to conjecture all types of scenarios for most things.
Ultimately, right or wrong, propaganda or truth, the book is unreadable because the author is presented as having such a one sided superiority hangup, for the side he allegedly left. Which makes many Americans ticked off enough to stop reading the book. And so, possibly, maybe the project worked for the DIA or DARPA or RAND or whomever. It stinks too much and too obviously to be legit.
Work of fiction and not recommended. Two stars for amusement and creativity, as well as intended "mystery" scenario given to the author. Sadly, a waste of time and money.
What I did NOT like about this book was the author's continual comparisons between US weapons and modern Russian weapons, ALWAYS gloating over Russian superiority, boasting how their navy could crush are navy like sardines, citing the fact that our most recent nuclear subs are, largely, ancient while Russia just produced eight new "state of the art" nuclear subs with "superior, world class" technology, apparently any one of which has such Superman-like powers, it could completely demolish our entire military in one shot, followed by wiping out the US with a second. Serious superiority issues, and a real attitude problem.
Okay, I lived through much of the Cold War. I've heard enough Commie propaganda over the decades, whether Soviet, Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, North Vietnamese, etc, AS WELL as most of the Arab hardliners like Saddam and Libya's and Syria's typical leaders, among many more, and the boasting, bragging and chest thumping is something that any two bit junior college analyst to identify, define, and moreover, ultimately, with many of these loud mouths, some put their money where their mouth is, and some are total bullshitters, witness Saddam, most of the traditional 20th century Arab powers, the beloved Kims, etc. And, yes, the Russians, because as has been found out in most military encounters between many US advanced weapons vs Soviet advanced weapons, typically through proxies, the Soviets have usually had their asses handed to them. And their house came crumbling down, the giant threat a house of cards. So I take it with a grain of salt when a RUSSIAN analyst starts boasting about how their few new ships could take out all of America's, for all intents and purposes, and I'd love to see the author, via Putin, try to put their money where their mouth is.
Which is not to say his criticism of the reductions in our military personnel, our loss of experience in crucial areas, such as nuclear, our lack of producing virtually any new world class advanced weaponry since the Cold War, at least in quantity, isn't entirely legitimate. It's just his snarky and frankly very odd and suspicious personal circumstances as a person and professional that make this book and it's whole "my penis is bigger than yours" infantile attitude so damn bizarre and frustrating! He's a Russian, was in their navy, left Russia, immigrated to America, became an American citizen and somehow found gainful, if unspecified, employment with some unnamed ... US defense contractor, I believe, possibly working on US weaponry, presumably naval. Now, think about that. The US lets some Russian ex-naval vet immigrate to America, magically become a US citizen, and then let him have freaking clearance to do defense work for our damn military??? Since when does THAT happen? I haven't heard of such things since the Manhattan Project, and those were largely German JEWISH scientists, who had everything to lose if they stayed in Germany. Of course they're working to defeat Hitler. But this guy is working to help the US and make our military better? All the while bragging about how much our military sucks now and how fucking awesome Russia's is??? I mean, you should read some of his claims and assertions. They're inane! He has a warped grasp on reality, particularly when bragging about Russian military technical superiority to anything the US has got. MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE WE'VE ALLOWED GODDAMN RUSSIAN SPIES TO COME WORK IN OUR DAMN DEFENSE INDUSTRY AND SABOTAGE OUR MILITARY!!!!!!! What I want to know is, who the hell approved this, who approved his application for citizenship, was he fully, let alone adequately debriefed when he came here, how many polygraphs has he been given, is his work audited, who's in on it with him, what's his REAL motive, what's his ulterior motive, who is he REALLY working for, and yet, if he's so damn obvious, he wouldn't be so damn obvious now, would he? So makes you wonder if this isn't merely IW, put on by the DoD, if the author even exists at all and we're merely playing at information warfare and propaganda games, and so many other options and possibilities. Frankly, I'm too busy with more important obligations, but if I had the luxury of time, I'd consider doing a little digging, because it seems to me that something's rotten in Denmark.
Ultimately though, let's assume the author is correct in his assessment of the wasting away of US military power, which has some truth to it. Again, fair criticisms to put forth. But the antithetical, virtually rabid, boasting, gloating, stiff dick factor for Russian military technology in its alleged superiority of everything American (which is frankly horseshit, in most cases), when he's supposed to be a US citizen working in OUR defense industry to make our military better, all the while gushing about how damn awesome Russia is and we suck??? Doesn't that strike you as odd? WTH don't we deport him back to Russia if he's got such a hardon for Putin and thinks his new country is pathetic? Why did he even bother coming here? Perchance another Oswald, a US plant? Just a thought, but then I like to conjecture all types of scenarios for most things.
Ultimately, right or wrong, propaganda or truth, the book is unreadable because the author is presented as having such a one sided superiority hangup, for the side he allegedly left. Which makes many Americans ticked off enough to stop reading the book. And so, possibly, maybe the project worked for the DIA or DARPA or RAND or whomever. It stinks too much and too obviously to be legit.
Work of fiction and not recommended. Two stars for amusement and creativity, as well as intended "mystery" scenario given to the author. Sadly, a waste of time and money.
December 9, 2018
A thought-provoking and credible assessment of the state of the ongoing Russo-American arms race. The authors makes an excellent case, that the current US military and that of the Russians of the 1990s have in some ways swapped places, leaving the US substantially behind technologically. Many American readers will dismiss many of Martyanov's claims, but can they seriously deny that which is patently obvious, the long string of pointless and expensive military ventures over the last several decades?
January 31, 2021
This is an eye opening book blowing apart the myth of American supremacy, particularly military supremacy.
The low star ratings are people mad because they actually believe the US is this great country and don't want to accept what Andrei writes in the book.
The US is a failed empire in decline and China and Russia will become superpowers in the next 30 years. In Shaa Allah.
The low star ratings are people mad because they actually believe the US is this great country and don't want to accept what Andrei writes in the book.
The US is a failed empire in decline and China and Russia will become superpowers in the next 30 years. In Shaa Allah.
April 19, 2022
Superb sum-up of the already undergoing collapse of the US Terror Empire and the European return to the Dark Age it deserves.
Also, a very good intellectual tool to understand how arrogant supremacist warmongering West devilishly created the conditions to what is happening now in former-Ukraine.
Read it!
(read in Shanghai, China)
Also, a very good intellectual tool to understand how arrogant supremacist warmongering West devilishly created the conditions to what is happening now in former-Ukraine.
Read it!
(read in Shanghai, China)
October 5, 2020
essential reading
September 6, 2022
(Audiobook) Usually try to read things from different perspectives. This was one work, of a Russian analyst looking at the short-coming of the US military, especially how they didn’t account for understanding true Russia and that they are engaging in a flawed strategy and national security strategy.
In some respects, there is some good analysis here. The Russian perspective is sometimes one that we in America can miss, so this work offers that insight. Also, some of his criticisms of the US system are valid (focus on counterinsurgency vs fielded forces, lack of coherent focus, etc).
However, the obvious Russian bias is hard to remove. His discussions on the Donbas and Syria, while offering some useful tactical insight, do little to mask Russia’s own major flaws. The Donbas was quagmire even in 2018, and while they have flexed their muscles, Russia is not quite as powerful as he thinks.
This work was written based on 2018 information. The struggles of Russia in 2022 really hurt his thesis and analysis of Russian military prowess against fielded forces. Worth a read, but read with a massive, massive grain of salt.
In some respects, there is some good analysis here. The Russian perspective is sometimes one that we in America can miss, so this work offers that insight. Also, some of his criticisms of the US system are valid (focus on counterinsurgency vs fielded forces, lack of coherent focus, etc).
However, the obvious Russian bias is hard to remove. His discussions on the Donbas and Syria, while offering some useful tactical insight, do little to mask Russia’s own major flaws. The Donbas was quagmire even in 2018, and while they have flexed their muscles, Russia is not quite as powerful as he thinks.
This work was written based on 2018 information. The struggles of Russia in 2022 really hurt his thesis and analysis of Russian military prowess against fielded forces. Worth a read, but read with a massive, massive grain of salt.
July 3, 2022
Fact-based, practical critique of American military triumphalism undermined by insecure, boastful, and afactual Russian nationalism. The author is correct when he points out—repeatedly and emphatically, in case the reader misses the first few times he shouts it—that Russia bore the brunt of WW2, the US has lost most of its post-WW2 military engagements, and that US military capabilities are overpriced and underperforming.
However, the author loses credibility when he argues from arcane Russian nationalist talking points, excuses away the historically superlative human toll of the Soviet system and Russian way of war before, during, and after the Soviet Union, and dubiously counterargues the superiority of Russian arms and military virtue. Indeed, the author’s rhetorical mode when extolling the virtue of this bit of inspired Russian naval doctrine, or that bit of fearsome Russian high-tech armament, clearly owes a debt to the fetishistic swoons of Tom Clancy or Ralph Peters.
If nothing else, this book provides an introduction to the mindset of Putin and his top national security thinkers, and the reasoning that leads to military adventures in Russia’s near-abroad (Ossetia, Donbas, Ukraine), saber-rattling and cynical alliances in the Middle East, and occasional outbursts of nuclear war talk.
However, the author wasted his opportunity for an authoritative and meaningful critique by replacing one mythology of martial virtue with another, older such mythology, instead of reflecting on whether a mythology of martial virtue is a good thing in the first place.
However, the author loses credibility when he argues from arcane Russian nationalist talking points, excuses away the historically superlative human toll of the Soviet system and Russian way of war before, during, and after the Soviet Union, and dubiously counterargues the superiority of Russian arms and military virtue. Indeed, the author’s rhetorical mode when extolling the virtue of this bit of inspired Russian naval doctrine, or that bit of fearsome Russian high-tech armament, clearly owes a debt to the fetishistic swoons of Tom Clancy or Ralph Peters.
If nothing else, this book provides an introduction to the mindset of Putin and his top national security thinkers, and the reasoning that leads to military adventures in Russia’s near-abroad (Ossetia, Donbas, Ukraine), saber-rattling and cynical alliances in the Middle East, and occasional outbursts of nuclear war talk.
However, the author wasted his opportunity for an authoritative and meaningful critique by replacing one mythology of martial virtue with another, older such mythology, instead of reflecting on whether a mythology of martial virtue is a good thing in the first place.
March 1, 2023
This was really interesting read.
Author is trying to show, throughout the entire book, rather schizophrenic policy of the West, lead by US, that is constantly pushing the situation ever closer to the brink of all out war (what would current lingo identify as kinetic conflict, which is very different from I dont know cursing conflict) between West and Russia.
We are given overview of how West always had .... specific? .... view of Russians. For example, Eastern front was marginalized as a not so important while Allied operations in Western Europe, especially Italy and in Northern Africa were seen as an actual decisive fields of battle. I have to agree with the author that this is rather ridiculous, level of violence in the East ..... I am not sure if such level of losses existed anywhere except in cumulative form during Hundred Year's War or Wars of Religion. And I am not talking about the military losses but also civilian, it was horrendous. Front was extremely long, approx thousand of kilometers. To say that Germany's campaign to the East was of no consequence would be very similar to saying that Alexander the Great actually wanted a small farm in area of Carthage but he got slightly curious down after passing today's Afghanistan and he had to visit India, not that it was important ..... right..... Germans attempted invasion of vast territory and they lost, first by being unable to hold the line (how do you control hundreds of kilometers of front with relatively little reserves) against stubborn opposition (lets not forget that Russians like all of Slavs - Poles included - were marked for extermination) that finally built its strength and pushed the Germans away. Unfortunately not before Russians suffered terrible losses, military and civilian. Slowly Red Army deflected the Germans, inflicted huge losses to their army and later to German territory (whoever says that this was barbaric, picture this - Russians were on revenge path due to all horrors Germans inflicted and if you think this is savage, remember that incident couple of years back when media said how Iranians (maybe even Russians) were paying for every killed US soldier in Afghanistan? That was rumor that proved to be wrong but politicians were screaming for war and bloody revenge .... that much about objectivity, right?). By decimating German army in truly gigantic battles Russians made their way through Eastern Europe all the way to Berlin.
I was surprised by Patton and his stance on Russians but then again this was all taking place not that long after 1920's (mere 23 years) and anti-Soviet hype was at the max with WW2 coming to the end (I have to admit I thought he was different than McArthur). In any case it was obvious from the end of the WW2 that German point of view will dominate the West so very soon Eastern front was marked as trivial one, interesting, definitely difficult but not the one that played crucial role (!?!). But (talking about schizo approach) when Russians pushed their propaganda that their action in Eastern Europe was planned to relieve the Allied forces fighting in Ardennes whole hell broke loose, how dared the Reds to say that Allied forces required any assistance! I mean ridiculous....
So from the end of WW2 onward West was constantly pushing specific view of Russia - dark, backward place, there-be-dragons as old maps would say. And when Soviets fell in 1990's West took the stand of great Victor and basically treated Russia in a way one would treat defeated enemy, pushing them aside and continuing toward expansion of the West's zone of influence.
All of this would be standard vae victis approach if this was military victory. But it was not. It was combination of things, major pressure coming via economical developments, but most importantly it was agreed between West and Soviets (Russia being main force here). What happened in 1990's was disastrous but West did not want to help in any way other than extracting the wealth of this huge nation state (as was the case in all so called states in transition, from Balkans towards Poland, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgaria, Romania etc). And this upset the Russians in great manner (I mean, can you imagine why?) and over years (literary, like almost 20 years) Russia changed the stance towards the West and we get to the current point in time.
Author shows numerous examples how West constantly gave darkest possible picture of the Russia - be it through mass media or through "exiles" from Russia (Solzhenitsyin was quite a bad surprise here, I was under impression that this man was rock solid, but this book just confirms things I read from other sources, Russians (ordinary people) were completely at odds with him - he reminds me now of Iraqi diaspora that fed all the nonsense that brought the end to Iraq in 200o's, completely useless, always critical intelligentsia that is out of touch with reality). This bleak portrayal was completely off - maybe you could not buy all the goods as in Western Duty Free Shops and maybe own 4 Mercedes vehicles but life was good (especially considering the level of destruction only 30-40 years back and reconstruction of the majority of large cities). Country was industrialized, produced some of the world's technical marvels and had excellent level of education and decent standard of living (paid holidays, health care). Some of the statements of US State Department officials, think tank members and US senators about Russia that author gives in the book are outright shocking and grave insults - to say they are not diplomatic would be to say the least. To be honest I am still seeing that woman on German TV in 2022 saying how Russians are not the same as Europeans, they do not share same values and sanctity of life (what?) - I mean, hey, 2022 and [unfortunately she is German] same talk as in early 1940's?
This is where things get interesting because parallels between West (or to be precise US) and Russia are drawn.
Major difference between Russia and US is historical - US never suffered foreign invasion since it won independence, Russia waged constant wars to stay alive, from Mongols, to Swedes, French, Turks, Germans in two world wars, so-called allies in WW1 and catastrophic civil war to name the few. All of these conflicts took place on territory of Russia, with catastrophic loss of life and destruction of infrastructure. So from the very start mentality and motives behind defense requirements is different - and for some reason for US and West it is impossible to understand this (?).
Unlike the West that went in 1980's complete transformation into speculative economy with zero production and went ever deeper into that rabbit hole (with whole social upheaval that followed it), Russia aimed at reamining self-sufficient by keeping their industries (including military industry) up and running and getting modernized. What history teaches us is when one wants to keep the nation state safe it needs to build for military defense and while West led in technological sphere (especially with the electronics) they slowly lost their advantage. What happened? They stopped treating Russia as world power that is a peer level force, as a matter of fact they stopped trating her as a power in any sense. They would bring her up as a terror story to justify their own military expenses but they would treat her as constantly collapsing state that could conquer the world at any point (I mean, huh? Again that schizophrenic view of the world). US just lost touch with reality and decided that they (and their allies) are the mightiest military in the world (although as author comments, track record is very poor for the West following WW2) so they decided to push further by exiting anti ballistic missile treaty and INF treaty (logic being - I hope that there was logical reasoning - that conventionally they can subdue anyone and nuclear response is possible in limited mode). Result - when country with its own industry and technology thinks it is getting cornered by the side that starts to see nuclear launches as answer to anything (I mean nuclear launches as a response to cyber attacks, type of warfare that is most foggy and cannot be easily pinned to any party) next step is to develop weapons that will bring back the balance. And it seems that in this Russians succeeded. And they managed to succeed not only by strengthening nuclear arsenal but by building tremendous conventional arsenal with which they can confront the West.
Then they dared to step into what West considers their privilege - expeditionary force deployment in Syria, use of PMCs and demonstration of stand-off mass missile attacks on the targets way outside Russian borders. Something happened here (Syria I mean) that changed the entire perspective of the West (author mentions situation where NATO missile strike on Russia's allies in Syria was absolutely defeated thus neutering the NATO offensive capability - it could be that this type of events were the trigger) - they became, for lack of better words, rabidly Rusophobic and belligerent and took steps that just brought more instability. West's lack of strategic planning towards Russia (continuous emotional reactions to anything that was counter their plans) finally brought us to 2022 and conflict in Ukraine that threatens to escalate very rapidly into something no sane person wants (Russia's freeze of START treaty being one of the latest and direct results of West's tantrums).
Level of misunderstanding and misinterpreting Russian foreign policy is tremendous. It seems that West is projecting their own actions onto Russia and then jumps scared of that very image while not trying to figure out what are actual Russian intentions. We have West, what one might call modern Athen's League, with people, supposed to be diplomats, saying things no sane diplomat would say ever and expect respect from the other side (just take Undersecretary of State Nuland .... I mean she is a diplomat?). West did not expect (I dont think anyone did) how fierce and deadly Ukraine conflict will become. Unlike what one might call wars of assassins that were so popular from 1990's 'til 2022 with small contingent of specialists, drones, long range strikes - basically war that is good for image and unfortunately became darling of politicians because with PMCs it became very attractive to start (no official dead bodies, private forces used coupled with air force and missiles) and as easily to forget when inconvenient - current war in Ukraine is major military combined arms conflict, army fighting the army with all the firepower required. And to make things more embarrassing for the West, single technology (Baryaktar UAVs, Javelin ATMs or HIMARS MLRSs to name just the big names) plays no significant role because this is war where silver bullet does not exist, where simple and effective weapons such as automatic mortars or heavy caliber AA guns play as deadly role as million dollar single rocket. This is full scale war, with mind boggling casualty rates and frontline covered from the machine guns on the ground to ballistic missiles lobed from hundred of kilometers with high precision and in some cases hypersonic speeds. West started something that it is not ready for, something that was considered part of history and something for which lean, mean and extremely small forces are not sufficient for - actual total war.
While there was hope for stabilization of relations between West and Russia when this book was written, I think all those bridges are now burned. What West managed to do is to reorient the Russia more towards markets outside the Europe - Asia, Africa, South America.
Will the West manage to control its own actions will be indicator whether or not ICBMs will start flying around.
Very interesting book. While author has a strong Russian bias, lots of things he refers to are pointed out by many other authors and analysts in the last 20 something years. I guess that nations and alliances that start to think of themselves as messianic are definitely the most short sighted communities. And when coupled with military affairs and myths of invincibility it is just disaster in making.
Highly recommended.
Author is trying to show, throughout the entire book, rather schizophrenic policy of the West, lead by US, that is constantly pushing the situation ever closer to the brink of all out war (what would current lingo identify as kinetic conflict, which is very different from I dont know cursing conflict) between West and Russia.
We are given overview of how West always had .... specific? .... view of Russians. For example, Eastern front was marginalized as a not so important while Allied operations in Western Europe, especially Italy and in Northern Africa were seen as an actual decisive fields of battle. I have to agree with the author that this is rather ridiculous, level of violence in the East ..... I am not sure if such level of losses existed anywhere except in cumulative form during Hundred Year's War or Wars of Religion. And I am not talking about the military losses but also civilian, it was horrendous. Front was extremely long, approx thousand of kilometers. To say that Germany's campaign to the East was of no consequence would be very similar to saying that Alexander the Great actually wanted a small farm in area of Carthage but he got slightly curious down after passing today's Afghanistan and he had to visit India, not that it was important ..... right..... Germans attempted invasion of vast territory and they lost, first by being unable to hold the line (how do you control hundreds of kilometers of front with relatively little reserves) against stubborn opposition (lets not forget that Russians like all of Slavs - Poles included - were marked for extermination) that finally built its strength and pushed the Germans away. Unfortunately not before Russians suffered terrible losses, military and civilian. Slowly Red Army deflected the Germans, inflicted huge losses to their army and later to German territory (whoever says that this was barbaric, picture this - Russians were on revenge path due to all horrors Germans inflicted and if you think this is savage, remember that incident couple of years back when media said how Iranians (maybe even Russians) were paying for every killed US soldier in Afghanistan? That was rumor that proved to be wrong but politicians were screaming for war and bloody revenge .... that much about objectivity, right?). By decimating German army in truly gigantic battles Russians made their way through Eastern Europe all the way to Berlin.
I was surprised by Patton and his stance on Russians but then again this was all taking place not that long after 1920's (mere 23 years) and anti-Soviet hype was at the max with WW2 coming to the end (I have to admit I thought he was different than McArthur). In any case it was obvious from the end of the WW2 that German point of view will dominate the West so very soon Eastern front was marked as trivial one, interesting, definitely difficult but not the one that played crucial role (!?!). But (talking about schizo approach) when Russians pushed their propaganda that their action in Eastern Europe was planned to relieve the Allied forces fighting in Ardennes whole hell broke loose, how dared the Reds to say that Allied forces required any assistance! I mean ridiculous....
So from the end of WW2 onward West was constantly pushing specific view of Russia - dark, backward place, there-be-dragons as old maps would say. And when Soviets fell in 1990's West took the stand of great Victor and basically treated Russia in a way one would treat defeated enemy, pushing them aside and continuing toward expansion of the West's zone of influence.
All of this would be standard vae victis approach if this was military victory. But it was not. It was combination of things, major pressure coming via economical developments, but most importantly it was agreed between West and Soviets (Russia being main force here). What happened in 1990's was disastrous but West did not want to help in any way other than extracting the wealth of this huge nation state (as was the case in all so called states in transition, from Balkans towards Poland, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgaria, Romania etc). And this upset the Russians in great manner (I mean, can you imagine why?) and over years (literary, like almost 20 years) Russia changed the stance towards the West and we get to the current point in time.
Author shows numerous examples how West constantly gave darkest possible picture of the Russia - be it through mass media or through "exiles" from Russia (Solzhenitsyin was quite a bad surprise here, I was under impression that this man was rock solid, but this book just confirms things I read from other sources, Russians (ordinary people) were completely at odds with him - he reminds me now of Iraqi diaspora that fed all the nonsense that brought the end to Iraq in 200o's, completely useless, always critical intelligentsia that is out of touch with reality). This bleak portrayal was completely off - maybe you could not buy all the goods as in Western Duty Free Shops and maybe own 4 Mercedes vehicles but life was good (especially considering the level of destruction only 30-40 years back and reconstruction of the majority of large cities). Country was industrialized, produced some of the world's technical marvels and had excellent level of education and decent standard of living (paid holidays, health care). Some of the statements of US State Department officials, think tank members and US senators about Russia that author gives in the book are outright shocking and grave insults - to say they are not diplomatic would be to say the least. To be honest I am still seeing that woman on German TV in 2022 saying how Russians are not the same as Europeans, they do not share same values and sanctity of life (what?) - I mean, hey, 2022 and [unfortunately she is German] same talk as in early 1940's?
This is where things get interesting because parallels between West (or to be precise US) and Russia are drawn.
Major difference between Russia and US is historical - US never suffered foreign invasion since it won independence, Russia waged constant wars to stay alive, from Mongols, to Swedes, French, Turks, Germans in two world wars, so-called allies in WW1 and catastrophic civil war to name the few. All of these conflicts took place on territory of Russia, with catastrophic loss of life and destruction of infrastructure. So from the very start mentality and motives behind defense requirements is different - and for some reason for US and West it is impossible to understand this (?).
Unlike the West that went in 1980's complete transformation into speculative economy with zero production and went ever deeper into that rabbit hole (with whole social upheaval that followed it), Russia aimed at reamining self-sufficient by keeping their industries (including military industry) up and running and getting modernized. What history teaches us is when one wants to keep the nation state safe it needs to build for military defense and while West led in technological sphere (especially with the electronics) they slowly lost their advantage. What happened? They stopped treating Russia as world power that is a peer level force, as a matter of fact they stopped trating her as a power in any sense. They would bring her up as a terror story to justify their own military expenses but they would treat her as constantly collapsing state that could conquer the world at any point (I mean, huh? Again that schizophrenic view of the world). US just lost touch with reality and decided that they (and their allies) are the mightiest military in the world (although as author comments, track record is very poor for the West following WW2) so they decided to push further by exiting anti ballistic missile treaty and INF treaty (logic being - I hope that there was logical reasoning - that conventionally they can subdue anyone and nuclear response is possible in limited mode). Result - when country with its own industry and technology thinks it is getting cornered by the side that starts to see nuclear launches as answer to anything (I mean nuclear launches as a response to cyber attacks, type of warfare that is most foggy and cannot be easily pinned to any party) next step is to develop weapons that will bring back the balance. And it seems that in this Russians succeeded. And they managed to succeed not only by strengthening nuclear arsenal but by building tremendous conventional arsenal with which they can confront the West.
Then they dared to step into what West considers their privilege - expeditionary force deployment in Syria, use of PMCs and demonstration of stand-off mass missile attacks on the targets way outside Russian borders. Something happened here (Syria I mean) that changed the entire perspective of the West (author mentions situation where NATO missile strike on Russia's allies in Syria was absolutely defeated thus neutering the NATO offensive capability - it could be that this type of events were the trigger) - they became, for lack of better words, rabidly Rusophobic and belligerent and took steps that just brought more instability. West's lack of strategic planning towards Russia (continuous emotional reactions to anything that was counter their plans) finally brought us to 2022 and conflict in Ukraine that threatens to escalate very rapidly into something no sane person wants (Russia's freeze of START treaty being one of the latest and direct results of West's tantrums).
Level of misunderstanding and misinterpreting Russian foreign policy is tremendous. It seems that West is projecting their own actions onto Russia and then jumps scared of that very image while not trying to figure out what are actual Russian intentions. We have West, what one might call modern Athen's League, with people, supposed to be diplomats, saying things no sane diplomat would say ever and expect respect from the other side (just take Undersecretary of State Nuland .... I mean she is a diplomat?). West did not expect (I dont think anyone did) how fierce and deadly Ukraine conflict will become. Unlike what one might call wars of assassins that were so popular from 1990's 'til 2022 with small contingent of specialists, drones, long range strikes - basically war that is good for image and unfortunately became darling of politicians because with PMCs it became very attractive to start (no official dead bodies, private forces used coupled with air force and missiles) and as easily to forget when inconvenient - current war in Ukraine is major military combined arms conflict, army fighting the army with all the firepower required. And to make things more embarrassing for the West, single technology (Baryaktar UAVs, Javelin ATMs or HIMARS MLRSs to name just the big names) plays no significant role because this is war where silver bullet does not exist, where simple and effective weapons such as automatic mortars or heavy caliber AA guns play as deadly role as million dollar single rocket. This is full scale war, with mind boggling casualty rates and frontline covered from the machine guns on the ground to ballistic missiles lobed from hundred of kilometers with high precision and in some cases hypersonic speeds. West started something that it is not ready for, something that was considered part of history and something for which lean, mean and extremely small forces are not sufficient for - actual total war.
While there was hope for stabilization of relations between West and Russia when this book was written, I think all those bridges are now burned. What West managed to do is to reorient the Russia more towards markets outside the Europe - Asia, Africa, South America.
Will the West manage to control its own actions will be indicator whether or not ICBMs will start flying around.
Very interesting book. While author has a strong Russian bias, lots of things he refers to are pointed out by many other authors and analysts in the last 20 something years. I guess that nations and alliances that start to think of themselves as messianic are definitely the most short sighted communities. And when coupled with military affairs and myths of invincibility it is just disaster in making.
Highly recommended.
June 19, 2021
Somber reading, and essential to make some sense of this crazy world we live in.
Maybe know from the outset that this is a book that presents the Russians as levelheaded realists doing their best to defend their country and their people's right to exist (and it was they who really won WWII) and the United States and American politics as the full-blown irresponsible, crazy, incompetent idiots who are doing everything in their power to destroy the world. The author keeps hammering this line of reasoning, which is not, huh, the more consensual one could adopt, throughout the book, almost every page of it, with not exactly what I would consider great subtlety, so in the end, what we have here is a manifest. I found it riveting, for me the approach was novel and intriguing, and the points being hammered made sense. But that's me!
Other point of the book is that the Russians are decades ahead of the Americans in weapons development and delivery. Meaning specifically that in case of war, specifically without the use of nuclear options which would mean MAD, the Russians would EASILY win any war against the Americans, because their arsenal is exponentially more powerful and effective. This also is not something one expects to be so vehemently ascertained, and it's also interesting to explore. (Me again!)
About American politics real understanding of Russians: "(...) a peculiar brand of American geopolitical “realism” began to emerge. As one of its fathers, Hans Morgenthau, would tell his audience at the US Naval War College in 1957, while giving the Spruance Lecture: 'I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today.' Here it was, indeed, a much more honest, albeit ominous approach which, realistically, had very little to do with Stalin or Communism. Here was a complete rejection by the combined West of Russia and Russians as such—irrespective of Western anti-communism—an attitude not uncommon in the West today, despite the fact that this very West, for all intents and purposes, was saved from itself by those very same Russians."
Also: "Americans’ bizarre reduction of its view of an extremely complex, huge and diverse society such as Soviet Russia into a simple black and white picture fit naturally into the American view of the world in general, since American history was shaped to a large degree by a Manichean worldview of good guys vs. bad guys."
And: "Three years prior to Putin’s Munich speech, Karl Rove summarized the essence of US foreign policy in his now famous dictum: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” In some sense it was a very contemporary American statement insofar as it was offered by a man who had no background, skills, education or life experience whatsoever in the fields which define real national power, a pattern which today defines US decision making. It was offered by a political operative with a major in political science, a discipline which hasn’t fared that well as a “science” and has a rather startling record of failures in its forecasts."
There's a lot to quote, let's drop this one and call it a day: "Pax Americana turned out to be just a figment of imagination of the American “academe” which for decades treated war and military power as merely a safe tool in the constant pushing of the American political and economic agenda on the world. This age is over. The main task today is to prevent by all means any possibility of this delusional, self-proclaimed exceptional nation unleashing Armageddon because of frustration with its own weakness which was so suddenly and brutally exposed for the whole world to see."
Final notes: I've found out about Martyanov from articles by Pepe Escobar; the audiobook, produced by Blackstone Audiobooks, is read by Stefan Rudnicki, so it gains Rudnicki's gravitas (if Stefan Rudnicki were to read the phonebook, it would come across as the Bible...; it's a pity that I'll be forced to actually read the next two books in Martyanov's trilogy about the zeitgeist of the superpower relations, instead of hearing them read by the likes of Rudnicki).
Maybe know from the outset that this is a book that presents the Russians as levelheaded realists doing their best to defend their country and their people's right to exist (and it was they who really won WWII) and the United States and American politics as the full-blown irresponsible, crazy, incompetent idiots who are doing everything in their power to destroy the world. The author keeps hammering this line of reasoning, which is not, huh, the more consensual one could adopt, throughout the book, almost every page of it, with not exactly what I would consider great subtlety, so in the end, what we have here is a manifest. I found it riveting, for me the approach was novel and intriguing, and the points being hammered made sense. But that's me!
Other point of the book is that the Russians are decades ahead of the Americans in weapons development and delivery. Meaning specifically that in case of war, specifically without the use of nuclear options which would mean MAD, the Russians would EASILY win any war against the Americans, because their arsenal is exponentially more powerful and effective. This also is not something one expects to be so vehemently ascertained, and it's also interesting to explore. (Me again!)
About American politics real understanding of Russians: "(...) a peculiar brand of American geopolitical “realism” began to emerge. As one of its fathers, Hans Morgenthau, would tell his audience at the US Naval War College in 1957, while giving the Spruance Lecture: 'I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today.' Here it was, indeed, a much more honest, albeit ominous approach which, realistically, had very little to do with Stalin or Communism. Here was a complete rejection by the combined West of Russia and Russians as such—irrespective of Western anti-communism—an attitude not uncommon in the West today, despite the fact that this very West, for all intents and purposes, was saved from itself by those very same Russians."
Also: "Americans’ bizarre reduction of its view of an extremely complex, huge and diverse society such as Soviet Russia into a simple black and white picture fit naturally into the American view of the world in general, since American history was shaped to a large degree by a Manichean worldview of good guys vs. bad guys."
And: "Three years prior to Putin’s Munich speech, Karl Rove summarized the essence of US foreign policy in his now famous dictum: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” In some sense it was a very contemporary American statement insofar as it was offered by a man who had no background, skills, education or life experience whatsoever in the fields which define real national power, a pattern which today defines US decision making. It was offered by a political operative with a major in political science, a discipline which hasn’t fared that well as a “science” and has a rather startling record of failures in its forecasts."
There's a lot to quote, let's drop this one and call it a day: "Pax Americana turned out to be just a figment of imagination of the American “academe” which for decades treated war and military power as merely a safe tool in the constant pushing of the American political and economic agenda on the world. This age is over. The main task today is to prevent by all means any possibility of this delusional, self-proclaimed exceptional nation unleashing Armageddon because of frustration with its own weakness which was so suddenly and brutally exposed for the whole world to see."
Final notes: I've found out about Martyanov from articles by Pepe Escobar; the audiobook, produced by Blackstone Audiobooks, is read by Stefan Rudnicki, so it gains Rudnicki's gravitas (if Stefan Rudnicki were to read the phonebook, it would come across as the Bible...; it's a pity that I'll be forced to actually read the next two books in Martyanov's trilogy about the zeitgeist of the superpower relations, instead of hearing them read by the likes of Rudnicki).
October 29, 2021
Theres's space for a book like this, critiquing decisions by the US military and strategic planning community. Such a book shouldn't mince words, should provide ample technical detail and cover the historical context of bad decision making. Unfortunately, this is not that book.
The main theme of 'Losing Military Supremacy' is that the American armed forces are grossly overrated, and have been corrupted by a sense of unearned national pride. World War Two and the Gulf War have taught all the wrong lessons, and America now boasts a grossly overrated (and overpriced) military.
However, the author spends vanishingly few words providing any kind of novel or interesting analysis on how American weapons systems, doctrine, organization or strategy are woefully ill-prepared for 21st century war fighting. Instead, most of the book is a polemic, criticizing everything American, and praising everything Russian. American forces did little to fight Hitler in WW2, American school children are bad at science and ignorant of history, America treats war like a sport, American foreign policy is dominated by effete Ivy League elites and Tom Clancy aficionados, American society is rotting due to permissive attitudes towards LGBT (yes, there is a rant about this)... Conversely, Russian children are smart and tough, Russian hardware is not only superior in all respects- but great value for money, the Russian people happily forgo consumer goods for defense spending because they are noble patriots... It's also poorly written; phrases like "it is believed..." or "many have argued" do a lot of the heavy lifting within the text. Lazy phrases like "social justice warriors" are used. Random quotes from conservative columnists, politicians, junior officers and pop-politics book authors are conflated to represent the views of the ever nebulous "political and strategic elite". Perhaps most irritating are the juvenile, snide, parenthetically comments; claims that the DC ThinkTank establishment is in the pocket of Israel, South Korea's armed forces would be crushed by the North, Stalin's gulags is comparable to the American prison system, and so on. It's one thing to make an argument for such viewpoints, however no effort is made to support this endless stream of ridiculous one-shot opinions.
It's a shame. The author has a number of good points, but the density of cheap-shots rises as the book goes on. The early chapters comparing the Soviet and American experiences from 1812 (when both Russia and the United were invaded) to WW2 make some excellent points. The authors contrast of the American and Russian / Soviet educational systems approach towards technical subjects is similarly a valid and (unfortunately) rare perspective.
Ultimately, the potential for an interesting and relevant book is wasted. The author's biases are too strong, and his simmering resentment of American foreign policy and liberalism in general boils over to spoil the text all too often. The books central thesis is ironically obfuscated by the Author's own national pride.
The main theme of 'Losing Military Supremacy' is that the American armed forces are grossly overrated, and have been corrupted by a sense of unearned national pride. World War Two and the Gulf War have taught all the wrong lessons, and America now boasts a grossly overrated (and overpriced) military.
However, the author spends vanishingly few words providing any kind of novel or interesting analysis on how American weapons systems, doctrine, organization or strategy are woefully ill-prepared for 21st century war fighting. Instead, most of the book is a polemic, criticizing everything American, and praising everything Russian. American forces did little to fight Hitler in WW2, American school children are bad at science and ignorant of history, America treats war like a sport, American foreign policy is dominated by effete Ivy League elites and Tom Clancy aficionados, American society is rotting due to permissive attitudes towards LGBT (yes, there is a rant about this)... Conversely, Russian children are smart and tough, Russian hardware is not only superior in all respects- but great value for money, the Russian people happily forgo consumer goods for defense spending because they are noble patriots... It's also poorly written; phrases like "it is believed..." or "many have argued" do a lot of the heavy lifting within the text. Lazy phrases like "social justice warriors" are used. Random quotes from conservative columnists, politicians, junior officers and pop-politics book authors are conflated to represent the views of the ever nebulous "political and strategic elite". Perhaps most irritating are the juvenile, snide, parenthetically comments; claims that the DC ThinkTank establishment is in the pocket of Israel, South Korea's armed forces would be crushed by the North, Stalin's gulags is comparable to the American prison system, and so on. It's one thing to make an argument for such viewpoints, however no effort is made to support this endless stream of ridiculous one-shot opinions.
It's a shame. The author has a number of good points, but the density of cheap-shots rises as the book goes on. The early chapters comparing the Soviet and American experiences from 1812 (when both Russia and the United were invaded) to WW2 make some excellent points. The authors contrast of the American and Russian / Soviet educational systems approach towards technical subjects is similarly a valid and (unfortunately) rare perspective.
Ultimately, the potential for an interesting and relevant book is wasted. The author's biases are too strong, and his simmering resentment of American foreign policy and liberalism in general boils over to spoil the text all too often. The books central thesis is ironically obfuscated by the Author's own national pride.
May 10, 2022
Great book - a must read for any interested in military affairs
March 10, 2022
Predicted American Delusion
This book predicted the actions to where we are today as of March 2022. The Americans and NATO’s delusion of its own exceptionalism has antagonised the Russians to the point of them having to take military action in Ukraine to defend Russia’s own borders. Please god USA tell Ukraine to take joining NATO out of its constitution!
This book predicted the actions to where we are today as of March 2022. The Americans and NATO’s delusion of its own exceptionalism has antagonised the Russians to the point of them having to take military action in Ukraine to defend Russia’s own borders. Please god USA tell Ukraine to take joining NATO out of its constitution!
March 11, 2023
A book that provides succinctly the Russian perspective on America's place in the world. A useful counter-balance to the pro-NATO narrative. Some interesting details in here like some Americnas from Kentucky wanted to volunteer to fight with Russia in the Crimean War.
March 14, 2021
Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning by Andrei Martyanov is a relatively bitter form of apologia for Soviet Military History and modern Russian strategic sensibilities wrapped in a nakedly hostile account of the United States and its military capabilities. It is one of the least charitable works that I've finished regarding US military capabilities. Martyanov is a former Soviet coast guard serviceman, and moved to the United States during the 1990s. It is unclear to me whether or not he remains in the US, but it is pretty clear that he still maintains substantial sympathies to his Soviet upbringing. This book, while aiming to be a harsh critique, is aimed mostly at ego-busting proponents of US power. Elements of his argument can be gleamed from other US skeptics of American military prowess, and as such the narrative is both familiar and foreign.
Martyanov has a nasty habit of digressions that serve little to his purpose, and if anything undermine it. Going after Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn comes across as rather nakedly apologetic. Why didn't the man writing a book that was meant to demonstrate the horrors of the Gulag and the Soviet System give it a fair hearing? Why not mention all the good things the Soviets did? His numbers are off, the Soviet archives say that it is so. Oh man... That was hard to work my way through. He has a hatred for Patton, and is anti-Churchillian as well. He is quite apologetic about the Soviet system and its capabilities, and is unrelenting in using it as something to provide contrast to the US, which nearly always fails to measure up to the idealized vision of the Soviets he puts forward. Some references to a deep state were also particularly... distressing.
In fact, much of his pedagogy is self-defeating from a perspective of being persuasive. Russia is a defensive actor, its involvement in Ukraine was because of a Western backed coup, one where Obama deluded himself into thinking that Ukrainian forces could destroy Russians in Donbass. The Russia-Georgia conflict was a clear manifestation of Russian superiority over the west. Russians have spent years learning Newtonian physics before even arriving at university, while most Americans can barely even understand the basics of baby science. There was even an unironic endorsement of peace through compulsion, which is the Russian tool of employing force to extract concessions and compel others to follow their will as a natural, even sensible, way to get the Americans to pay attention.
The Americans themselves are, of course, a people that have never suffered from War. They are a population of idiots duped by self-styled experts who know nothing of the real world they attempt to control. Neoconservatives, rather than being a class of people you can identify, is instead the entire Bacevichian New American militarism school. We, apparently, have untrusting belief in the power and prowess of our military, lording it over other nations, only to become vengeful and destructive in our use of said power. We're a deluded nation, in his view, that is no longer even a nation. Detached, deluded elites. A moronic population that avoids hardship, seeks pleasure, and is no longer the envy of any in the world coasting on past glories. A nation that might have had a national identity, but one that is repeatedly repudiating that identity in favor of increasingly narrowed coalitions of fringe ethno-centric movements that are at war with the very idea that the US is a western nation, and indeed a left that has abandoned traditional liberalism. A right under the sway of corrupt corporatists coasting off of the inertia of better days, rearing to go to war with an outdated view of military capabilities, and fighting to defend values that the country has long since abandoned.
The US is a hot mess destined for mediocrity, one where its lead will erode to nothing. Russia is the superior country, one that knows what its doing, and merely is doing what it can to ensure the US does not destroy the world as its illusion of supremacy is demonstrated to be the chimera that it always was.
It is, if anything, a distillation of what we might find in the RT television station.
So what do I think of the polemic? Its severely lacking, but I don't regret reading it. Particularly since it was free.
There is often a utility in understanding what another side is saying, even if their reasoning seems both specious and highly motivated. I honestly can't tell if he's frustrated and wants to improve the US military capability, or if this is simply a bitter, vengeful text that is meant to sway a particular segment of the US public. There's a sense of desperation to the text, but it is notoriously difficult to judge sincerity in a text like this.
So, I have chosen to read this in the same way I would read a red-team analysis of what an enemy might think of the United States. There's enough here to think about, even if we are swept away to the misty realm of fantasy land where fact and fiction are merged into a soup of dubious reality.
That said, even by that minimal standard, this book could use quite a lot of work.
73/100
Martyanov has a nasty habit of digressions that serve little to his purpose, and if anything undermine it. Going after Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn comes across as rather nakedly apologetic. Why didn't the man writing a book that was meant to demonstrate the horrors of the Gulag and the Soviet System give it a fair hearing? Why not mention all the good things the Soviets did? His numbers are off, the Soviet archives say that it is so. Oh man... That was hard to work my way through. He has a hatred for Patton, and is anti-Churchillian as well. He is quite apologetic about the Soviet system and its capabilities, and is unrelenting in using it as something to provide contrast to the US, which nearly always fails to measure up to the idealized vision of the Soviets he puts forward. Some references to a deep state were also particularly... distressing.
In fact, much of his pedagogy is self-defeating from a perspective of being persuasive. Russia is a defensive actor, its involvement in Ukraine was because of a Western backed coup, one where Obama deluded himself into thinking that Ukrainian forces could destroy Russians in Donbass. The Russia-Georgia conflict was a clear manifestation of Russian superiority over the west. Russians have spent years learning Newtonian physics before even arriving at university, while most Americans can barely even understand the basics of baby science. There was even an unironic endorsement of peace through compulsion, which is the Russian tool of employing force to extract concessions and compel others to follow their will as a natural, even sensible, way to get the Americans to pay attention.
The Americans themselves are, of course, a people that have never suffered from War. They are a population of idiots duped by self-styled experts who know nothing of the real world they attempt to control. Neoconservatives, rather than being a class of people you can identify, is instead the entire Bacevichian New American militarism school. We, apparently, have untrusting belief in the power and prowess of our military, lording it over other nations, only to become vengeful and destructive in our use of said power. We're a deluded nation, in his view, that is no longer even a nation. Detached, deluded elites. A moronic population that avoids hardship, seeks pleasure, and is no longer the envy of any in the world coasting on past glories. A nation that might have had a national identity, but one that is repeatedly repudiating that identity in favor of increasingly narrowed coalitions of fringe ethno-centric movements that are at war with the very idea that the US is a western nation, and indeed a left that has abandoned traditional liberalism. A right under the sway of corrupt corporatists coasting off of the inertia of better days, rearing to go to war with an outdated view of military capabilities, and fighting to defend values that the country has long since abandoned.
The US is a hot mess destined for mediocrity, one where its lead will erode to nothing. Russia is the superior country, one that knows what its doing, and merely is doing what it can to ensure the US does not destroy the world as its illusion of supremacy is demonstrated to be the chimera that it always was.
It is, if anything, a distillation of what we might find in the RT television station.
So what do I think of the polemic? Its severely lacking, but I don't regret reading it. Particularly since it was free.
There is often a utility in understanding what another side is saying, even if their reasoning seems both specious and highly motivated. I honestly can't tell if he's frustrated and wants to improve the US military capability, or if this is simply a bitter, vengeful text that is meant to sway a particular segment of the US public. There's a sense of desperation to the text, but it is notoriously difficult to judge sincerity in a text like this.
So, I have chosen to read this in the same way I would read a red-team analysis of what an enemy might think of the United States. There's enough here to think about, even if we are swept away to the misty realm of fantasy land where fact and fiction are merged into a soup of dubious reality.
That said, even by that minimal standard, this book could use quite a lot of work.
73/100
May 24, 2023
It's ironic Martyanov suffers from some of the same problems he accuses Americans of. If you can ignore his overly benevolent view of Stalin and his overly derogatory view of Solzhenitsyn the book is still worth reading and has some very interesting points that have been proven true over the past years worth of fighting in Ukraine.
When the elites of your own country do nothing but lie it makes you trust those opinions who run counter to the narrative just because they are different. However, due to recent events and a bit of common sense (ie extremely fast missiles launched from extreme range negate aircraft battle groups) Martyanov is more right then one would like to admit who has foolishly believed the common narrative that the US is a benign hegemon and we have the best military in history.
Most of this book was not new to me. I already new that the US's role in the defeat of Nazi Germany was rather small compared to the USSR which dealt Germany 77% of their permanent casualties. I knew Patton was a windbag. And I knew US weapon system in Ukraine were faring poorly and Russia completely outclasses us with missiles and air defense. I was also familiar with Russia's superior education system especially in the engineering field and it is quite obvious to anyone with any sense that the US elites are both imbeciles.
If I had read this before 2021 I would have been shocked.
One eye opening aspect of the book was putting more details and another perspective to that which I already new. Further confirmation that it was Russia who defeated ISIS in Syria and some Al-Qaida groups as well was interesting. Also of note was in 2018 I believe the US,UK, and France launched a bunch of missiles at Syria and with Russia's help Syria shot down 70 of them. The government hid this info from Trump.
Also helpful and insightful was Russia's changing perspective since the 1990. Russia initial greeted us with open hearts but that changed when we bombed Serbia in 1999. In 2001 they opened up to us again proving how soft hearted they are but our idiotic invasion in 2003 blew this chance of friendship away. In 2008 when we did to Georgia what we are now doing to Ukraine that really opened up their eyes. Every action we have taken since 2014 has reinforced Russian PTSD of being invaded yet again by the west and rightly so. They have defeated Napoleon, Hitler, Communism, and we should be the easiest totalitarians to beat yet.
It is undisputed the US is full of arrogant imbeciles. Russia is capable of giving us a good solid beat down and maybe this is just what we need.
When the elites of your own country do nothing but lie it makes you trust those opinions who run counter to the narrative just because they are different. However, due to recent events and a bit of common sense (ie extremely fast missiles launched from extreme range negate aircraft battle groups) Martyanov is more right then one would like to admit who has foolishly believed the common narrative that the US is a benign hegemon and we have the best military in history.
Most of this book was not new to me. I already new that the US's role in the defeat of Nazi Germany was rather small compared to the USSR which dealt Germany 77% of their permanent casualties. I knew Patton was a windbag. And I knew US weapon system in Ukraine were faring poorly and Russia completely outclasses us with missiles and air defense. I was also familiar with Russia's superior education system especially in the engineering field and it is quite obvious to anyone with any sense that the US elites are both imbeciles.
If I had read this before 2021 I would have been shocked.
One eye opening aspect of the book was putting more details and another perspective to that which I already new. Further confirmation that it was Russia who defeated ISIS in Syria and some Al-Qaida groups as well was interesting. Also of note was in 2018 I believe the US,UK, and France launched a bunch of missiles at Syria and with Russia's help Syria shot down 70 of them. The government hid this info from Trump.
Also helpful and insightful was Russia's changing perspective since the 1990. Russia initial greeted us with open hearts but that changed when we bombed Serbia in 1999. In 2001 they opened up to us again proving how soft hearted they are but our idiotic invasion in 2003 blew this chance of friendship away. In 2008 when we did to Georgia what we are now doing to Ukraine that really opened up their eyes. Every action we have taken since 2014 has reinforced Russian PTSD of being invaded yet again by the west and rightly so. They have defeated Napoleon, Hitler, Communism, and we should be the easiest totalitarians to beat yet.
It is undisputed the US is full of arrogant imbeciles. Russia is capable of giving us a good solid beat down and maybe this is just what we need.
August 31, 2022
Martyanov is a lucky man who makes the right diagnosis with the wrong set of evidence. Deficiencies in American strategic planning have been buoyed by economic might for too long, and the exceptionalist attitude that permeates all the way to the top of the political heap is keeping us from acting swiftly in advanced technological domains. Is Russia to fear? Sometimes, but not as the author might suggest when we behold the growth of China in comparison. The Soviet pride suffusing this book is of the same ilk as that which it criticizes.
October 30, 2021
Propaganda from the other side, although not unbiased, is sometimes useful in counterbalancing the complacency and hubris of the American point of view. It sort of gives the reader a slap in the face and wakes him up out of the nightmare scenario of the United States’ grasp under stretching its reach.
Martyanov can go off on some annoyingly vitriolic anti-American “my weapon is bigger than yours” ranting at times, but nonetheless an engaging alternative point of view.
Martyanov can go off on some annoyingly vitriolic anti-American “my weapon is bigger than yours” ranting at times, but nonetheless an engaging alternative point of view.
July 3, 2022
Required reading
This should be required reading for anyone running for Congress, or working for the State Department. I cannot overstate its importance. It proves that the US cannot win against Russia in Europe except through mutually assured destruction. Russia can rain destruction on America 's heartland with conventional weapons. Fortunately, Russia has no intention to attack the US. The problem is US intentions towards Russia.
This should be required reading for anyone running for Congress, or working for the State Department. I cannot overstate its importance. It proves that the US cannot win against Russia in Europe except through mutually assured destruction. Russia can rain destruction on America 's heartland with conventional weapons. Fortunately, Russia has no intention to attack the US. The problem is US intentions towards Russia.
May 6, 2023
An excellent description of the state of mind of the US and Russia as well as the state of art of the military, economy and education in both countries. It predicted a lot of what we are seeing now in Ukraine. Not recommended for neo(liberal)-cons or Straussians who are not ready for a multipolar world.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 12, 2023
This is the first book in the triptych about the current state of the US, and its military.
The two later ones («The real revolution and military affairs», and «Disintegration») were my favorites, though this is still very much worth a read.
The two later ones («The real revolution and military affairs», and «Disintegration») were my favorites, though this is still very much worth a read.
Read
October 21, 2019Sober and informative
A well written and well researched treatise. Depressingly informative, a good window into the decline of American power and influence.
A well written and well researched treatise. Depressingly informative, a good window into the decline of American power and influence.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews