The above video, from Vesti News, depicts the Russian Avangard first mentioned by Putin last March in his speech to the Federal Assembly. Back then it was poopoohed by the US msm and officialdom in Washington. Now it has been tested and they are no longer laughing. But instead of coming clean and suggesting a rapprochement with Moscow, the old die-hards are pretending they can stop it from outer space and are poised to spend trillions in tax monies to launch a brand-new boondoggle, bringing the US closer to the brink. Hold on to your hats, folks!
Our translation from rueconomics.ru of an analysis by Israeli-Russian expert Yakov Kedmi follows below with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
Let’s look how the msm and US military treated the Avangard when Putin first announced it, For example, the venerable magazine Time mocked Putin’s report:
“But could any of those weapons work in the real world? And even if they did work, should American citizens be concerned by Putin’s new claims? The answer from the U.S. government appears to be: No.”
Unfortunately, in December 2018, Russia tested the Avangard successfully, and then, as everyone should have known back in March when Putin first revealed the weapon, the US military changed its tune:
“We don’t have any defence that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us,” said US Air Force General John E. Hyten, the Commander of US Strategic Command…”
Kedmi’s analysis, indicating that the US’ new Star Wars version is just a bluff, makes perfect sense from a scientific standpoint. The new US Star Wars plan is a scam intended to send more trillions to the arms industry in exchange for their supporting the corrupt candidates who waste taxpayer cash on their boondoggles under the pretext that the Russian bogyman is planning to blow us all up. As one Russian analyst puts it, even from outer space, no one, even with the most sophisticated system, would be able to successfully target and kill a vehicle moving at 27 times the speed of sound. By the time the computer of the kill vehicle were able to calculate the coordinates of the Avangard, for example, it would be running away at a speed several times greater than the starting speed of the kill missile and on top of that, the Avangard zigzags in an unpredictable trajectory, so even in the unlikely scenario that the kill vehicle were able to somehow miraculously catch up, the Avangard would no longer be in the same calculated trajectory and the defending missile would fly uselessly into the void. Checkmate.
Of course, from the Russian standpoint, the more dollars the US wastes on useless space-deployed armaments, the closer the US Treasury comes to total bankruptcy – making the US less of a threat to the world. Incidentally, one analyst, James Howard Kunstler, predicts that 2019 will see the final collapse of the US economy. Now since Kunstler does not provide a detailed explanation for his prediction, you might call it mere speculation. However, he does mention fracking in this context, saying that this extraction process will lead the way to the collapse. Which makes me take him somewhat seriously. I had explained previously why, from a scientific standpoint, fracking – on which the government is pinning all its hopes for the economy – could never be profitable under any circumstances and was a boondoggle from the get-go. In that analysis, I stated:
1--extraction of gas or oil by fracking is an expensive process and will make the product less competitive than a product obtained without the use of it, that is, the product obtained from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya or Russia (and yes, maybe even from Venezuela) that is obtained without the cost-adding process of fracking.
2—Oil or gas wells extracted by fracking [are old depleted wells and--NSS] therefore have a shorter useful life and require more-frequent drilling and/or reprocessing.
An article by Nick Cunningham posted at oilprice.com discusses this issue in some detail:
“… shale wells typically see production deplete by 70 to 90 percent in the first three years, while fields see output drop off by about 20 to 40 percent per year without new drilling.
“That means that the industry has to constantly plough more money back into production, just to keep output flat.
“At the same time, not every shale well is the same. The core areas, or “sweet spots,” typically make up just 20 percent of a given shale play. When shale drillers move beyond the core, they tend to post less impressive production figures.”
By contrast, cpr org says the average lifespan of a fresh, non-depleted oil and gas well is 12 yr. Thus to expect that fracking can compete with extraction from a virgin well is just plain stupid.
“While [fracked] shale gas wells have a long life, they drop down to about 10% of their initial production after about 5 years or so.”
Jacqueline George, Author of Fracking 101 A Beginner's Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing
answered a Quora question as follows:
“I’m not going to stick my neck out too far on this one because we don’t yet have the evidence for modern horizontal wells. I can say that the production flush for a new shale well is very short lived and by two years the wells are typically limping along.” [Since the industry is in its infancy, the estimates vary between about 2 and 3 years for fracked wells. NSS]
This real-world science-based info on fracking is why the purely economic picture looks so dismal so far, with most US oil operations running in the red or showing near-negligible profits, as reported, for example, here.
Further, oilprice.com says:
“Diamondback Energy and Continental Resources had breakeven prices at about $52 and $37 per barrel in the third quarter, respectively, according to the Al Rajhi report. Parsley Energy, on the other hand, saw its ‘cash required per barrel’ price rise to nearly $100 per barrel in the third quarter.”
The obvious problem, then, is that if the cost of extraction by fracking exceeds these breakeven prices, as it often does, the oil company eventually goes belly up. Ironically, some experts believe the US is trying to drive prices low in order to hurt Russia and other “enemies,” although if this is so, then it is obviously shooting itself in the foot. Which would be no surprise to me.
I think the most relevant question here is why the oil execs sank so much money into fracking ventures before doing the feasibility and profitability studies that would have shown that fracking was not a paying proposition for their shareholders. And I think part of the answer to that is that politicians and msm hyped fracking and the notion that America had the largest oil and gas deposits anywhere in the world and that it would be patriotic to invest in their extraction, particularly as if would show those Russians that the US is no. 1. This would induce some foolhardy investors to sink their cash into marginal investments in the blind belief that the government would somehow bail them out – and they never gave a thought to the possibility that the Treasury would be simply unable to continue bailing them out indefinitely. This is the same mentality that led to endless borrowing on the theory that such could go on forever without any untoward consequences.
Add to this, in the case of gas wells for gas export, the huge costs of cryogenic treatment and liquefaction of gas, pumping it into extravagantly expensive intermediate storage tanks on-shore in the home country, subsequently loading it onto special extravagantly priced ships with storage domes, then unloading it at the destination country into equally extravagantly priced intermediate storage tanks of like design and pumping it further to a pipeline network for further distribution. These hard facts about LNG, BTW, are why Europe bristled when the US tried to strong-arm it into relinquishing cheap pipeline-delivered gas from Russia and buying US LNG – purportedly to achieve “energy security.” Europe’s negative reaction to this sleazy strong-arm approach was a turning point in US-Europe relations and helped drive Europe into Russia’s arms.
Trump’s short-term solution to the slump in the oil business was to push for a tax “reform” that went into effect in 2017. This bill gave oil companies negative income taxes, or in other words, corporate welfare, paid for out of taxpayer funds. When Mussolini did this sort of thing – ie, mixing business and government, they called it fascism. Some called it corporatism. Others call it crony capitalism. And, whatever you call it, it is what America and its allies have. This is not textbook capitalism any more.
So the man who thundered at China and slapped tariffs on its exports for subsidizing its exports is doing exactly that, subsidizing US exports.
My analysis was first posted at Quora, where it so far has garnered close to 400 upvotes.
In the translation below, Yakov Kedmi mentions the Sarmat and Avangard ICBMs. For those who need a recap, these are two new hypersonic ICBM’s that are targeted to keep points on the globe where US vulnerabilities lie. They are both hypersonic and cannot be intercepted. They are the principal reasons CFR president Richard Haass admitted that “we cannot defeat Russia,” as I reported here. But, as Kedmi points out, official America cannot admit this to the sheeple so they’re pretending these super weapons can somehow be stopped from outer space.
They’re stumped and talking about space: Kedmi declares that the USA had to hide the power of the Sarmat and Avangard from the Americans.
January 27, 2019
The United States not openly declare to its people that Russia surpasses them militarily, and is therefore they are making announcements of “space missile defence.” This was stated by Israeli analyst Jacob Kedmi.
According to the expert, the bulk of US talk about weapons is pure propaganda, while the real situation is much worse. So, a promising missile defence system, which the United States intended to launch in 2020, was planned as capable of destroying Russian missiles on take-off. However, the new RF systems introduced in 2018 completely nullified the capabilities of the American missile defence system.
"But what to do - before it (the US missile defence system) enters (into operation) - and now it has been moved up to 2022 - the Sarmat rocket made the whole system absolutely useless. Because the launch speed of this rocket is several times faster than would make it possible to detect its launch! Therefore, the entire system, on which the Americans spent tens of billions of dollars, was nullified by this rocket. And the Avangard warheads on this rocket made the entire American defence system on which US policy was based up to that time absolutely ineffective," Kedmi said.
Precisely because all the US-built missile defence is no longer working, Washington decided to return to the strategy of a preventive strike, including the use of space platforms. In the States, they realized that in the event hostilities should break out, America would be powerless, and decided to change the concept, which was announced officially.
"But they cannot say - and no one can - to the American people that Russia has achieved strategic military superiority. Because then the people will demand an answer: what have you been doing all these years? What did you spend all that money on? So they are stumped. They will talk about aerospace forces that were created in Russia several years before that, "said Yakov Kedmi on the program "Vecher s Vladimirom Solovevym / Вечер с Владимиром Соловьевым” [Evening with Vladimir Solovyov].
Earlier, military expert Igor Korotchenko had said the S-500 missile systems, capable of destroying threats in outer space, were a weapon against planned US military satellites. In addition, he called for the development of railway carriers of strategic missiles, so that the States could never find and destroy them.