Author: Sean Paul Kelley Page 1 of 8

'89-'93 BA History, Houston
'95-'07 Morgan Stanley, Associate Vice President
'99-'02 MS International Relations and Economic Development, Saint Mary's University
'07-'13 International Software Sales Manager, Singapore
'13-'16 MA, History, Thesis on Ancient Silk Road City of Merv, UTSA
Kelley lives in San Antonio, Texas.

With the encirclement of the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket by Russia now complete, it is only days, a week or two at most, until mopping up operations are complete. This is an indisputable Russian victory, but don’t expect the war to change much. Russia’s strategy of attrition is about incremental gains that create unsustainable enemy losses, not the acquisition of territory. A fact that Western, especially retired American generals consistently get wrong. They expect the Russians to fight like Americans. That’s a terrible assumption to make.

On June 30 of this year I wrote that Russia was beginning its advance on Pokrovsk in earnest. Now, a lot of Western commentators, like Gen. Keane, have made the claim in the legacy media, along with other retired US generals, that the Russian’s have been bogged down in and around the Pokrovsk area for a year and only have 30-something kilometers to show for their efforts. This is why I cite the above link about the start of Russia’s encirclement of Pokrovsk. American generals obsesses about big red arrows on maps, rapid armor advances taking territory, breakthroughs while Russia’s attrition of Ukrainian soldiers massively degrades the Ukraine’s ability to prosecute the war. US generals, however, display staggering amounts of hypocrisy in discussions about Russia’s massive and successful strategic bombing campaign. Those selfsame generals who cheered American Shock and Awe war porn that dominated the news coming out of places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Funny how they now label the same strategy, employed now by evil Russia, as war crimes and focus on Russia’s killing of civilians, which the Russians are studiously trying to avoid and largely succeeding. But I digress.

American generals, think tankers and media personalities are ignorant, be it vincible ignorance or supererogatory, of what a strategy of attrition really is and what it looks like. Here’s the best definition I’ve got for you: using military power to gradually degrade an opponents military resources, i.e. killing as many of your adversary’s soldiers and wrecking as much of his kit as possible and/or breaking his will to fight. Nowhere in the generally accepted definition of attritional warfare does it say a word about occupying as much land as possible. That comes later. Much later.

With Pokrovsk surrounded what should we expect from the Russians? The landscape west of Pokrovsk is mostly open fields for many, many kilometers, with few tree lines, villages or ravines for Russian forces to utilize for an effective defense against the Ukraine’s drones; hardly an ideal landscape for attritional warfare. In fact, with the Ukraine’s ability to manufacture drones still intact it would be a killing field, littered with Russian armor, APCs, infantrymen and anything else the Russians might send into the open.

Make no mistake, the Russians are going to have to march across the landscape west of Pokrovsk at some point, but I posit the following near-term moves by the Russians. I’ll follow up with some developments I expect later in 2026.

First, Russia will continue encircling other salients, or cauldrons as the Russians prefer to call them, they appear to be enveloping, like the Kupyansk-Senkove salient or the potential envelopment of Konstantinivka. These areas offer excellent defensive positions and landscapes for Russia’s small-teams based attritional style of attack along the line of contact. It begins with artillery and/or missile bombardment, small teams then attack and destroy Ukrainian positions, kill or capture soldiers, retreat, then let the Ukrainians return. Rinse and repeat with drone coverage dominating overhead and you’ve got a style of war that chews up time like Andre the Giant hoovered up food at all you can eat buffets. It’s efficacy is not in doubt so long as you understand Russian strategy. If you’re ignorant of it, well, then you are expecting a big armored break-out after Pokrovsk, which won’t happen, because that’s not how Russia is conducting this war.

Second, Russia will consolidate its gains in and around Pokrovsk, after the Ukrainian soldiers in the pocket are killed or surrender. For some time after I foresee Russia utilization of tactical defense within an offensive framework, much like what American generals called the strategic defensive during our Civil War. In essence, at first they’ll capture positions, then dare the Ukrainians to take them back by appearing weak, digging in, rotating out tired soldiers, and firming up logistics. Subsequent Ukrainian attacks lead to mounting casualties. Then do it again.

In the context of capturing Pokrovsk, Russia will continue targeting the Ukraine’s industrial base, especially drone manufacturing sites. And it will hammer the nearby cities of Kramatorsk and Slovyansk with drones, missiles and FAB glide bombs, but it will be some time until Russian ground forces are within reach of mounting an attack on either city. Much will also depend on how well the Ukraine’s armed forces perform.

In war your opponent gets a vote on whether you succeed or not. Will the Ukraine’s armed forces hold up or might we see a general collapse in 2026? The Ukraine is now engaged in the widespread press ganging of men to fight on the front, reports this story at Responsible Statecraft. Some of the men press-ganged into service have reportedly died from blunt-force trauma, after beatings with iron bars and one young man died from injuries sustained attempting to jump out of the vehicle he’d been forced into. Most of the ‘busificaiton’ as it is euphemistically called has taken place in 2025 and thousands of such videos can be found here, proof that the Ukraine’s manpower shortages are growing to crisis levels. Such activities by Ukrainian recruiters also bodes ill for the armed forces, and adjacently indicative of the efficacy of Russia’s strategy of attritional warfare. Although press-ganging is not something Russia directly influences, it’s a clear symptom of the unsustainably large amounts of casualties the Ukraine has and continues to sustain.

In the near-term expect the war on the ground to continue as it has since 2023. Russia will grind it out, slowly and patiently. I always find it laughable when commentators claim that hardliners in the Kremlin are chomping at the bit for Putin to launch a massive offensive. This is stupid, Western group-think. Why is it so hard to understand that Russians are naturally endowed with a deep well of patience to draw upon? Especially Putin. That is not to say there will be no fireworks in the near future. But they will be arriving from a different direction than Russian soldiers will. They will come from above.

A near-term imperative for Russian forces is a way to achieve drone dominance along the line of contact. Russia has, by and large, achieved a hybrid-kind of air superiority. This has largely been achieved by its manufacturing prowess, producing, according to some sources, nearly a thousand Geran-2 drones a month. One report dated this September describes a new jet-powered version, the Geran-3, that is operational, largely resistant to electronic warfare and can be fitted with a 90 kilo thermobaric warhead, making them extremely lethal, inexpensive and plentiful. Russia also manufactures and utilizes on a daily basis hundreds of Gerbera decoy drones. By using the Geran-2 and 3s in conjunction with Gerbera decoys and higher value missiles like the Iskander and the hypersonic Kinzhal the Ukraine’s ability to mount anything approaching an effective air defense is nullified.

Achieving drone superiority over the line of contact is another matter altogether. The Ukraine can still manufacture enough FPV drones to give the Russians pause, forcing their continued use of small-teams to attack, destroy and then retreat. But, the Russian’s are innovating. For example, there are recent reports of the deployment of a mother-ship drone with two FPV drones attached with fiber optic cables. The mother ship drone flies at altitudes above the FPV’s alleged EW bubble and by connecting its two FPV drones via fiber optic cables achieves complete EW avoidance. While not a game changer, widespread deployment of such drones would make the war that much more difficult for the Ukraine to prosecute effectively.

Pokrovsk is a major victory for Russia, a significant morale booster for the troops and those on the home front and proves the efficacy of Russia’s strategy of attrition. But don’t expect much to change after Pokrovsk. It’s a loss for the Ukraine. The question, how big of a loss? How many troops died or will be captured once the pocket is completely mopped up remains the most important variable of the battle; how badly will it effect the Ukrainian armed forces morale is what bears watching, by Putin and Zelensky alike.

Two Quick Hits

By Sean Paul Kelley

On November 4, 2025

Comments

~by Sean Paul Kelley

First, Dick Cheney died today. He was 84 years old. It’s a personal policy of mine to avoid speaking ill of the dead on the same day they die. I’ll comment on the consequences of his time in office some time soon. You are certainly free to say whatever you want in the comments.

Second, when it comes to military power, Singapore is a nasty, mean little porcupine crossed with a skunk whose motto is FAFO and if I were a neighbor I wouldn’t want to find out. (What a damned fine run-on sentence, yeah?) It’s also something their new Victory Class MRCV (multi-role combat vessel) makes abundantly clear and reminds me of an experience I had while living there.

In the run-up to National Day, or Independence Day, I don’t remember what it’s officially called but the military was out in full force, rehearsing its marching routes for the celebrations.

I lived on Beach Rd. and was sitting out in front of my favorite duck restaurant when an absolutely terrifying thunderclap occurred. I damn near pissed my pants. I looked up at the clouds, as thunder is kind of rare in Singapore, and saw the shadow of a triangle pass a kilometer down Beach Rd. from where I sat.

“What the hell was that?” I asked the waiter.

“Just a jet practicing for the parade down our street,” he said all nonchalantly.

Then the f**king thing made another run down Beach Rd. no more than 300 feet overhead. The windows rattled everywhere.

My experience in that moment gave me just a small inkling of how terrifying it must be to face the business end of a US F-15. It’s a feeling that cannot be described.

One I am not interested in repeating, either.

On the Public Abuse of Our Historical Ignorance

When supposedly well-educated people abuse history, analogize incorrectly, or make ridiculous comparisons for political gain I lose all semblance of mindfulness, which results in a complete takeover of monkey-mind (a Zen Buddhist term for losing your shit). For example, a few days ago I watched this video of US Air Force Brigadier General Douglas Wickert asserting that China is preparing for a Pearl Harbor style-attack. After calming down, rewatching the video and reading the transcript in an attempt to confirm the Air Force general made such an ill-informed assertion it became clear he did not make the assertion explicitly, but implied it in multiple ways at multiple times. He also cited Army Air Force General Billy Mitchell, the father of the strategic bombing doctrine America so loves, several times. I’ll explain why citing Billy Mitchell is both correct and important, but indicative of a dangerously unimaginative strategic mindset. But first let’s discuss the You Tube video’s click-bait title “U.S. General Warns: China Prepping for ‘Pearl Harbor-style’ surprise attack.”

I don’t know about this. I’m ambivalent here.

Why?

Well, I’m unable to decide if this is just lazy, racist thinking, or plain old-fashioned historical ignorance, willful or otherwise. But I can state, without an iota of ambiguity that China, in its six thousand year history, has absolutely no history of conducting surprise attacks on non-combatant sovereignties.

Zero.

Even at the dawn of Chinese history there is no mention of surprise attacks against states one is at peace with. Not in Sima Qian’s ‘Records of the Grand Historian’, who is China’s version of Herodotus, nor in the Art of War, by Sun-Tzu, which is without question the greatest book on strategy ever written. Sun-Tzu was a Chinese general living during the Warring States Period. His realism and understanding of human nature reminds me a great deal of the Athenian general and author Thucydides, but I digress.

The assertion that China is preparing a sneak attack is so utterly ignorant of East-Asian history it’s embarrassing to read. And the parallels Gen. Wickert tries to make are like a thirsty man reaching down from the rim of the Grand Canyon to get water from the Colorado River: delusional. But, it’s also unsurprising.

Why?

Because what Gen. Wickert embodies is another in a long list of American generals competent in both tactics and the operational art of war—which includes exceptional prowess in utilizing America’s unparalleled logistical expertise—but a insipid and unimaginative general who has zero concept of strategy, historical, grand and/or otherwise.

Need another more obvious example?

Okey-dokey. Here’s a blast from the past: US Army Gen. Tommy “Catastrophic Success” Franks.

Here’s where the abuse of history gets worse and kind of sways me towards thinking this is kind of an unacknowledged form of racist thinking regarding East-Asians. I mean, seriously, aren’t they all clothes washers, little and yellow, and all look the same, right? Obviosuly East-Asian diversity is immense. If you’ve lived in Asia and traveled in several of the nations and are observant one can recognize by sight alone the facial incongruities between Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc. But I again, digress.

Taking a Neo-racist interpretation further and adding a dollop of historical ignorance, let’s discuss Japan’s long history with surprise attacks. Anyone who has read Japanese and Russian history on even a basic level is aware of Japan’s most famous sneak attack: the Battle of Port Arthur.

Wait, what? You’ve never heard of it?

In short, the Battle of Port Arthur was a surprise night attack by the Japanese on the then neutral Russian fleet moored in the harbor at Port Arthur, Manchuria in 1904. So now you know.

But let’s push our historical horizon a bit further, shall we?

People who say “no one could anticipate Pearl Harbor” are fucking idiots. Japan proved at Port Arthur how far it was wiling to go to hobble an adversary it was at peace with. One could argue that Pearl Harbor was a clear failure of American strategic imagination. One could also argue that perhaps it was exactly what the historically well-informed president at the time was expecting when he ended the sale of oil to Japan, thus provoking an attack by Japan that would a.) hobble the US fleet and make the capture of the oilfields in the Dutch East-Indies easy and b.) force US entry into the war. That’s a debate honest people can have.

But arguing that China’s going to do it?

GTFO!

Now when it comes to 9/11—another great failure of the American strategic imagination—all the morons who said, “no one could ever have imagined such a thing” are fools. No less than seven years before author Tom Clancy sketched out a similar scene in his novel “Debt of Honor” in which a disgruntled Japanese jumbo-jet pilot crashes his jet into the US Capitol Building during a State of the Union address. Clearly imaginable. Clearly conceivable. Clancy was even interviewed many times after 9/11 about it. But those interviews disappeared down the memory hole.

Digressing. Digressing. Digressing. I know. My bad.

I’m going to state it again, unequivocally: China, i.e. the Han Chinese people, have no tradition of surprise attacks on non-combatant nations or polities they are at peace with. Of all the history I have read regarding the Chinese they have almost always approached jus ad bellum with honor. Jus ad bellum is a fancy smancy-pants way of discussing the laws a state or sovereignty must obey before engaging in war and sneak attacks are not only a huge no-no, but dishonorable as all get out.

Now let’s discuss suprise attacks in the context of jus in bello, meaning the conduct of war once declared, or how one acts during hostilities. Like how reprisals are allowed so long as they are proportionate, one principle the US has pretty much violated in every war since WWI. As for the element of surprise, or sneak attack? For fucks sake, that’s got to be obvious; everyone hopes and aims and seeks it and it is a totally legitimate aim to seek such an advantage. Take good ole Cherry Tree toppling General George Washington at the Battle of Trenton. His surprise attack across the Delaware River against the Hessians was a complete success and altered the course of the war. It also demonstrated Washington’s increasingly excellent grasp of strategy and its influence on morale. The Battle of Trenton galvanized his troops, and earned an enormous amount of loyalty, loyalty he truly needed after a long and mostly demoralizing year of campaigning. There is only polity I’m aware that has practiced sneak-attacks, jus ad belllum, on nations with which they were at peace: Japan. There may be others. If so, enlighten me. Sincerely.

To repeat, ad naseum, China has fuck-all history of acting this way. Zhuge Liang would rise from his grave and smite any Chinese leader who acted so dishonorably. Perhaps Gen. Wickert confuses China’s long history of attack through indirection, jus in bello, with sneak attacks, jus ad bellum, which would indicate he’s a pretty dim bulb.

Now, Wickert’s mentioning Army Air Force General Billy Mitchell’s prediction that the US and Japan would go to war was correct. It’s inarguable. But it’s Mitchell’s role as the father of the idea of strategic bombing that is problematic. The idea, refined, means a war can be won by air power alone. Only one war has ever been won by air power alone, the bombing campaign against Serbia to partition Kosovo. This air campaign was waged by Gen. Wesley Clark. The Serbs endured weeks of bombing and only relented when the US threatened to use ground troops. So, in a technical kind of way, it wasn’t won by air power alone. I’m already at a thousand words, so I’m not going to go into why such a strategy alone can’t win a war. The idea is problematic, nay, deleterious to US strategic thinking, inspiring ideas like missile defense and the like, which dumb down strategic thinking faculties in US generals, Air Force, Navy and Army alike.

The enduring use of the apocryphal story about the time the Soviet Premier asked the US President for permission to nuke China is another piece of history abused so frequently for so many different purposes I’m surprised no one has written a book debunking it. Historian Sarah Paine relays this Cold War anecdote for propagandistic purposes against contemporary Russia in this video. I didn’t go full monkey-mind listening to her, but I could not help but comment why this anecdote gained currency and how. I noted,

“The story that the Soviets asked the USA if they could nuke China is a fable. It is pure balderdash and a piece of Cold War myth that has metamorphosed into having some aspect of historicity and it does not. It never happened. Never. It was a lie whispered to certain sections of the US public to be spread in preparation for the opening to China that Nixon performed in 1972.”

I didn’t get this straight from the horse’s mouth, but I got it from a flag officer who got it from Henry Kissinger himself and I am fully convinced of my long-since passed friend’s veracity. Besides, Sarah Paine is wrong about everything she says in just about everyone of her lectures. Why people listen to her is simple: she reinforces their preconceptions, offering no challenge or opening for revision. The worst kind of historian in my opinion.

Finally, there is this video interview of ‘historian’ Sam Biagetti by Katie Halper.Starting around minute 5:37 Mr. Biagetti states that he doesn’t really believe there was ever anything like a unipolar moment. He then adds that people “assume” hegemony is the norm historically. He adds, “when it is not the norm,” and further indicates his ignorance by implying multi-polarity is the natural order of interstate relations. My head near exploded. I proceeded to write in the comments a brief history of hegemony/empire versus multipolarity, beginning with the Greek city states prior to the Persian wars and up to the end of the Peloponnesian as the first multi-polar system, that was followed by a long period of empire. In hindsight, I imagine there was a sort of multi-polarity in Mesopotamia in the 6th millenium BC but I can’t get it all right all the time. I’m not immune to forgetting. Anyway, this is the gist of my comment on his ignorance of ancient, medieval and modern history, including the post-Cold War era:

Sam B. is super misinformed and/or flat out wrong. The historical norm is empire, or hegemony. Mulitpolarity is actually very rare. Here are the only historical examples of mulitpolarity: Greece pre-Peloponnesian war, roughly 650 BC through the end of the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC. Soon thereafter Alexander conquered most of the known world and the classical Hellenistic world settled into empire and/or a handful of hegemonic powers. Likewise in East Asia, along the Yellow River basin in modern China, the Warring States period lasted from 475 BC – 221BC when Qin Shi Huang Di conquered all the warring states and united all of China. China has been a multi-ethnic empire to this day, ruled by rising and falling dynasties. As Luo Guanzhong wrote in his first sentence of China’s most famous novel: “”The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been” (話說天下大勢．分久必合，合久必分),” a statement that remains true to this day, even though the dynasty ruling now calls itself Communists.

There was a brief period in India of multipolarity, round about the time the Buddhist and Jain reforms of Hinduism gained traction. There was a handful of independent states along the Ganges River that warred against each other and made alliances when interests aligned.

Back in the West Rome’s rise acccelerated rapidly after winning the Second Punic War in 201 BC conquering the entire Mediterranean Basin by 14 AD, the basin remained uni-polar for a thousand years. After the fall of the Western half of the empire, conquerers ruled most of Europe, Charlemagne created the great Frankish empire. More unipolarity. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire, ruled from modern day Istanbul, lasted until 1453.

Renaissance Italy was a congeries of independent powers practicing a sort of balance of power multipolarity until France was invited into their politics and invaded. Empire reigned supreme in Europe for another two centuries. It was only until the peace of Westphalia in 1648 that the modern concepts of the soveriegn state, and the principle of non-interference in a sovereignty’s internal politics was forbidden, were codified by the international treaties signed in 1648. This concept spread throughout the world in the 19th century by the few states that could resist European colonization, such as Siam, Ethiopia (for a time), China and Japan and then grew exponentially during the decolonization era of the 1950-60s. But the successor states of the great Littoral empires of the UK, France, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese united in alliance under the auspices of a new hegemon after the second war of European suicide known as WWII: the United States, a hybrid-republican empire. It had one peer at the end of WWII: the USSR. But the USSR collapsed under the weight of mismanagement and stagnation of the 70s and recevied its death blow with Chernobyl. Had there been no Chernobyl glasnost and perestroika might have worked.

But by 1992 the US had no peer competitor, until the elite of the nation traded the foundation of its power, industry, to China for individual fortunes. It is unfortunate your interlocutor Sam B. is incapable of understanding post-Cold War history. Quite fascinating really. One wonders what subject of history he focused on, because geopolitics, war, empire, and the like are clearly not his strong suits.

Obviously my comment is a gross oversimplification, but necessary nonetheless. Miss Paine, Gen. Wickert and Mr. Biagetti are three easily found and disproven examples of the kind of a-historicity degrading political discourse in America.

As an historian myself, I am of course biased. So what? That doesn’t mean I’m wrong about this.

But how are we to learn to think with a national historical sensibility when the teachers of history in junior and high school double as the football and/or basketball coaches? You get what you pay for, and we aint getting nothing but shit. Our uniquely American scatalogical ignorance of history is dangerous, leads to easy political manipulation of an ignorant electorate and contributes to the rise of neo-quasi-racist belief system now taking over our public discourse.

These videos provide ample proof.

Development Politics in Central and South America

Most of you probably know I lived in Nicaragua for a time—about six months—overseeing renovations to my father’s house, where he lives even now.

Me? I’m no fan of the country, nor its politics, nor do I romanticize the pervasive, grinding subsistence poverty in the countryside and sad, soul destroying poverty in the cities. About two dozen rapacious families guarantee Nicaragua’s place as second poorest nation in this hemisphere.

Nicaragua is not without its charms. I have a deep respect for the people of one of three nations in this hemisphere who, one, told the United States to fuck off and two, have largely succeed in keeping the US at arms length. The Spanish spoken in Nicaragua is, in two words, incomprehensibly unique. They distinguish between beans and rice and rice and beans. Seriously they make up two distinct dishes, although I can’t tell the difference. They eat some crazy vegetables—they have ten different varieties of squash, which I detest. But, they know how to cook meat in ways as diverse as barbecue, stew, seared and broiled. Chicken, pork, beef (no lamb or goats) and of course gallino de palo (tree-chickens AKA iguanas) make up the usual tasty fare.

Nicaragua’s best aspect is its untapped collection of perfectly sized waves, best on the Central American Pacific Coast by my estimation; waves for beginners and pros alike. There is only one monster, which I’ll get to in a moment. Sadly (or not) the changes in the political situation between 2015-2025 have scared off most surfers and they’ve migrated to Costa Rica, which has some sweet waves and parts of Guatemala that remain damned near empty. But, I digress.

One late morning, completely disgusted after persistently being thrashed by the waves breaking on the beach at Popoyo—the barrels collapsed so rapidly I was unable to get all but three drops (and no, I was not surfing the A-frame point break Popoyo is famous for, as a beginner I had no death wish I’ve seen too many boards munched on that wave) so I gave up, hopped in the car and began the two hour drive back to Granada.

After 30 minutes drive on a dirt road I turned north on Nicaragua’s stretch of the Pan-American Highway. No fan of Latin music (the radio was off) my mind wandered along the amazing scenery. Volcanoes rose. Small villages disappeared in a sneeze. The olive shades of Lake of Nicaragua were seemingly endless. Isla Ometepe, an island of twin volcanoes, shot up and passed by just as quickly. A few small attempts at agriculture grew to my left and right. All disappeared in blur or blink.

But time passes strange in a foreign land and stranger still on the road. I pulled over next to an anemic sugar cane field, cut a small stalk, sliced it into three pieces and returned to the car. As I shaved the outer layer off and bit into the heart of the cane, two thoughts, as if in quantum superposition, occupied my mind.

“Damn, this is sweet!” Mundane, indeed, but the other was the “a-ha” moment my brain had been silently working out for the last hour.

“Holy shit,” I mouthed silently, “Nicaragua is full of a whole lot of nothing.” Sure, up north in the mountains they grow some mid-grade coffee. Tobacco growth is accelerating also. Why in the current anti-tobacco global climate I don’t know? But it is. Cassava is a major crop, it’s like a potato but tastes like a brown paper bag on a good day. True hunger makes much palatable, I suppose. Plantains and bananas are grown of course. And there are a handful of other root-like plants and squash-like plants that grow there also. The country imports most of its rice, but grows a lot of beans/legumes.

Later I shared this realization with my father who was as surprised as I was by the realization. He agreed. Of course, Dad and I think alike in many ways—father and son, best friends, traveled in 50 plus nations together—so we quickly developed a shorthand for my “whole lot of nothing” observation, calling it ‘low hanging fruit’ syndrome, LHF for short.

LHF came to signify the lack of economic development and general lack of entrepreneurial spirit in Central America. Now, not every nation on the planet is going to be entrepreneurial. Laos is an excellent example—and please this is not a criticism of Laos and Laotians. When I was there they just seemed to have other priorities, like Buddhism. But Nicaraguan’s? The Pinoleros—the preferred demonym of the Nicaraguans and it has not one whit of the pejorative to it—are natural, gifted hustlers, practically pure bred entrepreneurs who are imbued with a naturally prepossessing work ethic and quite a bit of chutzpah. In short: they know when to engage, when to toss out a bit of bullshit. They can sell with the best Wall Street sharks—I’d know—and they know how to make and keep money.

“Why then,” you ask, “is Nicaragua, the largest nation in Central America, making no economic progress and going backwards instead?”

Great question!

There are two reasons for Nicaragua’s penury. First, 90% of Nicaraguans live west of the Pacific slope or in the interior highlands. This population occupies only 38% of Nicaragua’s landmass. The remaining 10% of Nicaraguans live on a narrow strip of the Caribbean Coast or the Corn Islands. Almost two thirds of the country—62%— is uninhabited. Not that I am advocating the rapine of all the pristine tropical forest of the Caribbean lowlands, but far to little of it is being developed and far too many people occupy a very crowded Pacific slope. What is the cause of this underdevelopment? The Pacific slope is littered with LHF and to travel through the Caribbean Lowlands to the coast takes two days on very, very bad roads. Until there is significant infrastructure development that opens the lowlands to development Nicaragua will remain mired in LHF poverty.

Hurdles aside, development politics in Central and South Americ are undergoing a seismic shift. That’s good news for the Pinoleros, money is pouring in. It’s bad news for the USA because the cash is coming from China. As is China’s policy, the money comes with no strings attached, unlike American money with its persistent moral litany of “Do this, don’t do that!”

“Do as we say, not as we do!”

This is not what the Nicaraguans hear from China. The only real demand the Chinese make is on the bigger infrastructure projects. Chinese builders design it, and Chinese build it, hiring few, if any local workers—usually because they don’t have the skills. The Chinese also pay for it, mostly, and don’t lecture. The US can’t compete—not after 150 years of terrible behavior in Latin America. The conclusion, the only conclusion, one can come to in Nicaragua and many other Latin American nations is that the USA is losing influence and power to China. Big time. And fast.

We have a sustained current account deficit with Nicaragua of $1.9 billion. That means we consistently import more from them than we export. China is the reverse. Much of that is due to FDI (foreign direct investment). This investment doesn’t benefit China solely. At present China is building a huge new airport that’s primary goal is to displace the Avianca Hub in San Salvador as the go to airport in Central America. China funded it to the tune of $499 million. It will possess two 4,000 meter runways, long enough and large enough to accommodate Airbus A380 and other wide body jets. The airport is intended to act as a non-stop hub to Europe, Asia and all of South America. Ground has been broken and the expected operational date is sometime in 2028.

The Chinese are also going to help build out the road network to the Caribbean Coast. This will create many new opportunities. Ortega, for all his faults, brought about some serious land reform at the beginning of his rule, so the Caribbean lowlands are now open to just about anyone who has the gumption to settle them.

The decline in American power is as palpable now as it was during the COVID epidemic. The moment COVID was politicized I could literally sense our decline, it was so obvious. Now, under Trump II, the decline is accelerating. Even in our own backyard.

The jury is still out on whether it is rapidly relative decline or real decline. I think it is the latter, only time will tell. Just not enough time for my taste.

On that note: please, please, support this site, subscribe or donate. We’re about $1,800 from our goal of $12,500.

Apologies For The Non-Existent Posting

By Sean Paul Kelley

On October 29, 2025

Comments

By Sean Paul Kelley

Folks I’m sorry I haven’t posted in a while. Not that I need to explain, but I value the community here and wanted to offer up what’s been happening with me.

For several months now I have been battling a severely low resting heart rate (low 30s to mid 40s) and there is some light at the end of the tunnel, so says my cardiologist; we are exploring options. The good news is I have been an athlete most of my life. Ran a few marathons, for twenty years I ran close to 30 miles a week. So, my normal resting heart rate at age 55–gods aging does sucketh–is usually in the mid-60s to low 70s. As we all know you only get so many heartbeats in life. So, the fewer the better. That’s the good news.

But, a resting heart rate in the low 30s can cause fainting spells when one makes to fast a move. As an heretofore active person–I mean I walk at almost twice the speed of everyone else, naturally, I have to be careful.

As you all know I dislocated my shoulder a few weeks ago. The reason behind the fall was I was acting like a teenager bouncing down the stairs. Fortunately I began to faint when I only had four or five steps left to go, so instead of falling down the whole rack and breaking my neck, well, we all know what happened. Tangentially, when those guys in the movies who dislocate a shoulder then smash it back into place against a wall and then go on back to their kicking ass spree is pure horseshit.

Anyway, the upshot is this: when my heart rate is very low I am very tired and inactive. Today it’s in the 60s. But y’all will just have to bear with me for the time being. I have no way of knowing when this will go away.

On that note: please, please, support this site, subscribe or donate. We’re about $1,800 from our goal of $12,500.

The Tiny Dictate to the Large

By Sean Paul Kelley

On October 12, 2025

Comments

After reading this article at @RStatecraft by @connor_echols I am more convinced than ever that admitting the Baltic States into NATO was the biggest mistake NATO ever made: three miniscule states with three tiny militaries dominate policy yet contribute nothing but acrimony and accusations towards Russia.

Just read the stridency of their claims towards Russia. Former Latvian PM: “Putin acts the way he acts, and the only options for the West are either to submit or to resist.” Or the present Estonia FM: “Russia’s war against Ukraine is driven by one thing and one thing only: its refusal to accept the Soviet Union’s collapse and its unrelenting imperialist ambitions.”

It’s our annual fundraiser. We’ve raised a little over $7,620 from 65 people in the last twelve days, out of our goal of $12,500. If you’re a regular reader and can afford to support our writing, please subscribe or donate. Over 10,000 people read every day, but without those who give the site would not survive.

Look, I get the Baltics are paranoid about chimerical Russian irredentism towards the three republics. NATO can’t and shouldn’t allow alliance policy to be dictated by its three smallest members, who are tiny, paranoid and are lead by some critically undereducated fools, like Kaja Kallas, who said, “Chinese are very good at technology but they are not that good in social sciences . . . . The Russians… are not good at technology at all, but super good in social sciences.”

I’ll let that one go without comment. The bottom line is tiny states are dictating the policy of huge institutions and nations, just take a look at how the Israeli tail wags the American dog.

We’re supposed to make peace with enemies, folks, not friends.

Dialogue is essential more than ever. Not paranoia.

It’s Our Annual Fundraiser. If you read us a lot, please Subscribe or Donate.

Russo-Ukraine War Update

I’m going to relay a conversation I had on X today with everyone here. It’s just easier this way, as I dislocated my shoulder yesterday and sprained my wrist falling down the stairs. Let me add, that crap that movie star tough guys do when they have a dislocated should is utter balderdash. Having my shoulder relocated was excruciating. So a ton of typing is out. Copy and paste is in. But I digress.

I replied to a Tweet, an X, WTF do we call those things now? Well, I’m sticking with Tweet. This one from the US Ambassador to NATO.

The US Ambassador to NATO tweeted the following;

“Russia is losing hundreds of soldiers a day without making any significant gains in Ukraine. Russia must recognize that it’s time for peace and come to the negotiating table.”

I replied to the Ambassador with a series of tweets:

“The @USAmbNATO clearly does not comprehend what a strategy of attrition means. Capturing territory and manuever warfare are secondary to degrading the Ukraine’s ability to fight. This Russia is succeeding at quite well.

I would add that US Generals, who excel in tactics and the operational art of war–which includes logistics–love to quote Bradley’s axiom “amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.”

I loathe this quote for a number of reasons. Most of all because US generals and their partisans use this argument from authority to dismiss often very valid criticism. I’ll give you one example: Tommy “Catastrophic Success” Franks. He, Stanley McCrystal and Petraeus are prime examples of US generals with a signal lack of imagination, relying on the strength of their logisctical prowess, e.g. The Surge in Iraq.

This was my third tweet to the Ambassador:

[The generals] insistence on this adage has lead to consequential misunderstandings of strategy and why so many continue to conflate Russia’s lack of forward movement with failure (i.e. General Kellog, ~spk). A strategy of attrition is all about the gradual erosion of the enemy’s ability to fight.”

It’s hard for me to comprehend that these men cannot understand Russia’s strategy in the Ukraine. Then an X user asked me a rather intelligent and sincere question:

For how long would you say Russia has been succeeding quite well at degrading Ukraine’s abiity to fight? For the full 3.5 years or a shorter time span? Follow up: how long will this success take to yield major changes on the battlefield?

Let me first say how pleasant it was to get a sincere question on X. Usually it’s agreement or derision, and second I thank my cultured interlocotur for a few hours of intellectual stimulation.

My reply was fivefold, and many of you have read portions of it here in the past:

All modern Russian wars–starting with the Great Northern War in 1700–begin badly for Russia. All of them. The SMO is a perfect example. The Russians were uprepared, had an ill-thought out strategy and got pushed back badly. They got whooped. But the Russian’s learn quickly.

So, they did what they normally do in such situations, traded space for time. By mid-2023 their industry was on a total war setting, minting more artillery shells than all of the US and NATO combined. They’d called up fuck-tons of troops . . .

. . . and because necessity is the mother of all innovation quickly outstripped the Ukraine in drone warfare. Plus, with their thermobaric weapons and Iskander missiles in high production they devestated fortified positions. Then they attacked supply routes. (They also innovated an EW unjammable fiber-optic drone that was devastasting ~spk added later.) Then 3-5 man teams . . .

. . . cleared the trenches. The Kursk invasion was a catastrophe for the Ukraine and by 2024 it was clear the Ukrainian army was in trouble, [seeing as] recruiting meant kidnapping, and the Ukraine began shifting divisions will nilly against attacks initiated by the Russians.

Russia [now owns] the initiative & numbers & air superiority over all the Ukraine & drone superiority over the front lines. It looks very bad for the Ukraine now. Russia grinds away, caring not about territory yet. That comes next year in 2026 when they take Odessa. Does this [clarify]?

It’s Ian’s annual fundraiser. This allows us to cover the changeover of hegemony from America to China, environmental collapse, internal US fascism, what a better society would look like, Gaza, AI, the coming stock market crash and various other issues. You can Subscribe or Donate here or contact Ian at ian-at-fdl-at-gmail-dot-com if you need another way to donate (mail, usually. A lot of cash apps don’t work in Canada.)

Intelligent and incisive he asked the following:

If they don’t take Odessa in 2026 would you adjust your analysis? Also, Russia hasn’t won all its modern wars. Crimean, Russo-Japanese & Afghanistan come to mind. Chechnya is a bit messy in terms of winners/losers. So while Russia can take heavy casualties sometimes it’s too many.

My reply was threefold:

First, I didn’t say Russia has won all its modern wars. I said they all begin badly. Second, if they don’t take Odessa, I would be surprised. But it would not mean ultimate failure. Russian sabotage teams are already in Odessa. Chechnya actually became a total success.

It took more than a decade, much like the Murid War, but Chechens are now some of the most fanatically loyal soldiers in the Russian Federation. Crimea was a shit-show as was Russ-Jap and WWI and Afghan. Russian’s aren’t perfect, but they will win the war against the Ukraine.

The present military leadership knows exactly what they are doing. One action might change their strategy: an attemped decapitation strike that actually hit the Kremlin. Oreshniks would rain down on Kiev, brutal and devastating and foreign operaties (US/UK) would be targeted.

He then asks,

When you say they will win the war against Ukraine, what does victory entail? Full territorial acquisition? I predict more stalemate – for multiple years to come if both sides stick to the military approach at resolving the conflict. I’ve been right on that for ~4 yrs thus far.

My final reply was this:

Victory will be dictated on the battlefield. The Russians are not interested in full territorial acquisition. They are interested in landlocking the rump state. Zelensky will be killed or exiled. A pro-Russian regime will be installed. The Ukraine will be neutral . . .

. . . along the lines of the Austrian Treaty at the end of WWII. It will not be a frozen conflict. Putin’s main goal is to create a peace that endures for at least a generation after he dies or steps down. That’s what I see are Russia’s goals. I doubt the war continues past 2026.

My main beef here remains the lack, be it from wilful ignorance or delusion, of US policymakers, generals and think tank denizens, of understanding Russian strategy in the Ukraine. Understanding attrition is not difficult. Just google it and read the wikipedia entry. How difficult is that? Do they not teach boolean operators at the US Army War College?

It’s Our Annual Fundraiser. If you read us a lot, please Subscribe or Donate.

Israeli Actions Encourage the Formation of the Coalition That Will Ultimately Defeat It

A little lesson in history is in order to understand why Israel remains dominant in the Middle East and continues to wage war against just about everyone. To understand better Israel’s strategic dilemma we have to look back at the Crusades.

The First Crusade established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. But, before the Kingdom of Jerusalem could be established invasion routes from the north had to be secured, which occurred in 1098 when the Crusaders conquered Antioch, modern Antakya in Turkey. Second, its flank had to be secured, which is what Baldwin of Boulogne did in 1098 by capturing Edessa, modern day Şanliurfa in southeastern Turkey. Baldwin then created the County of Edessa.

Between 1099 and 1144 the Kingdom of Jerusalem fought against the Fatimids of Egypt, defeating them several times. The kingdom then attacked Damascus several times; winning some fights and losing others. The Crusaders attacked and captured Tyre, Tripoli, Acre and Beirut. They only held Beirut for a time.

The Byzantines were also active in keeping the Arab and Seljuk princedoms in the region divided. They won more battles than they lost. The Byzantine strategic goal was the reconquest of Anatolia. They had some success under Alexis Comnenos, but when he died so did his genius. That said, for most of fifty years Crusader Jerusalem was safe. It would take two to three thousand words to narrate this all comprehensively so I’ve oversimplified. Please be sympathetic.

One might get the impression that with the Byzatines knocking the Seljuks about in Anatolia, keeping them on their back heels and the Crusader States growing steadily and beating Fatimid Egypt several times that victory seemed assured. But even before the first Crusaders captured Jerusalem time was not on their side.

In 1094 the governor of Seljuk Aleppo, Aq Sunqur al-Hajib, was beheaded on accusations of treason by the Seljuk emir of Damascus, Tutush I. Aq Sunqur al-Hajib’s son, Imad al-din Zengi escaped to Mosul and was raised by its governor. As he matured he grew into a fierce warrior, becoming a scourge upon the Crusader states; one they were unable to answer. As the years passed Zengi fought, relentlessly. After many losses but more victories Zengi, in 1144, captured the Country of Edessa, dealing a crippling blow to the Crusader States. This blow necessitated the Second Crusade. For the next quarter century the Kingdom of Jerusalem muddled through, fending off most challenges. But the loss of Edessa caused a persistent drain on the kingdom’s power.

In the year 1171 Saladin came to power in Egypt, a development that would rapidly end the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s decades long containment of Fatimid power. Saladin’s life goal was the destruction of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. With Egypt under his complete control, Saladin immediately inaugurated the first part of his great project: unifying the divided states surrounding the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Saladin was largely successful in unifying the region, notwithstanding his loss to King Baldwin IV in 1177. The Leper King, Baldwin IV, husbanded a large force and defeated Saladin at the Battle of Montgisard on November 25, 1177. Saladin had the good fortune of defenses in depth and quickly rebuilt his nearly eradicated forces quickly as he ruled both Syria and Egypt.

Catastrophe struck the Kingdom of Jerusalem when King Baldwin IV died in August of 1186. This set off a series of political machinations in Jerusalem wherein ultimate power was gained by a coterie of bigoted incompetents. In 1187 they marched their army towards the Sea of Galilee to challenge Saladin. At the Horns of Hattin, where there was no water, the heavily armored Crusaders quickly grew parched and exhausted. Saladin defeated them easily. The way to Jerusalem was now open. Saladin was ultimately successful in its conquest and by late 1188 the entire Kingdom of Jerusalem was under Saladin’s control.

The point of this brief history is this: the only way the Israelis can be defeated is exactly how the Crusaders were defeated. A coaliton of Arab and Islamic states must unify in common action against Israel.

On the other hand, all Israel must do to exist is maintain a divided region. This has been Israel’s grand strategy since its inception and remains so today, even though Netanyahu is making a mess of it by attacking everyone, everywhere, committing genocide in Gaza while expecting unconditional US support of its every action. A tall order at a time when the US public has begun seriously questioning continued support of Israel, especially in the face of the genocide in Gaza.

So, can the states of the region find common cause? Well, Turkey’s president Erdoğan is sitting on the fence, but could make life very difficult for Israel by simply shutting of its energy supplies, which come from the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. Never mind the size and technological sophistication of its armed forces, that dwarf anything Israel has.

Turkey’s indecision notwithstanding, signs of potential unified effort by several Islamic states are beginning. First, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense pact that includes a Pakistani nuclear umbrella. Second, “Egypt’s Sisi has called Israel the “enemy’ and is renewing ties with its neighbors,” says Ted Snider at Responsible Statecraft. In a September speech at the Emergency Arab-Islamic Summit in Qatar Sisi gave an unprecedented speech. His three main points were that Israel is the enemy. He then warned the Israelis that there would be no new diplomatic progress in regards to the Abraham Accords, adding that Israeli actions could possibly violate the 1979 Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty. But the really shocking statement came, as Ted Snider recounts, when Sisi said, “it has become imperative for us to establish an Arab-Islamic mechanism for coordination and cooperation to enable us all to confront the major security, political, and economic challenges surrounding us.” Adding to this, “[that] the geography of any Arab country extends from the Ocean to the Gulf and its umbrella is wide enough for all Islamic and peace-loving countries.”

A second round of war with Iran might trigger a more formal defensive alliance structure like that between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. One that would be more comprehensively Islamic, as Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians. The Turks might buy into it as well. I’ll explore what a potential coaliton might look like in a subsequent post. But for now, the ultimate consquences of such an event are not heartening.

The wild card happens when Israel stares down total defeat. At this point Israel’s nuclear ambiguity will be clarified, necessity being the mother of all forced decisions. If Israel faces certain destruction what will it do? Lash out and let the nukes fly? Or accept defeat in the hopes of preserving something? In our complex adaptive global society nothing is inevitable. However, the day is coming when Israel will face a hostile, well armed and coordinated Arab-Islamic coaliton. The results are unforseeable, but more than likely devastating.

It’s Our Annual Fundraiser. If you read us a lot, please Subscribe or Donate.

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Sean Paul Kelley Page 1 of 8

Pokrovsk Has Fallen, Now What?

Two Quick Hits

On the Public Abuse of Our Historical Ignorance

Development Politics in Central and South America

Apologies For The Non-Existent Posting

The Tiny Dictate to the Large

Russo-Ukraine War Update

Israeli Actions Encourage the Formation of the Coalition That Will Ultimately Defeat It