rand – DS https://www.anglinarchive.com Daily Stormer Historical Archive Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0.17 https://www.anglinarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/cropped-favicon-32x32.png rand – DS https://www.anglinarchive.com 32 32 House Armed Services Committee Says “Keev” Unlikely to Take Crimea https://www.anglinarchive.com/2023/02/02/house-armed-services-committee-says-keev-unlikely-to-take-crimea/ Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0000

This is defeatism. If Pentagon believes this, they should keep it to themselves. This so called “classified briefing”, is obviously deliberately leaked by Pentagon. Pentagon is perfectly capable of keeping meetings classified if they truly want to.

— Jan Terje Johansen (@jatjo68) February 2, 2023

Previously: So RAND Says the US Lost the Ukraine War and Should Surrender. What Next?

The Pentagon is freaking out. Mark Milley is a psycho faggot who doesn’t care about anything other than boypussy, and he came out months ago and leaked that he’s been telling the Biden people that the situation in the Ukraine is impossible.

The Biden people denounced him as pro-peace and went into damage control.

Then a couple weeks ago, Milley came out publicly and said these objectives are effectively impossible.

He’s only saying this to cover his own ass. He’s definitely not a KGB agent.

Now, the Armed Services Committee is saying something similar – although only with regards to Crimea, whereas Milley and RAND both say that pushing them any further at all is impossible.

RT:

Ukraine’s plans to seize Crimea from Russia are unlikely to succeed in the near future, lawmakers in the US House Armed Services Committee were told at a classified meeting with the Defense Department, according to Politico.

The outlet reports that it spoke to four people who disclosed details from the meeting but wished to remain anonymous. Although the sources did not explain what had led defense officials to their assessment, they stated that the main assertion was that Ukraine does not have the capability to drive Russian forces out of the peninsula. Nor do they expect that situation to change anytime soon. If Kiev attempts such an operation, its success cannot be guaranteed, one of the sources noted.

Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh declined to comment on the classified briefing or discuss “hypotheticals or speculate on potential future operations.” However, Singh claimed that Ukraine’s “ability to fight and take back sovereign territory… speaks for itself.”

The report from Politico comes several weeks after a similar assessment was voiced by the chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley.

There is definitely something going on here.

All these people are coming out and saying the mission is impossible. Milley has a reason to say it, but he could have been fired for saying it the first time, or threatened. But to have RAND and now the House Armed Services coming out and saying it – this looks like an organized move to declare this war unwinnable.

I don’t think a decision has been made. I think these Biden people are pretty committed, but that other power centers are making a move to try to force their hand, force them to back down. Everyone wants a war with China. That is something everyone in Washington agrees on, and it’s something you even see agreement from with Tucker Carlson and others.

That would maybe be a cold war or a hot war, maybe they would just copy-paste this Ukraine thing onto Taiwan. Who the hell knows. But the smart people understand that it is stupid to waste resources on Russia when the real threat to Big Anal is China.

Tucker Carlson is saying this outright: that the US wasting resources in Russia is good for China. Whether this is true from China’s perspective is sort of irrelevant.

We’re coming down to the hard decision, regardless: it’s going to be about the F-16s. If the ZOG commits those, then it’s all in.

Frankly, I support both Russia and China, so I just want the US to do whatever the worst thing for the US is. I’ve been wanting this war in Russia to end, but if it is helping China, then it’s better it doesn’t.

On a personal level, I want to laugh in the faces of all of these true believers who kept saying Russia is losing. But that’s a small thing, and not important.

China is the big one. If China falls, Jews control the whole world. Russia can’t stand on its own.

Related: Is the Ukraine Getting Thrown Under the Bus or What?

]]> So RAND Says the US Lost the Ukraine War and Should Surrender. What Next? https://www.anglinarchive.com/2023/01/29/so-rand-says-the-us-lost-the-ukraine-war-and-should-surrender-what-next/ Sun, 29 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Author’s Note: RT did a second, larger write up of the RAND paper, “Avoiding the Long War.” I read the original, but it takes so much effort to go through and pull the quotes that simply commenting on this piece is much easier.

Previously: RAND Think Tank Says Ukraine War No Longer Beneficial for Jewish “Double-Anal Agenda”

RAND coming out and saying that the US has already lost the war in the Ukraine and should just surrender is basically the biggest thing that has happened since the invasion.

Since US/NATO said flatly that there would never be any negotiations in March of 2022, we’ve kinda just been watching a machine process, where no one is really making any decisions. It was all just cruise control. If nothing else changes, it’s gonna be on

The top war think-tank saying “okay let’s wrap this up and move on” creates a situation where something really could finally happen.

The fact is, “we need these resources for a war with the Chinese” is an argument that is actually going to resonate with a lot of people in Washington.

RT:

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine.

The report has an unequivocal title, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” which provides a strong indication as to its contents.

It starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.

The US ending its financial, humanitarian and particularly military support promptly would cause Ukraine to completely collapse, and RAND cites several reasons why doing so would be sensible, not least because a Ukrainian victory is regarded as both “improbable” and “unlikely,” due to Russian “resolve,” and its military mobilization having “rectified the manpower deficit that enabled Ukraine’s success in the Kharkiv counteroffensive.”

It’s so funny the way the top Pentagon thinkers just say this so matter-of-factly while the entire US media – which also represents the US government – is out there saying the precise opposite. They are still literally saying that Russia is losing (as they call for infinity weapons to be dumped into the Ukraine to stop the anal Jewish fake country from collapsing).

The US media is just not even mentioning this RAND report at all. It’s spooky actually, the way this stuff can just be omitted.

Why the Daily Stormer and other reality-based publications are talking about the RAND report, the top Ukraine article on the New York Times is more braindead gibberish about how Russia is collapsing.

I wonder if these journalists believe this tripe?

Believing their own lies would certainly make their jobs a lot easier.

In my experience, they are very dumb people. Like, shockingly dumb. Less capable of following a train of thought than an auto mechanic. But how could they not be aware of this RAND report?

If the US surrender ends up being a surprise to the journalists, they’ll take it in stride like they did when they found out that the vax is neither safe nor effective.

From the perspective of US “interests,” RAND warns that while the Kremlin has not threatened to use nuclear weapons, there are “several issues that make Russian use of nuclear weapons both a plausible contingency Washington needs to account for and a hugely important factor in determining the future trajectory of the conflict.”

The think tank believes the Biden administration “has ample reason to make the prevention of Russian use of nuclear weapons a paramount priority.” In particular, it should seek to avoid a “direct nuclear exchange” with Moscow, a “direct conflict with Russia”, or wider “NATO-Russia war.”

This is while Petraeus is out there joking about nuclear weapons, saying it’s not really a big deal if Russia drops a couple nukes.

The entire Biden Administration is saying that Putin is insane and on drugs and getting ready to die, but that he is much too reasonable to ever use a nuke.

On the latter point, RAND worries that US general Mark Milley’s demand that the conflict stay “inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine”  is on the verge of being disrespected, as “the extent of NATO allies’ indirect involvement in the war is breathtaking in scope,” including “tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and other aid” and “tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support,” along with “billions of dollars monthly in direct budgetary support to Kiev.”

Such largesse could, RAND forecasts, prompt Moscow to “punish NATO members…with the objective of ending allied support for Ukraine; strike NATO preemptively if Russia perceives that NATO intervention in Ukraine is imminent; interdict the transfer of arms to Ukraine; retaliate against NATO for perceived support for internal unrest in Russia,” if the Kremlin concludes the country’s national security is “severely imperiled.”

I don’t agree with this part so much. Russia doesn’t want to escalate the war outside of the Ukraine. If they did, they would probably jump straight to nukes.

The US, on the other hand, has been casual about this. The Ukraine has attacked Poland, Belarus, Moldova, and Russia itself. The US has also attacked Germany by bombing those pipes, and they are actively trying to provoke some kind of thing in Kosovo.

If there were to be an official escalation in the Ukraine conflict, the US would do a false flag Russian attack on Poland (possibly something different like Finland, but most likely Poland).

These outcomes are “by no means inevitable,” but still represent an “elevated” risk, particularly in light of incidents such as a Ukrainian air defense missile striking Polish territory in November 2022 – a situation exacerbated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky falsely claiming it was a deliberate Russian strike. While this event “did not spiral out of control, it did demonstrate that fighting can unintentionally spill over to the territory of neighboring US allies.”

See, they know. They just can’t use “false flag” type language, but everyone who is informed enough to be reading RAND papers in the first place understands what they’re talking about.

Another incident like that could mean “the US military would immediately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.” This, as well as a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, is a prospect Washington should avoid at all costs, RAND argues.

A clear implication is the US could lose such a conflict, one key reason being, as pointed out by RAND, “the intensity of the military assistance” being given to Ukraine by its Western backers is already approaching an “unsustainable” level, with US and European weapons stocks “running low.” This consequently means a longer war equals more Ukrainian territory reunified with Russia.

On the subject of territorial losses, RAND is unmoved by arguments Ukraine should attempt to recapture all that it has lost since 2014, as “greater territorial control is not directly correlated with greater economic prosperity” or “greater security.”

Haha.

That’s what I’ve said since 2014: capturing Crimea (or now the Donbass) wouldn’t improve the lives of the average hohol in any way, and it would not boost the status of the Ukraine as a country. This entire reasoning is fake, based totally on the US desire to hurt Russia. “Borders are sacred” is an ideological position, and not one that the US has ever cared for.

Land having been retaken by Kiev since September means “Russia has imposed far greater economic costs on the country as a whole.”

RAND also considers the worth of arguments that “greater Ukrainian territorial control” should be assured “to reinforce international norms, and to foster Ukraine’s future economic growth” to be “debatable,” as even in the “unlikely” event Kiev pushes “beyond the pre-February 2022 line of control and manages to retake areas that Russia has occupied since 2014,” the risks of escalation from Moscow, including “nuclear use or an attack on NATO” will “spike.”

This is all just basic common sense.

But it’s been shockingly absent from the discussion in Washington since this debacle began.

“The Kremlin would likely treat the potential loss of Crimea as a much more significant threat both to national security and regime stability,” the report warns.”

All these factors make “avoiding a long war…the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks,” so RAND recommends the US “take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely,” including “issuing assurances regarding the country’s neutrality,” something that Moscow had requested before the conflict began, to deaf ears, as well as “sanctions relief for Russia.”

Yes, they’re calling for Putin’s demands to be met, i.e., they are calling for a surrender.

Of course, it’s important to understand the context: these people are much more concerned about China than they are about Russia, because China is the real superpower threatening Western/Jewish dominance.

Russia, taking on the entirety of NATO, has managed to hold their ground. There is no chance that Russia is going to collapse any time soon. Some people in Washington apparently thought this would be an easy win, and it was not (mostly due to Russia’s ability to navigate the sanctions and actually increase the size of their economy, rather than due to their performance on the battlefield), so the logical thing now would be to cut their losses and focus on China.

People are Going to Look Stupid

The process has now begun. The call has been made and, as I’ve said since at least April, the US is simply burning resources without the potential of any benefit while Russia is making enough money from the economic boon of the US sanctions to keep doing what they’re doing for years.

The half-hearted commitment on the tanks shows that this has already begun to affect policy.

The people who promoted this war, or claimed that the Ukraine was going to win, or mocked Russia for not bringing down all of NATO in three days, are going to be very embarrassed. Maybe they won’t, because it’s literally the same people who promoted the vax, and they apparently can’t really feel embarrassment.

For my part, I might go ahead and do a bit of gloating. Over the last few months, supposed right-wing people have come at me saying Russia is losing.

This huge spam campaign on Twitter is going to look very sad when the realization hits. As far as that goes: I think it will be very hard to do this kind of State Department spam on social media again. These people will try it when they start the war up with China, but people aren’t going to buy it a second time.

This should be a major boost for the morale of those opposing ZOG – even bigger than the Taliban victory.

]]> US Army Introduces New, Even Easier Combat Fitness Test https://www.anglinarchive.com/2022/03/25/us-army-introduces-new-even-easier-combat-fitness-test/ Fri, 25 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Apparently, this is too hard for some people…

This is to help us prepare for war with Russia and China.

We need dumber, weaker, browner people in the military, because that’s the strength of our democracy.

Army Times:

The Army is moving forward with its long-awaited Army Combat Fitness Test this year, but the service has officially dropped the test’s attempt to set a gender- and age-neutral physical fitness standard — as well as any pretense that it’s formally tied to combat tasks, beyond having “combat” in its name.

The shifts come following an independent review of the test by RAND that Congress ordered in the fiscal 2021 defense policy bill.

Among the test’s changes are:

  • The ACFT has adopted age- and gender-normed scoring tables, similar to those on the old Army Physical Fitness Test.
  • The Army, backtracking, now says the test is a “general physical fitness assessment” not intended to predict success on the service’s Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. That comes after RAND challenged the validity of data from the Army’s 2019 tests at Fort Riley, Kansas, that the service said proved the link.
  • The leg tuck is no longer an event — the plank, with a newly lowered standard, is the only core event.
  • A 2.5-mile walk has been added as an alternate aerobic event for troops whose medical profiles prevent them from running.
  • The ACFT will not immediately impact personnel actions. It has phased implementation deadlines ranging from Oct. 1 of this year to April 1, 2024.

In a Monday media roundtable, Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston acknowledged that there was a “conversation” about whether the ACFT’s name was still a good fit. He argued, though, that the name is justified because “in the U.S. Army, we actually — believe it or not — all go to combat.”

The RAND reportIn its independent review of some 630,000 ACFT results and the Army’s data and science underlying the test, RAND “highlighted weaknesses” in the Army’s arguments that the test can predict success in combat tasks, according to a copy of the report.

RAND researchers pointed towards a host of “anomalous findings” with the studies and University of Iowa research, including a small sample size of women and a study design that could have “masked” links between individual ACFT events and corresponding combat tasks.

“The leg tuck, for example, was not useful in predicting performance on combat tasks,” explained RAND’s Dr. Chaitra Hardison, the study’s lead author, in the Monday roundtable.

One of the reasons why Congress ordered the review was to determine whether critically short career fields would be disproportionately impacted. Enlisted fields with the highest failure rates, regardless of gender, included animal care, several non-combat medical specialties, cooks, ammunition stock control and human resources.

Additionally, the report’s analysis of around 460,000 soldiers’ ACFT scores revealed that women were failing the new test at alarming rates.

A total of 48% of active duty enlisted women and 28% of active duty female officers could not pass the test. Nearly 60% of enlisted Reserve and Guard women failed the ACFT, as did 51% of female Reserve officers and 43% of female Guard officers.

Hardison explained that “while the pass rate discrepancies alone do not mean the test is flawed, they are especially concerning when there is insufficient validity of evidence to support the test[’s link to combat tasks].”

That left the service “to grapple with a trade-off,” the researchers said in their concluding paragraph.

“Should all soldiers, regardless of age, gender, and MOS, be subject to the same physical fitness standards (which prioritize combat readiness), or should the test and policies be set such that all soldiers have a reasonable chance of passing but not at the same minimum level of physical fitness?” asked RAND.

The Army went with the latter option.

What are the ACFT scoring tables?

The new scoring tables for the permanent version of the ACFT are thus age- and gender-normed, much like the old Army Physical Fitness Test.

Brig. Gen. Scott Naumann, the Army’s director of training, emphasized that the Army “decided to implement the test as a general physical fitness assessment, as opposed to one that is designed to predict performance on a set of [combat] tasks,” in order “to address evidence shortfalls” with the University of Iowa study.

Linking the test directly to the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills that all soldiers are expected to perform was one of the key components of maintaining age- and gender-neutral testing. But taking away that link to common soldier tasks made it more difficult to justify gender-neutral standards that resulted in such significant failure rates for women.

In some of the events — the run and the plank — the standard to score 60 points and pass the event was lowered from ACFT 3.0 for all gender and age groups. Other events feature lower minimum standards for women and increased minimum standards for men, such as the sprint-drag-carry and the standing power throw.

Naumann explained that the new scales “were developed…using data from the 630,000 ACFT scores that we’ve collected…historic performance rates from the APFT…and scoring scales from other branches of the U.S. military, particularly for the plank.”

This doesn’t even seem to be exclusively about women.

This is also about low testosterone soy people and fatties.

It’s also about women.

Women in the military are, as we know, our greatest strength.

]]> South Africa: Orania Set to Launch its Own Cryptocurrency https://www.anglinarchive.com/2017/07/27/south-africa-orania-set-to-launch-its-own-cryptocurrency/ Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0000 Not Shadowbanned Yet
Daily Stormer
July 26, 2017

The Afrikaner-only town of Orania is freeing itself from the failing Rand, and ZOG-controlled currencies in general, by developing its own cryptocurrency.

Up until now, the little Afrikaner town’s main foray into the digital world has been massive amounts of negro butthurt on Twitter:

CNN:

The town of around 1,300 people already uses a local currency, the ora, which is printed by Orania’s own chamber of commerce and distributed through its central bank.

Ora notes are technically vouchers, pegged to the South African rand, which expire after three years.

The digital version will be accessible via an app that allows users to buy “e-ora” from the central bank, and then trade them with each other and local businesses on smartphones. The digital ora will have no expiry date.

This’ll be great. The Rand has been tanking recently – probably due to not having enough money for programs and affirmative action laws to make up for apartheid.

You know what’s these guys’ problem? Not enough resources.

Prize-winning economist Dawie Roodt is helping them with this project. He says his interest is purely academic and commercial and not at all tied to anything as racist as Whites existing.

“The economy is contracting and the state is highly inefficient,” says Roodt. “We have more private security guards than policemen in South Africa — you have to look after yourself because the state won’t do it.

“The conditions here are a driving force for these developments (with digital currency), people are looking for alternatives. This is one of the best places to experiment.”

Anyway, they’ll almost certainly come under fire from anti-racist groups. So it’ll be a good litmus test for the security of crypto currencies in general.

Cryptocurrencies are implicitly red-pilled to begin with.

It’ll also be a good case study for what’s going to happen to the little White enclaves in America and Europe when all your government institutions are filled with brown “people” who hate you and blame you for their own failure and demand to take what little you have left as the nation and economy that were built by your ancestors and once thrived under your people burn to the fucking ground.

It’s also good for causing even more butthurt. So this whole thing is already paying dividends:

Hail Orania!

]]>