His father, a distinguished military officer, resigned in and died in , leaving the family destitute. A few years later Krylov and his mother moved to St. Petersburg in the hope of securing a government pension. Beginning in , Krylov also made three attempts to start a literary magazine , although none achieved a large circulation or lasted more than a year. Despite this lack of success, their satire and the humour of his comedies helped the author gain recognition in literary circles.

Author:Voodoozil Douzragore
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):15 June 2018
PDF File Size:7.29 Mb
ePub File Size:8.81 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Спросить иль выслушать совета. It is difficult to convey artfully for me the meaning of it, but the point is simple--to each his own, if not--expect the trouble, as pike learned the hard way. Cobblers do not bake pies, bakers do not fix boots.

Everyone has to do what they are good at and have a professional background in. So, who is this pike then? What Status Quo Van Buren is talking about? There is NO any status quo in the Middle East since the United States, under totally made up excuses, destroyed Iraq and unleashed chaos in the region, not least through being directly responsible for support of primarily Sunni jihadists and terrorists, simultaneously supporting officially strangely delisted from the list of terrorist organizations by Obama Admin MEK , which is still listed as "associated with terrorist activities" by UN.

Since then, since , there was NO status quo for Iran, which went from strength to strength even in the face of an all out American economic and terrorist warfare on her. Iran got prepared for war with the US. Van Buren, obviously, has no recognition of the fact that NOT wanting, while avoiding, a war and knowing that one "will be crushed militarily" is false equivalency and, in fact, describes two completely different military issues.

Russia avoids war with the United States for this reason. Iran avoids the war for the same reason. Only a person who does not possess a required level knowledge of modern warfare can come up with this utter sheer idiocy which can only be explained by a massive, unbearable butt-hurt: This was all to be expected. Iranian leaders know their country can be destroyed from the air. As only a regional power, it suffers from a massive technological disadvantage in any direct conflict with the U.

Unlike years past, America is willing to take a punch to throw back two. Iran, under sanctions, is near totally dependent on what oil it can export. Oil requires massive infrastructure, all of which can be bombed. Its navy is small and its bases can be destroyed from the air, its harbors mined from above and below the water. I will deconstruct this military strategic delirium by a US Foreign Service "officer" below.

Let me get into the mode I hate with all soul but am forced to, in order to respond to pikes who are trying to catch mice. I Even the air war, including deployment of couple of CBGs, against Iran will require a massive concentration of aircraft on bases around Iran.

Those bases will be attacked and heavily damaged incurring massive losses in aircraft and personnel. Before any first wave of US aircraft will be able to get airborne, they will have to deal with the issue of damage control. Iran is NOT Iraq--she reaches every single base in the region at which USAF assets could be deployed, including those aircraft which will carry stand off weapons.

Here is The Twisted Genius with his thoughts: I was shocked that not one Iranian missile was intercepted. That is military incompetence. Talk about scared straight. I state it non-stop, NO Western AD system is capable to intercept very high speed ballistic maneuvering warheads. That means only ONE thing: III Even if to imagine that the United States decides to commit suicide and begins preparation for the actual massive invasion, it would immediately become obvious that it is IMPOSSIBLE, because: a All ports, approaches, bases and infrastructure required for logistics for such an invasion will be bombed into oblivion, including sinking of the transports, before anything will be delivered or resupplied for such a suicidal mission; b Invasion and "militarily crushing" Iran will require very roughly up to a year of massive mobilization efforts, including but not limited to, assembly of the force of roughly one million troops, ability to move of roughly 4 to 5 million tons of cargo and, yes, it will require introduction of the draft.

They will be first to be burned to the ground by Iranians. Invasion, or even air campaign against Iran will sink US Dollar and will turn global economy into one huge mess. The main question thus is this: WHO will be realistically "militarily crushed"?

Including the main one that US cannot "crush Iran militarily" for the reasons of sustaining gigantic losses in blood, treasure and losing her reputation as a superpower completely. At this stage it becomes really unbearable to read ignorant tactically, operationally, strategically and technologically delirium of grieving US "exceptionalist" who still cannot come to grips with a geopolitical reality of which I am warning for years--US Armed Forces are not designed to fight with competent near-peer without sustaining losses which will destabilize the United States internally to the point of outbreak of Civil Disobedience campaign, if not Civil War 2.

If Mr. Van Buren thinks that I am exaggerating, he may want to look at latest from Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which is nothing more than an epitaph to the American views on naval warfare, of which the United States has glorious and rich and proud history: Naval surface warfare is undergoing a period of rapid technological and operational change. During the nearly 30 years since the end of the Cold War, navies encountered relatively permissive environments, and the threats they did face could largely be defeated by improved defensive systems.

The U. Navy has been slow to address the changing threat environment. The surface fleet is weighted toward large combatants that are too expensive and manpower-intensive to achieve the numbers needed for distributed operations. They also rely on sensors that will likely be unavailable or create unacceptable vulnerabilities during combat against a great power like China. This is the story of the American "way of war" which time after time failed to recognize massive geopolitical and technological shifts in warfare and failed time after time to deliver a real victory.

There is nothing more dangerous than diplomat, political scientist or philosopher waxing militaristic pretending to know anything about how wars are fought--the modern US military history is just that, an incessant march of conceited pikes towards ambushes on the dry land from which, they think, they can catch mice.

Per Status Quo, we will comprehend a full scale of what happened two day ago only with the passage of sufficient time with more information becoming available. As The Twisted Genius points out: Iran is not done. They will now fight us on their terms to pursue their immediate goal of removing our forces and influence from Iraq and Syria.

Diplomatic forums--I simply have no qualifications. Posted by.


Krylov's short fables. Krylov's fables, which are easy to learn

A Russian best selling author who died in , but whose monument in St Petersburg shows his popularity. Each fable is on one or two pages with black line drawing illustrations that are often minimal. For example in "the Elephant in Favor", there is just one character that is not finely drawn and one can just make out that it is an elephant. Leo, king of the beasts took Elephant as his favorite, but the other Fifteen Ivan Krylov fables translated by Guy Daniels and illustrated David Pascal.. Leo, king of the beasts took Elephant as his favorite, but the other animals could not figure it out and criticized the elephant for not having what they had, a fox with a bushy tail, long claws said the bear. The donkey saw the king liked the elephant since he had long ears. The moral of the story is"If people looked more closely, they would find that often they praise others with themselves in mind".


Ivan Andreyevich Krylov

Petersburg , Russian writer of innocent-sounding fables that satirized contemporary social types in the guise of beasts. His command of colloquial idiom brought a note of realism to Russian classical literature. Many of his aphorisms have become part of everyday Russian speech. Born to an impoverished family, Krylov had little formal education and began to work as a clerk at the age of nine. While still in his teens he wrote operas, comedies, and tragedies. After he enjoyed some success as a satirical journalist until government censorship intervened.

Related Articles