Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 20, 2025 12:05 pm

Bastions "against the Huns" and other results of the Washington summit
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/20/2025

Image

"We need more than a piece of paper," a member of Zelensky's party, quoted by the BBC , stated yesterday, evidently referring to the Budapest Memorandum, which has been manipulated as much as it has been used as an argument to continue the war. The meeting, which revealed the role of the European powers, escorting their proxy to praise the common standard and, through flattery, achieving their goals, did not yield great results, but it did make clear what the discussions will focus on. Ukraine, which treated the Minsk agreements as a piece of paper it never intended to fulfill, is not seeking a treaty, nor are its European allies, precisely because of its binding nature. Being able to manipulate the terms to achieve a prolonged negotiation process in which it never makes its own concessions while trying to increase those of others, has always been the clear strategy of the European countries and Ukraine, with seven years of experience in the art of combining avoiding its commitments and claiming to have already fulfilled them.

In this war, which, contrary to Donald Trump's claims, did not occur because of his electoral defeat, but which could have been avoided if, in 2021, the United States had negotiated with Russia on the issue of NATO expansion and the European countries that negotiated the agreements relating to the Donbass conflict had pressured kyiv to comply with what was signed, the fundamental issues remain the same: security and territories. The development of the Alaska and Washington summits, and the statements of Donald Trump—arbitrator, judge, and party to this war and its diplomacy—show the limits of what kyiv and Moscow can achieve under the current circumstances. Although it clearly dominates on the front lines, Russia is aware that it cannot inflict a severe defeat on Ukraine to impose its terms. Zelensky, for his part, must be aware of the weakness implied by his complete dependence on his partners, but he knows that he will continue to have the unconditional support of European countries and, albeit with some limitations, also of the United States, which is his greatest asset.

Judging by Donald Trump's words in recent days—always cautious, knowing that his opinions can change rapidly and contradict each other at any moment—the areas on which the parties will have to compromise in search of an agreement are clear. After the Washington summit, when both the media and the US president announced that Vladimir Putin had agreed to hold a bilateral and a trilateral meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, for which European countries—desperate to ensure they cannot be excluded—have already proposed Geneva, Yuri Ushakov, the Russian president's unofficial spokesperson on the Ukrainian issue, specified that Moscow supported continuing talks between the two countries' delegations. According to this version, Russia has agreed to raise the profile of representatives from both countries, although a meeting between the two leaders has not been confirmed. Even so, it seems clear that, little by little, Russia is moderating its stance of avoiding a photo with Volodymyr Zelensky until there is a document to sign, thus avoiding the possibility of the meeting becoming a propaganda spectacle. Not upsetting Donald Trump is too important to cross him on matters that could be considered minor, so sooner or later, Russia will have to give in on this aspect, which will not be the only one. Zelensky has also received explicit orders from Donald Trump to "do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility." In the same telephone appearance on his favorite show, Fox & Friends in the Morning , he added that he hopes "Putin is good. And if he's not, it's going to be a tough situation."

The attitude of the United States, the only real arbiter in the current situation, indicates that Russia will have to give in on the security issue, while Ukraine will have to do so on the territorial issue. Despite the image presented at the White House, sitting in a row around Donald Trump's desk, like someone receiving orders from a superior, the European countries wanted to boast by flattering the US president and providing only a few hints of their intentions to impress their interlocutor and guarantee his attention. The eleven occasions on which, as The Washington Post wrote yesterday , Zelensky thanked Donald Trump for his role in less than five minutes is a good summary of the White House summit. So is the delegation that the European countries chose to represent the continent in Washington: Ursula von der Leyen, who won Trump over by giving in to each and every one of the US demands; Mark Rutte, who called Trump "daddy" and thanked him for his historic role in NATO; Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, who fueled the president's ego by inviting him to star in a military parade on the Champs-Élysées and giving him a handwritten letter from the king, respectively; Giorgia Meloni, with her anti-immigration policy; Friedrich Merz, who has accepted without complaint an economic model that eschews Russian energy, one of the foundations of his country's industrial competitiveness; and Alexander Stubb, who won the American leader's friendship by putting on a pair of checked trousers and inviting him to play his favorite sport, golf.

In a week in which the territorial issue had been repeatedly raised, more specifically the concessions Russia demands to reach an agreement, European countries sought to link territories and security to defend a model in which kyiv would emerge relatively well on both fronts. “The unity among EU leaders at today's virtual summit was palpable. We are all committed to a lasting peace that protects the vital security interests of Ukraine and Europe,” wrote Kaja Kallas yesterday, announcing that European countries will participate in providing security guarantees to Ukraine, a proposal that, according to Washington, will be ready in two weeks, and that the EU will continue to impose sanctions against Russia. Brussels has adopted the demand for a ceasefire—which the White House has ordered not to be repeated in public despite the German chancellor and French president's insistence on this unworkable proposal—but it hopes to replace endless war with eternal (political and economic) conflict. This requires a continued, multi-billion-dollar supply of arms, of course, from the United States. In Washington, Zelensky pledged to purchase $100 billion worth of American weapons, a huge investment for a completely dependent country, only possible because funding will come from the European Union.

The armed peace being prepared by London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Kiev also requires security guarantees in the form of boots on the ground , an armed mission by European countries that Russia has resisted in recent years, believing it to be a NATO presence camouflaged by national flags. After the pessimism that reigned last week in the Coalition of the Willing , which had leaked that the armed mission would not be for deterrence but for "tranquility," Donald Trump's words about security guarantees have once again put the military presence of European countries on the ground on the table as part of the security guarantees that the West seeks to force Russia to accept and that the United States understands as a way to compensate Ukraine for the territorial losses it is demanding ( de facto , since even partial recognition, by only the United States, of Russian sovereignty over Crimea has long since ceased to be discussed).

The US plan appears to boil down to offering Russia the right to maintain the territories currently under its control, with the likely return of the Kharkiv, Sumi, and Nikolaev areas currently in Russian hands, and to participate in NATO-like Article V security guarantees for Ukraine. This "historic step" highlighted by Zelensky and his European allies contrasts with the stance Western countries displayed in 2022, when Russia and Ukraine were negotiating a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. “The United States and its allies have been weighing how the West could provide Ukraine with alternative security guarantees should it renounce its NATO membership bid as a concession to Russia to end the war, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN . The talks, which have directly involved Ukrainians, are at a very early stage, as US, Western, and Ukrainian officials are unclear whether the Russian negotiations are anything more than a smokescreen. However, they signaled that it is unlikely the US and its allies will ultimately offer Ukraine the kind of legally binding protections it is seeking,” Natasha Bertrand wrote on CNN on April 1, 2022. Western countries were unwilling to offer Ukraine the security guarantees that Moscow was offering. Therefore, although it is already being presented as a concession demanded from Russia, a way to exploit it in the future as a weakness for Moscow, the Kremlin's acceptance of this type of scenario, which will also include fine print, should not be considered a novelty. Simply resigning itself to seeing a contingent of NATO countries on the other side of the border would be a sign of Russian weakness in the negotiation process.

Once again confident in its ability to gain a presence on the ground with an armed mission that, according to Donald Trump, would be coordinated by the United States, which would offer the air cover, surveillance, and intelligence that Biden was reluctant to offer, the EU now seeks to protect Ukraine from territorial losses. By flatly refusing territorial concessions beyond what is currently under Russian control, European countries are also showing their weakness, as they legitimize what was unacceptable a few months ago: admitting that Ukraine will not regain its territorial integrity, not even the territories lost since the Russian invasion. In 2022, when the West refused to offer security guarantees and opted for war to regain territory, Moscow, which controlled a much smaller part of Donbass, pledged in Istanbul to return the territories of Zaporozhye and Kherson to Ukraine, even renouncing the land corridor to Crimea.

After obtaining for kyiv what Russia offered in 2022 in terms of security guarantees and less territory than the enemy was willing to give up, European countries are now seeking to prevent Donald Trump from forcing Ukraine to give up more territory in Donbass. "I suppose you've all seen the map. You know, a large part of the territory has been taken, and that territory has been taken. Now they're talking about Donbass, but Donbass, as you know, is currently 79% in the hands and under Russian control," Donald Trump stated yesterday. Ukraine's partners, who for seven years never pressured kyiv to implement the Minsk agreements, which would have seen it regain 100% of Donetsk and Luhansk, are seeking to prevent the loss of the 24% of Donetsk still under Ukrainian control. Aware that the idea that controlling Donbass would give Russia a better position to invade Ukraine again—something Trump is unlikely to believe—Stubb, a Finn, used an argument that European countries have historically used to demonstrate the supremacy of their civilization against the barbarism of others. “Slavyansk and Kramatorsk are a fortress against the Huns,” Stubb said, according to The Wall Street Journal, which claims that the argument impressed Donald Trump.

The comment, which implicitly calls Russia barbaric, is reminiscent of others made throughout history, which is not repeated, but rhymes. “The Huns, those barbarous tribes of the north, joined other savage peoples to hasten the ruin of the Roman Empire, with customs devoid of the civility found in sedentary nations,” wrote Montesquieu. “The ferocious and turbulent Huns, together with other barbarous nations, ravaged the Roman provinces, with their savage customs totally incompatible with the order of civilized society,” Hume added. The jungle had invaded the garden.

However, coming from a country that collaborated with Nazism in, for example, the siege of Leningrad, one of the greatest crimes in history, which starved hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens to death until the Red Army managed to break the siege, Stubb's comment inevitably brings to mind a somewhat more recent one. “You know our allies, starting in the north: the brave and heroic Finnish people, who have once again proven their worth beyond all measure. But they are joined by: Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, and finally, allies from all over Europe: Italians, Spanish, Croatians, Dutch, Danish volunteers, even French and Belgian volunteers. I can say with all sincerity that, in the East, perhaps for the first time, all of Europe is fighting with a common goal: just as once against the Huns, this time against this Mongol state of a second Genghis Khan,” declared Adolf Hitler on November 8, 1941, who had invaded the Soviet Union five months earlier. With Finnish help, Nazi Germany was already besieging Leningrad.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/20/basti ... ashington/

Google Translator

I think Russia can win this on the battlefield and it is only diplomatic considerations (ie China, India) which keeps Putin from unleashing the General Staff, which is straining at the bit. Taking Odessa would settle a lot on the ground, both for the people there and to deny NATO the area which is requisite for security.

*******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Russian hackers have published data that they present as a hacked database of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The card index allegedly contains information about the losses of the Ukrainian army since the beginning of the Central Military District: 1,721,000 people killed and missing.

The dynamics by year look like this: 2022 - 118.5 thousand, 2023 - 405.4 thousand, 2024 - 595 thousand, 2025 - 621 thousand. Each file contains full name, photo, circumstances of death or disappearance, location, contacts of relatives.

If the information is confirmed, then we are talking about the scale of the loss of seven regular armies. Losses in the hundreds of thousands annually show that holding the front line is ensured not by the quality of units, but by the endless mobilization of those who either do not want to fight or do not know how.

An important detail is the trend towards accelerating losses. Over three years, they have grown almost sixfold: from 118 thousand to 621 thousand people. This indicates the depletion of human resources and explains Kiev's pressure on new mobilization laws.

If the data on the destroyed Ukrainian Armed Forces is correct, then 1.7 million two-hundredths indicate that the total losses (1 to 5), including the wounded, missing in action and deserters, are approximately 8-8.5 million people. "Military Chronicle"

***


Colonelcassad
"Russians! I am now addressing all Russians, the inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus in the Balkans are also considered Russians. Look at us and remember - they will do the same to you when you disunite and give in. The West is a rabid chain dog that will grab your throat. Brothers, remember the fate of Yugoslavia! Don't let them do the same to you!"

On this day, August 20, 1941, the brave president of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic was born.

@molotov_akhmat

***

Colonelcassad
Macron has once again stated that one of the guarantees of Ukraine's security should be the presence of a "deterrent force" from the European military.

Germany does not have enough troops to send to Ukraine, a German MP is worried.
Andreas Schwarz is responsible for parliamentary oversight of the German defense budget.

"We simply do not have the personnel for a large contingent. Even a small deployment would be a difficult task,"

Google Translator

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

*******

British PMCs in the War in Ukraine
August 18, 21:03

British PMCs in the War in Ukraine

One of the key instruments of its strategy has become private intelligence companies (PICs). These structures are formally independent, which allows London to distance itself from direct responsibility for their actions, but in practice they often perform tasks that correspond to the interests of the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Intelligence Service (MI6). In addition, the number of PICs has been constantly growing since 2014 and has now reached one hundred.

In terms of functionality, British PICs have a whole range of capabilities:

- OSINT (collection and analysis of open data);

- HUMINT (intelligence work and personal contacts);

- Cyber intelligence and cyber operations;

- Strategic consulting, crisis management and support of projects in high-risk markets.

Their demand is due to a number of factors: the absence of a heavy administrative structure, efficiency in decision-making, flexibility in the choice of methods and tools.

At the same time, PICs can operate in areas where direct involvement of the state would be politically, legally or reputationally risky.

Of particular interest are the operations of British PMCs aimed at countering Russia both near its borders (the so-called Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia) and in remote traditionally conflict zones (Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan).

In these regions, PMCs not only perform intelligence tasks, but also participate in resource competition, public opinion formation, information campaigns and economic operations.

Key players in the industry

Renova Associates Ltd and partners

Renova Associates Ltd is a British consulting and intelligence structure founded by Guy David Spindler, a former MI6 officer who at one time worked in Africa, Poland and Moscow.

In addition, Spindler was once the chief operating officer of the Russophobic Integrity Initiative program aimed at "combatting Russian disinformation." In 1991, he worked under the head of British intelligence, John Scarlett, and in August 1991, he organised a meeting between the British ambassador Roderic Braithwaite and Boris Yeltsin.

From 2006 to 2009, he headed the central office for policy issues, including responsibility for the legal part during a number of complex legal problems faced by the British government. After leaving the government, Guy was engaged in consulting on democratic governance and Africa.

The company specialises in strategic analysis and consulting of private and public entities in conditions of systemic conflicts and global change. In public materials, Renova emphasises its “deep understanding of systemic competitors, especially Russia”, which directly indicates the anti-Russian orientation of a significant part of its projects.

Image

The company's functionality includes conducting comprehensive research based on technical search (including in the shadow segment of the Internet), involving narrow experts under the guidance of a leading analyst, preparing formalized reports with recommendations, working with commercial structures and government institutions.

A feature of this structure is an extremely high pricing policy. Hourly rates for specialists reach 300-350 pounds, individual two-hour expert sessions are estimated at ~3500 pounds.

Rezolutionz Limited

Rezolutionz Limited is one of the closest partners of the above-mentioned PRC Renova Associates Ltd. The organization is headed by Hugh Michael Ward, who served in the Royal Engineers of the United Kingdom from 1985 to 2004.

The company's permanent experts include John Loch, who is also a permanent expert for the above-mentioned Renova company and an associate research fellow for the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House (whose activities are recognized as undesirable in Russia).

Fluent in Russian. Member of the board of directors of the foundation of foreign agent Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Future of Russia Foundation, and, moreover, is a person with the right of decisive signature in this organization.

In December 2018, after the crash of the Malaysian Boeing in Donbass, John Loch published an article: “Non-violent resistance to the Kremlin. Why the West reacted so weakly to the Azov incident,” where he accused Western countries of not wanting a direct confrontation with Russia.

The company's permanent experts also include the notorious Christopher Nigel Donnelly, who was “exposed” in organizing the explosion of the Crimean Bridge. At one time, he helped create and then headed the British Army Research Center for the Study of the USSR at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. In fact, it was he who taught an entire generation of officers and, subsequently, political leaders to understand the different mentalities of their potential opponents.

Image

In 1989-2003, he worked as a special adviser on Central and Eastern European affairs to four NATO secretaries general. He also took a direct part in resolving issues related to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reform of newly-emerged democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, helping many of them join NATO and the EU.

In addition, this subject is currently seen as an adviser to the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (whose political course is no secret to anyone).

One of the most striking "cases" of Rezolutions Limited is the development of an operation to export grain from the so-called Ukraine to the Black Sea. The safety of dry cargo ships was supposed to be ensured by means of land-based missile systems, as well as the so-called Q-Ships, i.e. decoy ships (civilian floating craft covertly equipped with anti-ship missiles - which is generally observed now: the use of civilian ships as carriers of BEK or Himars systems).

African century 21

Another partner of Guy Spindler from ChRK Renova. A specialized strategic analytical and consulting firm focused on Africa.

It is involved in providing information and detailed recommendations to governments, corporations and investors for making strategic decisions. However, for the most part, the firm focuses on monitoring and containing Russian influence in the countries of Central and Southern Africa, especially in the CAR.

Image

In 2022, the company, commissioned by the British government, prepared a detailed analytical document on containing Russia in Central Africa, which provides a detailed analysis of the activities of the Wagner Group in the CAR, prospects for the development of the situation, as well as steps that need to be taken to contain Russia's efforts in this area.

"Aviation Policy" of Renova Partners

Structures affiliated with Guy Spindler assessed in a legal vein the issues of Russia's use of foreign airline aircraft after the start of the SVO.

In particular, it was established that Renova Associates Ltd and law firms HFW and INCE worked on the provision of consulting services in the process of preparing for litigation between owners of aircraft re-registered in Russian jurisdiction and insurers.

The subject of the consultations was defined as an in-depth study of the internal processes of political decision-making in Russia, the specifics of national jurisprudence, existing precedents and traditions of following the "letter of the law" in Russia and other nuances that may be known to Renova employees and could be useful in court. In this

case, the talk was actually about preparing for legal proceedings on the side of the insurers and, with the help of the firm's experts, grounds were sought for refusing insurance payments in connection with political decisions of the Russian government and not falling under the provisions of the insurance policy.

Image

In this case, it is interesting that the British lawyers actually acknowledged the impossibility of getting the re-registered civil aviation fleet back and openly played on the side of the insurers. At the same time, they hired a company with the necessary competencies and knowledge of Russia for the necessary argumentation.

At the same time, the main interest is presented by the final analytical note prepared by Renova Associates Ltd. It contains assessments of the actions of the Russian authorities and forecasts for the further development of the situation.

In particular, it stated the following:

- Russia is not a state governed by the rule of law, in which compliance with the law occurs only in words. Russia has only the attributes of a state governed by the rule of law;

- An attempt at democratic reforms in Russia did not work - Russia has been systematically moving away from Western values and rules for more than 20 years;

- There is extensive criminalization of state power mechanisms in Russia - the law enforcement system is configured exclusively to support and strengthen the usurpation of power;

- Laws are sacrificed for political expediency - when necessary, the rule of law can be violated;

- Russia has a kleptocracy, while a class of oligarchs was specially created who were allowed to accumulate assets in exchange for loyalty and the need to part with them at the request of the Kremlin;

- The return of aircraft to lessors is impossible, because air traffic is a critical element of domestic political stability and any deterioration in this area threatens serious regional turbulence;

– Putin believes that he is waging a real war with the West and will use any measures available to him to weaken the enemy. At the same time, Putin “doesn’t give a damn” about Russia’s reputation in the eyes of foreigners.

Simon Mann and his ChRK

A certain amount of attention was attracted by a character named Simon Mann, a mercenary and former SAS officer, who was noted for his role in the creation of several ChRKs at once.

What makes his biography especially intriguing is the fact that Mann died of a heart attack at the age of 72 in May 2025. But these are just details.

After leaving the army, in 1996 he founded Sandline International together with former Scots Guards Colonel Tim Spicer.

Sandline worked mainly in Angola and Sierra Leone, managing to get into the negative spotlight after a contract with the government of Papua New Guinea. In addition, some media reports suggest that on March 7, 2004, Mann, while working for the PMC Executive Outcomes, led an attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea.

He was arrested by Zimbabwean police at Harare airport along with 64 other mercenaries. He ultimately served three years of a four-year sentence in Zimbabwe, and less than two years of a 34-year, four-month sentence in Equatorial Guinea.

Image

In addition, Mann is the author of the project to create an irregular military unit called "Legion" with a total of about six thousand people in Mozambique. According to the official version, the unit's task was to carry out tasks to liberate the territories of Cabo Delgado from ISIS units (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation).

The main goal of this project is to take control of gas reserves on the Mozambican shelf, as well as a gas processing plant in the city of Afgun.

At the same time, in 2020, the media reported that Wagner PMC fighters left Mozambique due to "several defeats and the inability to effectively conduct combat operations in difficult African conditions" and instead, local authorities brought in the British PMC Dyck Advisory Group, which worked in the country until March 2021.

The presence of the "Legion" was positioned as "the exercise of Mozambican sovereign power to defeat the Islamist insurgency in Cabo Delgado, which risks spreading far beyond its borders." In this regard, the brigade was to consist mainly of local representatives of the armed forces, as well as a certain number of "foreign instructors."

The local part consisted of volunteers - fighters of the armed forces of Mozambique, who were selected, trained and equipped accordingly. External forces (the so-called "outsiders") were professional soldiers from any country - mercenaries.

The recruitment and provision of "outsiders" was supposed to be handled by the Maputo-based STTEP (Specialised Tasks, Training, Equipment and Protection) team, which is the successor to the already mentioned British PMC Executive Outcomes - which is currently structurally part of the PMC Dyck Advisory Group).

Simon Mann was involved in other processes as well. We have at our disposal correspondence between Mann himself, an unknown person named "Paul Portz" and Afghan businesswoman Hassina Sayed, as well as her husband, Peter Jouvenal, concerning the organization of deliveries of weapons and ammunition from Afghanistan to Ukraine for a total of approximately 4.2 billion US dollars using Soviet IL-76 cargo planes on the Bagram-Sharji-Kiev route under the guise of humanitarian aid.

In particular, the correspondence materials discuss the development of the so-called "Project 1", which consists of the transfer of a significant amount of weapons and equipment from Afghanistan to Ukraine.

The following were discussed, among other things: deliveries of 33 Blackhawk helicopters, 10 AC 208 Cessna helicopters, 29 Brazilian A-29 CAS (Embraer) light turboprop attack aircraft, 32 MI-17 helicopters, 32 MD 530 (Light helicopter) helicopters, a significant number of Humvee armored vehicles, m113 and m1117 armored vehicles, as well as individual armor protection equipment, personal weapons and ammunition.

Image

Of particular interest is the subsequent correspondence, which discusses the characteristics of the Il-76 aircraft (including the capacity and ability to transport HMMV armored vehicles), as well as the routes (range) from Sharjah (UAE) to Bagram (Afghanistan) and to Kiev (the so-called Ukraine); the nuances of logistics for flights to the so-called Ukraine were also discussed - routes from Bagram or Sharjah, as well as the possibility of using the Qatar airfield as a transshipment hub.

Image

At the same time, a discussion was conducted on which humanitarian cargo is best suited for flights - i.e. convenient options for encrypting deliveries were selected. In addition, the issue of the security of the air corridor was raised - whether it is protected from Russian influence and whether it is necessary to organize an escort from the United States.

Prevail Partners Ltd

Another PRC, which is made up predominantly of former British intelligence officers, provides a full range of security services, including intelligence, financial investigations, strategic consulting, risk management and technology integration.

Prevail also has special forces-led close protection units that provide fast and secure evacuations from all parts of the continent.

Prevail Partners is also known for its financial investigations into the assets of Jan Marsalek, the former COO of the now-bankrupt fintech firm Wirecard, the facts of former Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi’s “bankruptcy of his country”, the clarification of the circumstances of the creation of a global network of illicit assets worth more than one billion dollars used by former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his confidants, as well as a host of other illegal financial machinations.

The company works with global law firms and international banks, and is engaged by governments of various countries. Considering the short history of the company (six years), this fact testifies to the serious authority of its founders among the British authorities and the absence of doubts about the professionalism of the team.

Prevail differs from its competitors in that its entire management team comes from the British military special forces. The company's management is represented by former army intelligence officers Damian Huntingford and Justin Hedges. The intelligence unit is headed by a former military intelligence officer of the Royal Army, Darin Liddle.

Image

The company is closely involved in the information support of activities carried out by British agencies on the territory of the so-called Ukraine. In particular, it regularly publishes reviews of the military-political situation in the so-called Ukraine.

On February 16, 2022, the company published a report according to which Russia was ready to "launch an invasion of Ukraine" within two weeks.

This company also prepared a guide for foreign mercenaries on visiting frontline territories, namely Kurakhovo and Odessa: it described the safest routes, the probable change in the line of combat contact, opportunities to hide from artillery strikes, etc.

Emerald BI Limited and Caracal BI Limited

The head of both structures is Donna Elaine Cox, who worked for 16 years in MI6 and 12 years in private intelligence. Works through a network of subcontractors, carries out projects in Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The largest client is the GemCorp corporation.

Emerald BI Limited in the so-called Ukraine was associated with an attempt to sell Siemens Westinghouse gas turbine generators "for the needs of the Ukrainian government." Many people were involved in this "process", including the British ambassador to the so-called Ukraine. One of Donna Cox's partners in this case was even knighted former member of the House of Lords Henry Bellingham.

However, this plan did not work, as it harmed the interests of American structures in the so-called Ukraine.

As noted above, the largest client of Emerald BI Limited is GemCorp, which, in addition to having commercial interests in a large number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, "supplies" Donna Cox's company with new clients (such a practice is also a characteristic feature of the British business community and its interaction with the PRC).

GemCorp has set tasks for Emerald BI Limited in dozens of countries, starting in 2023. The PRC studied the Ghanaian environmental fund, the political situation in the DR Congo, the owners of an oil refinery in Liberia, an energy company in Sierra Leone, the political establishment of Chad, etc.

Image

The example of Emerald BI Limited's cooperation with GemCorp in the African direction can highlight some interesting features of the work of all British PRCs.

Donna Cox corresponds only with one performer engaged in collecting and analyzing information - Victoria (mail nickname Saxi Fraga, address saxifragaceae2023@gmail.com). She interacts with Cox when implementing all Emerald BI Limited projects around the world.

The algorithm looks like this. Cox sends Victoria a list of questions, the amount is discussed (as a rule, Cox has already discussed the cost with the client before starting the interaction with Victoria, and it can change very slightly), the terms (as a rule, they are quite short, up to one month).

Then, over a certain period of time, Victoria sends interim reports to Donna, and at the end - a final summary, which, by the way, is not some kind of multi-page document, but, as a rule, quite short.

The amounts for the services rendered fluctuate in the range from 5 to, maximum, 15 thousand pounds sterling. It is not clear what the pricing depends on. The amount of expenses itself is not specified, but it definitely does not include the prices of air tickets, hotels, etc. Depending on the "order", the client is given a very serious circle of sources that are planned to be used to cover his issue.

The list includes contacts (naturally, impersonal) from national intelligence agencies, police services, presidential administrations, specialized agencies, business circles, etc.

And, in all cases without exception, these same officials are always unoccupied during the specified time interval, are "on site" (not on a business trip, not on sick leave, not transferred to another area) and, at the first call, contact representatives of foreign intelligence services (even former ones) without any problems.

At the same time, any solutions to the tasks set in any country are carbon copies. The correspondence does not show the strengths and weaknesses of the CRC in a particular country, the work to find and attract sources is not noticeable, because the situation is constantly changing (especially in Africa): some of the sources from among officials could be removed, someone could be rotated, etc.

Everything is always in order with Emerald BI Limited: regardless of the country, there is a template, routine and predictable process with the involvement of "standard" sources, as if the CRC focuses on positions in its "investigations" and not on specific people.

Given the strict financial regulation in the UK, we can say with confidence that the client in the form of a legal entity enters into a consulting agreement with Emerald BI Limited and officially transfers money to the CRC account.

Again, in connection with the transparency of financial flows in the UK, it is unclear how Donna Cox and Victoria pay for the services of their numerous sources around the world, who, by the way, are supposedly official officials in their countries.

From the above, we can put forward several versions of the algorithms for the work of Emerald BI Limited “all over the world”:

– Taking into account Cox’s experience in MI6 and the corresponding connections, information about specific persons involved, assets and the situation in countries can be obtained from the relevant linear departments of the special services, the Foreign Office, the UK Department for International Trade;

– Given the availability of individual local sources in some countries, the situation described above with “subcontracts” can also be applied by Emerald BI Limited (this may be what the pricing is related to);

– The main profile of Emerald BI Limited is Osint and Humint. Accordingly, orders can be processed without involving so-called “local sources”. Some information from the final summaries resembles the theses of some TG channels of the Russian segment – that is, information is declared without presenting any evidence.

There is another point that indirectly indicates the absence of “real high-ranking” officials at Donna Cox and Emerald BI Limited – the absence of “live”, “active” events. Many CHRKs actively act as intermediaries “at the junction” between business and officials, in order to extract commission income.

Theoretically, having extensive connections in the business community of Great Britain, as well as in the "power" and "bureaucratic" spheres of African countries (where the level of corruption is very high), Donna Cox could actively earn money "on the visits" of European businessmen to various spheres of life of certain states (joint ventures, mining, construction, trade, etc., etc.).

Donna Cox's structures are not engaged in this type of activity, which may indicate either the absence of real connections of Emerald BI Limited in the political establishment of foreign countries, or some "internal guidelines" of the ChRK that do not allow such activities (the situation with the sale of gas turbine generators to Ukraine does not count, since this post-Soviet republic, in principle, is a "passing yard" for European businessmen and officials).

A characteristic feature associated with the politicization of business processes at the present stage is the fact that one of the points of the requested cases for the study of certain individuals/legal entities (mainly in the post-Soviet space) is “lack of connections with Russia” and “sources of the initial capital obtained in the 90s”, since some countries of the former USSR may “not have time to move away from their Russian corrupt past”.

In general, the scale of Emerald BI Limited’s activities and its client base are impressive, however, based on the received fragments of the resume (at least those that were available), it is difficult to make an unambiguous conclusion about the quality of the “local” sources of the British CRC, or about their existence in principle.

Roles and findings

Analysis of the evidence presented shows that UK private intelligence companies are a complex and poorly regulated network of non-state actors with significant resources, professional staff with intelligence experience, extensive international connections, and a flexible toolkit in the areas of HUMINT, OSINT, cyber intelligence and operational support.

Formal independence from the UK government allows these companies to operate in the "gray zone" of international law, bypassing direct restrictions and minimizing London's political responsibility for their operations. At the same time, their work in many cases is openly political and purposefully anti-Russian in nature: from participation in information and psychological campaigns and economic pressure to assistance in military and logistical operations, including actions in conflict zones.

Image

Particular danger is created by close integration with British and allied intelligence services while maintaining a formal commercial shell; a wide geography of influence - from adjacent territories to Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan; access to high-ranking sources and controlled use of insider information; financial opacity and inflated tariffs for analytics on Russia.

The latter creates all the conditions for the commercialization of espionage under the guise of consulting. This is accompanied by the development of outright fraud, when individuals of a certain level can squeeze out information at extortionate prices that has no connection with reality or is in the public domain.

Taken together, all this makes the British PSCs a significant element of hybrid pressure on Russia and its partners. Their activity carries risks not only in the area of state security, but also in the economic, information and legal spheres.

The necessary countermeasures should include:

– Systematic monitoring of the activities of foreign PSCs and related affiliated structures;

– Intelligence and counterintelligence analysis of their connections, customers and methods of work;

– Legal regulation of the presence and activities of such companies in Russia and on the territory of allied states;

– International interaction with partners along security lines to exchange data on risks and the schemes used;

– Information warfare – uncovering and publicly exposing operations directed against Russian interests.

Thus, the British PSCs are not just a private business in the security sphere, but an instrument of strategic power projection, capable of operating where the state does not want or cannot formally advertise itself. An adequate understanding of their role and early counteraction are necessary conditions for protecting national sovereignty and minimizing threats in modern conditions of hybrid conflicts.

https://rybar.ru/chastnaya-razvedka-na- ... obritanii/ - zinc

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10018566.html

We went to the Bryansk region
August 19, 21:02

Image

Destroyed Ukrainian SRG, which tried to enter the territory of Bryansk region. Total 3 200x and 3 captured.
Characters were covered 40 km from the border. They tried to get to the railway junction and organize the explosion of the train, similar to the explosion of the railway bridge in Bryansk region a couple of months ago. Perhaps these are the same ones.

This is already the second sabotage and reconnaissance group destroyed in recent days. The enemy has intensified probing of our border areas.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10020748.html

(Other images of splatted Ukes at link, if that's your thing...)

Patriot and IRIS-T air defense missile systems have been destroyed in Odessa.
August 20, 10:58

Image

Powerful strike by Iskander in Odessa: German IRIS-T SLM air defense missile system position destroyed!

On the evening of August 19, units of the Russian Armed Forces carried out a precision strike on enemy air defense in Odessa, in the area of the Hydroport. The destruction of the German IRIS-T SLM anti-aircraft missile system has been confirmed.

Footage from the scene shows a large-scale fire, a powerful detonation, everything points to a direct hit on the SAM.
According to intelligence, the strike hit the IRIS-T SLM combat unit covering the southern coast and the port waters. At the time of arrival, the following were in position: a launcher, a TRML-4D radar, a command and communications vehicle, as well as vehicles with ammunition.

Result: one IRIS-T launcher was completely destroyed, the radar and command and staff vehicle were disabled. The anti-aircraft missiles on the launcher detonated. The system was disabled.
The enemy's losses were up to detachment.

This umbrella provided air defense for the southern zone, covered logistics, warehouses and port infrastructure.
Such effective strikes became possible thanks to the coordinated work of our intelligence and dramatically increased technical capabilities: precise coordinates, confirmation by visual identification and tracking of the radar system.

The destruction of even one IRIS-T SLM is a very tactical success.
The enemy has lost one of the key elements of the air defense supplied by Germany. Now the Ukrainian Armed Forces will not be able to effectively cover the airspace above the port area, and the density of air defense in the southern direction has been significantly reduced. This once again proves the high efficiency of our army in coordinating reconnaissance and strikes even in difficult urban conditions and when the Ukrainian Armed Forces are trying to hide Western weapons. Let's keep working!

UPD: Loyal sources suggest that the catch is much fatter than was indicated, a Patriot air defense system was redeployed to the IRIS position, and the secondary detonation heard by local residents was the detonation of its launcher.
The hohols did a good job with the rotation, successfully.

NgP raZVedka ( https://t.me/NgP_raZVedka - zinc

Image

They also took out the oil depot in Izmail at night. It was burning well there until the morning.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10021415.html

Timed creativity
August 20, 8:42

Image

Details about the already known captured M113 with the flags of the Russian Federation and the USA, which was commented on in a hysterical manner "What are these Russians doing..." by Yermak, McFaul and other scum.

They sent additional information about this captured devil-cart with the flags of the Russian Federation and the USA.
The Ukrainians said that the video was filmed near the village of Malaya Tokmachka in the Zaporizhia direction.
Our guys said that it was filmed by specialists of the 70th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment of the 42nd Guards Division. The creative work is timed to coincide with the Russian-American negotiations in Alaska. The soldiers say that they took the foreign armored personnel carrier from the Ukrainian Armed Forces much earlier, where they also found the US flag. And after Trump's meeting with the Darkest One, they decided to stick it to the side - next to the tricolor.
On the day of filming, they were driving to disassemble the positions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Zaporizhia direction, and on the way back they were hit by a Ukrainian FPV drone. The armored personnel carrier suffered damage to the tracks, and the crew got a slight shake.
Give up, hussy!©™


https://t.me/PravdaShuravi/42949 - zinc

In general, the trolling was worth all the money. Well, and the main thing is that all the fighters who staged the race are alive. The US flag also turned out to be a trophy.


Google Translator

*****

We brought you a rocket
August 18, 2025
Rybar

Image
" The British are testing a new missile with Ukrainian hands"

An Associated Press photographer posted a photo on Facebook of a Flamingo missile at the Fire Point defense company plant, which he called "Ukrainian." The journalist wrote that the missile is already in serial production and its range will be 3,000 km.


The media drew attention to the fact that the Flamingo is similar both visually and technically to the FP-5 from the Emirati-British company Milanion Group. It was presented at the international defense and industrial exhibition IDEX-2025 in Abu Dhabi in February of this year.

If we look at the retrospective of the entire SVO, then such a situation is not new. Ukrainian formations and the so-called Ukraine itself have been a testing ground for equipment, weapons and combat tactics since the very beginning of military operations.

Over the years of the SVO, there have been many "Ukrainian developments" that were observed in NATO armies before their appearance in the SVO. The most obvious example is the unmanned "glider" type boat, which the Ukrainian Armed Forces first showed in the Black Sea , based on a British development.

The same can be said about unmanned aerial vehicles and missile weapons. The same UAV " Lyuty " is the work of Western engineers. The MLRS "Olkha" has undergone in-depth modernization with the help of German specialists.

Therefore, the scenario in which the Ukrainian authorities present Western developments as their own has long been tested. For the West, this is an ideal opportunity to test ideas in real combat, without worrying about possible political costs.

These missiles themselves are a confirmation of new trends in the development of long-range weapons. Of course, the Storm Shadow or Taurus are dangerous cruise missiles, but they are very expensive. And the FP-5 are cheaper options that can be mass-produced. At the same time, they will be launched from ground-based launchers.

For this reason, the appearance of these cruise missiles in the Ukrainian Armed Forces should be expected in the near future. And smirks about the fact that in the so-called Ukraine they are presented as their own are inappropriate in this case. This is a weapon that the enemy will acquire and with which he will be able to strike our troops.

And whose label it is is not so important in this case.

https://rybar.ru/my-vam-raketu-zavezli/

Nothing personal
August 18, 2025
Rybar

Image

" Russian Armed Forces Strikes on SOCAR Ukraine Facilities "

On the night of August 18, Russian troops again struck oil and gas infrastructure in the Odessa region . This time, the target of the strike was the Svitanok Oil Trade oil depot , owned by the Azerbaijani company SOCAR Energy Ukraine .

In total, the company's assets in the country are valued at more than $85 million , including oil depots in the area of the largest cities of the so-called Ukraine. Its facilities are used, among other things, for storing and transporting fuel in the interests of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Which SOCAR Ukraine facilities have already been hit by the Russian Armed Forces?
The company's oil depots are located near the largest cities of Kiev , Lviv , Odessa , Vinnytsia and Kharkov regions .

So far, the only SOCAR facility of this type that has been damaged is the Svitanok Oil Trade oil depot near Odessa . The transshipment point came under SOCAR control in 2017 and plays a significant role in the oil transportation infrastructure of the so-called Ukraine.

Judging by the footage from the scene, as a result of several strikes, a significant portion of the fuel tanks, as well as technical facilities of the oil depot, were damaged.

Some of the company's products are supplied to the Chuguev Oil Refinery in the Kharkiv region . Several strikes hit it on July 5, resulting in a fire at the plant.

There are also several dozen SOCAR gas stations operating in the country. Their storage facilities have been used by the enemy since 2022 for decentralized storage of fuel in the face of regular strikes by the Russian Armed Forces on larger facilities.

The choice of the SOCAR oil depot in Odessa region as a target for the attack is expected. It is one of the main transshipment points in the south of the so-called Ukraine, providing transportation of oil from the Black Sea ports.

In this context, the indignation of the Azerbaijani media regarding the strikes on SOCAR facilities appears groundless. And, given that the assets of the Azerbaijani company serve the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces , there should be no questions at all.

https://rybar.ru/nichego-lichnogo/

Google Translator

List of ‘kidnapped’ Ukrainian children for sale? No, a regional database of Lugansk orphans
August 19, 2025 Andrea Lucidi

Image

Aug. 14 – In recent days, several Italian media outlets [as well as other Western media – SLL] have circulated a piece of news that quickly spread online: in the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), a “catalog” containing data on kidnapped Ukrainian children — allegedly destined for child trafficking — was said to have been published.

The information was disseminated by Save Ukraine, an NGO founded in 2014 and described on its own website as being committed to “recovering kidnapped Ukrainian children.” Among its listed partners are USAID, the European Union, and the Austrian Ministry for European Affairs.

The story, relayed by various outlets without in-depth investigation, is not supported by concrete evidence: the articles do not cite any verifiable sources confirming Save Ukraine’s version. The accusations of “child trafficking” appear to fit into the context of intense political and propaganda confrontation between Kiev and Moscow, with Russia considering the LPR an integral part of its own territory following the 2022 referendum.

What Lugansk People’s Republic says


To clarify the nature of the document, we contacted Vladlena Shehovtsova, Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the LPR. In her reply, she firmly rejected any accusations of abductions:

“Children who have lost their family have the right to special protection and assistance from the state. This is guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These children must be guaranteed not only comfortable living conditions and quality education, but also the possibility of returning to a family. Parents, even if they are not the biological parents, can become a safe support, sharing their life experience and wisdom.

“To accelerate and optimize this process, a state database on children left without parental care has been created. Digitization is now being introduced in many sectors, including the work of guardianship and trusteeship bodies.”

According to the deputy minister, the creation of the database falls within the obligations set out by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which assign the state the duty to guarantee protection and assistance to minors deprived of parental care.

The LPR Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Inna Shvenk, also commented on the situation:

“Work with foster families includes a set of activities aimed at supporting families that have taken in children left without parental care. This work provides psychological, pedagogical, social, and legal support, and is generally carried out in close cooperation with the competent state authorities.

“Every guardian or foster parent is required to attend a ‘school for foster parents,’ undergo a medical examination, and prepare the set of documents required by federal legislation. In addition, efforts are made to establish contact between the potential guardian/foster parent and the child.

If a positive relationship is established, the opinion of the child regarding their willingness to join a foster family is necessarily taken into account. In this way, the state acts exclusively in the best interests of the child.”

How the orphan database works

Shehovtsova explains that the platform is a regional database on children left without parental care, established “to help citizens who wish to take in a child in foster care or adopt them, and to create a single archive of reliable information quickly accessible to the competent authorities.”

Management is entrusted to the LPR’s Ministry of Education and Science, which acts as the regional operator of the register, in accordance with Russian federal law number 44-FZ of April 16, 2021.

Prospective adoptive parents or guardians must be adult Russian citizens and legally competent. Before placement, “a thorough check of the family’s moral, material, and physical level” is required, as well as completion of a specific training course.

Once the child is placed, “guardianship and care authorities carry out scheduled and unscheduled inspections at the place of residence to ensure that the child’s rights and interests are respected and that his or her property is safeguarded.”

What has been happening since 2014

Since 2014 [when Ukraine’s government launched its war on the people of Lugansk and Donetsk, backed by Washington], the deputy minister states, the LPR has promoted “numerous initiatives to place orphans and children deprived of parental care in new families,” significantly reducing “the number of minors housed in institutions” and fostering their upbringing “in family settings, with every opportunity for harmonious development.”

The case of the alleged “sale of children” shows how intense the informational conflict parallel to the military one has become. On one side, Ukraine and its Western allies accuse Moscow and the Russian authorities of deportations and illicit trafficking; on the other, the LPR and Russia reject the accusations, presenting initiatives like the orphan database as legal measures for child protection.

Presenting official LPR documents as “catalogs for the sale of children” without verifiable evidence means using disinformation as a political weapon to polarize public opinion and undermine the credibility of information itself.

https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2025/ ... k-orphans/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Thu Aug 21, 2025 11:51 am

The importance of Donbass
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/21/2025

Image

Budapest or Geneva are the first two locations floated for a summit, the first face-to-face meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky since the Normandy Format meeting in December 2019, which has yet to be confirmed. “Putin doesn’t even mention Zelensky’s name. Will he sit down with him to negotiate?” The New York Times wondered yesterday , adding that “the Kremlin is keeping its options open, but analysts say the Russian leader would probably only meet with his Ukrainian counterpart to accept a capitulation.” Analysts , that is, those whose position makes them quotable by the Western press, are oscillating between demanding capitulation—even though neither the terms currently offered by Russia nor those of Istanbul in 2022 or Minsk in 2014-2015 are a demand for surrender—and fear of Zelensky. More pragmatically, the Kremlin appears to be considering how to show its willingness to make the gestures demanded by Donald Trump, among which a meeting of presidents clearly stands out, while giving up as little ground as possible on the diplomatic front, where Ukraine, always supported by its allies, boasts a greater strength than its relative weakness on the front lines and its complete economic dependence on it demonstrate.

Without bothering to recall what happened between the signing of the Minsk agreements, which concluded the heated phase of the Donbass war, and the Russian invasion, the media have drawn a direct line between “the first invasion of Ukraine” and February 24, 2022. In this way, the flagrant Ukrainian failure to fulfill the commitments made upon signing them, the economic, banking, and transport blockade, and the years of insults to the region's population have been erased from the collective memory. Petro Poroshenko declared that “our children will go to school; yours will sit in basements,” a phrase he concluded by adding the reason, “because they don't know how to do anything.” The contempt for the population of the industrial region increased with the Ukrainian nationalist wave of 2014 and reached its peak when a portion of the population took up arms to defend themselves against Ukrainian aggression. However, it was not born after the victory on Maidan; it simply reproduced attitudes that had already emerged in western Ukraine during World War II. The discourse of Ukrainian unity has always ignored the cultural and economic differences between the regions and the specific characteristics of Donbass, which is more dependent on the Russian market than other Russian-speaking areas such as Kharkiv. Ignored for years due to the lack of interest of the Western media, the contempt of the political class and its influencers persists even now, as the region returns to the center of political debate.

“Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea are Ukraine’s most problematic regions. The concentration of Vatniks per square kilometer before 2014 was absolutely devastating. All I remember from those days is that they were constantly offended for no reason and, frankly, not appreciated. All they talked about was how great Russia is compared to Ukraine and how tough Putin is,” wrote Lesia Dubenko, a frequent publicist on this war who has even written for the Atlantic Council , last week . Comparing Donbass with other Russian-speaking regions such as Kharkiv, Dubenko added, “One of the reasons the Russians haven't been as successful there is because they're not well-received. The local population doesn't help them, unlike in Donetsk, where, by many people's admission, the locals often help the enemy. It's a piece of shit, and even the mere prospect of having to live again with a bunch of vatnik zombies who will drag Ukraine into a dark geopolitical situation gives me a headache, to be honest. I want Ukraine to join the EU and be a socially homogeneous country without all these Russia-loving bastards, who are entirely responsible for their own decisions and dreams.” A socially homogeneous country where only nationalist discourse is acceptable, imposed as the official national narrative, has been Ukraine's main objective for the past eleven years. Ukraine has always insisted on the need to recover Crimea and Donbass but has never stopped hating the population there.

After years of ignoring its existence, imposing an economic blockade intended to sink its economy, and suggesting that those who felt Russian abandon their lives and move to Russia, Ukraine has remembered the importance of Donbass. Suddenly, Donald Trump's explicit announcement ordering Ukraine to accept territorial concessions and the apparent possibility that the United States might not be absolutely opposed to all of Donbass remaining in Russian hands has once again made Donetsk and Luhansk the focus of political debate. Generally without specifying whether they are talking about the parts still under Ukrainian control (1% of Luhansk and 24% of Donetsk, only in the latter case with major cities on the Kyiv side) or the entire territory, that is, the DPR and LPR, the Western discourse, starting with that of Foreign Minister Merz and continuing, of course, with Volodymyr Zelensky, emphasizes the unacceptability of ceding territory to Russia. For example, one cannot leave in Russian hands something that has not even been fought for and that Moscow has not captured militarily—a curious argument considering that Ukraine aspired to recover the lost territories after failing to win the war, explicitly admitting that it had no intention of even making the minimal political, cultural, and economic concessions stipulated in the Minsk agreements.

“Russia is trying to convince the world that the occupation of part of Ukraine is a path to peace. But this violent blackmail could become endless. Today it's 'give up this,' tomorrow it's 'give up that,' or there will be war. Ukraine, on the other hand, wants to speak legally. Take bilateral agreements, border delimitation maps, and international obligations as examples. Show us where they justify the confiscation of territory as a result of a war of aggression,” wrote Mikhail Podolyak yesterday, ignoring the fact that he himself was negotiating an agreement in 2022 according to which Ukrainian territorial losses would have been limited to Crimea, handed over to Russia by its own organized citizenry—with Russian military participation limited to deterrence—while Ukraine reacted to the protests by withdrawing the region's autonomy, and to Donbass, whose recovery required compliance with terms that, despite having signed, kyiv always considered an unacceptable capitulation. Bankova also prefers to forget that " ATO ," the anti-terrorist operation she invented to justify the use of armed forces on national territory, was also a war of aggression in which Ukraine attempted to resolve a political problem by military means. Before the Alaska summit, Podolyak wrote that Kiev would evaluate its results based on three criteria: "an immediate, unconditional, and complete ceasefire," "principles of the future peace process agreed upon with Ukraine and Europe, without Moscow having veto power," and "a clear signal to all other countries receiving Russian resources: supporting the war means isolation and loss of market access."

Although the meeting between Putin and Trump left setbacks for Ukraine on all three fronts, Podolyak has not lost his arrogance and wants a summit between presidents for image reasons in the Global South. Andriy Ermak's advisor, who, when the 2023 counteroffensive failed, was already arguing that kyiv's plans did not involve fighting for territorial integrity people by people all the way to Crimea, assuming that Ukraine's diplomatic strength would achieve the goal, still dreams of the international isolation of Russia that the EU promised in February 2022 and that remains a pipe dream 18 sanctions packages and three and a half years later.

Podolyak, who in 2023 dreamed of the kind of collective punishment Ukraine would inflict on the disloyal population of Crimea, seems to be suffering from flashbacks to the days of Minsk. “There will be no trade in territories or special status for the occupied regions,” he wrote, apparently referring to the special status for Donbass that Kiev pledged to grant to the parts of Donbass under the control of the DPR and LPR as a condition for regaining the territories. “First, people must stop dying. Only then can politics begin,” he wrote, even though his main patron, Donald Trump, had already abandoned the demand for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for a political process and was openly favoring a resolution under the premise of “peace for territories,” which Podolyak now attributes to Vladimir Putin and presents as a sign of Russian weakness.

“Any process that begins with an invasion must culminate in the aggressor being held accountable. Appeasement will only pave the way for further ultimatums,” he insisted yesterday, even though European countries are now limiting themselves to fighting to prevent Russia from acquiring more territory than it currently controls and have for the time being renounced their claims to Crimea and the Russian parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye. And as a macabre joke after 11 years of attacks, 8 years of blockade and non-payment of pensions and social benefits to do as much harm as possible to the most vulnerable population and two years of indiscriminate attacks against the city of Donetsk with the sole objective of terrorizing those who still reside in the city of a million roses that they now try to talk about with nostalgia, the advisor to the President's Office even allows himself to suggest that, in this meeting between Putin and Zelensky, which is necessary for the Global South to understand what Russia's evil intentions are, "the Ukrainian side clearly describe the legal mechanisms for the reintegration of the temporarily occupied territories, citizen representation and security guarantees." While Donald Trump assumes that, in exchange for peace and security guarantees involving the United States, Ukraine will cede part of Donbass still under its control, and European countries cling to Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, in some cases using openly racist and dehumanizing similes, members of the Ukrainian government, from their parallel reality, continue daydreaming about a pipe dream that was always impossible. Because it is not Moscow that is snatching Donbass from kyiv, nor will it be Ukraine that will relinquish a large part of Donbass, but rather a significant percentage of the population of Donetsk and Luhansk that, more than a decade ago, renounced Ukraine.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/21/la-im ... e-donbass/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
A special clarification from Lavrov for those who believed the warming up about the Russian Federation allegedly agreeing to the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine.

Russia supports the principles of security guarantees agreed upon in Istanbul in 2022, everything else is a futile undertaking.
In fact, Europe is proposing foreign intervention in part of Ukrainian territory - this is absolutely unacceptable for Moscow.
(c) Lavrov

I repeat, all the warming up from Europe about the introduction of troops into Ukraine is necessary only to disrupt the current negotiations between the Russian Federation and the United States. They know that the introduction of NATO troops into Ukraine is absolutely unacceptable for the Russian Federation, which is why they are pumping up this topic in order to then present Russia's position as "an example of its inability to negotiate" and sell it to Trump, so that he will again declare that he is "disappointed in Putin" and introduce new sanctions against the Russian Federation. Or even better - he would supply weapons to Ukraine. Everything is very primitive, but this is their line of behavior.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Combined arms drone warfare

More on Russia's Rubicon drone team. Dobropillia. Drone attrition. Coordinated drone deployment. SIGINT and electronic warfare.
Events in Ukraine
Aug 19, 2025

Drones are strange. On the one hand, the terror that stalks every soldier’s existence. On the other hand, powerless against a curtain: (Video at link.)

Indeed, drones on their own are merely good for stunts, incapable of changing the course of a war. Ukraine’s simultaneous frontline retreats and dramatic drone stunts in Russia are an illustration of that.

Russian forces have made serious strides ahead in coordinating their most effective drone teams with different branches of the army. Yet as any armchair warrior knows, combined arms warfare is no mean feat. Especially when the arms in question have only been used by human soldiers for the first past two years, and are constantly transforming as part of a technological arms race fought at light speed.

But the holy grail remains the same today as it was in the 1940s: a combined arms assault that can not only break through enemy defenses, but continue moving beyond them. To widen the breach, or even to enter operational space - where there are no more defensive lines.

Today we’ll be taking a look at how Ukrainian soldiers and military analysts have been describing the development of Russian combined arms drone warfare.

— To begin with, a recapitulation of the recent Russian breakthrough at Dobropillia. Though the tendril has been neutered, Ukrainian military bloggers worry that Russian command is preparing for the next such case, inevitable in conditions of Ukrainian manpower shortages. Next time, perhaps Russian forces will be able to better take advantage of the breach.

— The Russian strategy of pressure all along the frontlines. Where one section grinds to a halt, move to another, without taking the pressure off the first:

when the enemy actively advances with mechanized units in one area, they deploy professional UAV units to quieter sectors, attempting to disrupt our logistics with drones to inflict maximum damage without direct assaults—effectively draining our forces through attrition.

— A fascinating description of how Russian drone teams coordinate at the frontlines against Ukrainian forces:

coordinated tactical actions and creative approaches to drone deployment—something we sorely lack. Right now, most of our UAV units functionally resemble something closer to auxiliary mortar teams rather than independent combat elements capable of conducting operations on their own.

— And finally, a long analysis by a well-known Ukrainian military figure of Russia’s specialized drone teams, and how they have wrought havoc on Ukraine’s control over the Donbass:

I did not anticipate the appearance of specialized drone units (“Rubicon” and others). I must admit they really changed the balance on the battlefield.

Under the cover of greenery, the Rubicon units pulled tactical radars into the first echelon of defense (up to 10 km deep). Both circular-surveillance ones, such as the Yenot-SD, and directed Doppler radars like the “Volna,” “Repeynik,” and others.

In addition, these units systematically coordinated with SIGINT and electronic warfare assets. This synergy became extremely effective.


Read on for more detailed descriptions of this synergy.

(paywall with free option.)

https://eventsinukraine.substack.com/p/ ... ne-warfare

Drone tech August

A win for the commies. Lasers v drones. The drone black market. Russia's V2U AI-powered drone. Anti-EW drones. Comparing drone detectors.
Events in Ukraine
Aug 20, 2025

Yesterday we explored the development of drone tactics. Let’s now move onto analysis of latest new technologies from Ukrainian drone expert, Serhiy Bezkrestnov.

Image

Unfortunately, this interesting source of information has been suffering from a lack of data. On August 9, Bezkrestnov complained about how the thirst for profit meant that new Russian tech wasn’t falling into his hands for research purposes:

I’ve already complained to everyone I could. I raised the issue at all levels, but everything remains the same.

Soldiers are selling captured equipment to private individuals, depriving all institutions and agencies of the ability to study them.

For a long time now, we haven’t been able to find ways to protect our cities from some of the strike UAVs, because the samples never reach us. One was sold for 5 thousand dollars, another for 10.

Law enforcement can’t help because there’s no criminal offense formally, and the military structures don’t have cash to buy back the captured equipment.

I just feel like giving up :-(

They’re tearing apart Sumy, people are dying — but some bastard has a little drone hanging on his wall.


I wonder who is buying all these advanced Russian drones? Are they really simply hanging on walls?

No wonder the Ukrainian press is warning/threatening the west that the drone technologies of this war are falling into the hands of transnational criminal and terrorist groups.

Anyway, the Ukrainians have their reasons for selling off drones. One of the comments on Bekzrestnov’s post read:

Image

But fear not, there’s still plenty to read about today:

— The new mine-dropping feature on Shahed/Geran drones

— Detailed analysis of Russia’s new V2U recon drone, known for its AI capabilities. It can supposedly ‘independently detect ground targets, identify them, and execute attacks.’ Bezkrestnov also wonders whether it is able to autonomously interact with allied drones in a swarm formation, the holy grail for drone technologies. It also lands via parachute.

‘I consider this AI-powered UAV series the most innovative and dangerous development yet.’

Satellite-free navigation makes the UAV immune to electronic warfare jamming of GPS/GLONASS signals.


— Drones specialized in the struggle against electronic warfare. The Veles-10, a new Russian strike-drone equipped to identify the radio emissions from anti-drone electronic warfare stations and destroy them.

— Russia’s new Bulat MX3 drone detector. According to Bezkrestnov, the Ukrainian army ‘has no analogues’, given the accuracy with which the Bulat can detect and distinguish between various types of drones. The Ukrainian drone expert compares the Bulat to Ukraine’s Aspirin 2.0, which often suffers from false alarms, something the Bulat does not do.

— Drones vs lasers. Russia has deployed a Chinese laser system to down a Ukrainian long-distance drone:

LASS is known to have a power of 10–20 kW and requires 10 seconds of operation to destroy a target. Its range is 1.5 km for destruction and 3 km for blinding.

An interesting thread in today’s analysis is the strength of the military industrial complex of what our Ukrainian analysts call ‘the axis of evil’, and others call ‘the emerging multipolar world’.

This comes through in Bezkrestnov’s complaints that the Aspirin 2.0 drone detector is only available through the private fund of ex-president Petro Poroshenko. Or that it is impossible to analyze Russian drone technologies and come up with antidotes/imitations because Ukrainian soldiers keep on selling them off. And finally, on the topic of the Chinese laser system, the Ukrainian nazi militarist telegram ‘white sun’ complains about how the west’s neoliberalism has doomed it in the face of the interventionist east:

If you sit on the riverbank for too long, waiting for some “holy little market” to fix itself and solve our problems, you can see how the interventionist, Keynesian commie with “rationed goods” surpasses you in efficiency of production and technology.

Indeed, just about all of today’s Russian drones are assembled with Chinese technology. The Ukrainians are desperate to get their hands on them - simply for imitation purposes.

https://eventsinukraine.substack.com/p/ ... ech-august

*****

Declassified: CIA's Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan
Kit Klarenberg
Aug 17, 2025

On August 7th, US polling giant Gallup published the remarkable results of a survey of Ukrainians. Public support for Kiev “fighting until victory” has plummeted to a record low “across all segments” of the population, “regardless of region or demographic group.” In a “nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022,” 69% of citizens “favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible.” Just 24% wish to keep fighting. However, vanishingly few believe the proxy war will end anytime soon.

The reasons for Ukrainian pessimism on this point are unstated, but an obvious explanation is the intransigence of President Volodymyr Zelensky, encouraged by his overseas backers - Britain in particular. London’s reverie of breaking up Russia into readily-exploitable chunks dates back centuries, and became turbocharged in the wake of the February 2014 Maidan coup. In July that year, a precise blueprint for the current proxy conflict was published by the Institute for Statecraft, a NATO/MI6 cutout founded by veteran British military intelligence apparatchik Chris Donnelly.

Image

In response to the Donbass civil war, Statecraft advocated targeting Moscow with a variety of “anti-subversive measures”. This included “economic boycott, breach of diplomatic relations,” as well as “propaganda and counter-propaganda, pressure on neutrals.” The objective was to produce “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Russia, which “Britain and the West could win.” While we are now witnessing in real-time the brutal unravelling of Donnelly’s monstrous plot, Anglo-American designs of using Ukraine as a beachhead for all-out war with Moscow date back far further.

In August 1957, the CIA secretly drew up elaborate plans for an invasion of Ukraine by US special forces. It was hoped neighbourhood anti-Communist agitators would be mobilized as footsoldiers to assist in the effort. A detailed 200-page report, Resistance Factors and Special Forces Areas, set out demographic, economic, geographical, historical and political factors throughout the then-Soviet Socialist Republic that could facilitate, or impede, Washington’s quest to ignite local insurrection, and in turn the USSR’s ultimate collapse.

Cia Rdp81 01043r002300220007 1
33.1MB ∙ PDF file
Download at link

The mission was forecast to be a delicate and difficult balancing act, as much of Ukraine’s population held “few grievances” against Russians or Communist rule, which could be exploited to foment an armed uprising. Just as problematically, “the long history of union between Russia and Ukraine, which stretches in an almost unbroken line from 1654 to the present day,” resulted in “many Ukrainians” having “adopted the Russian way of life”. Problematically, there was thus a pronounced lack of “resistance to Soviet rule” among the population.

The “great influence” of Russian culture over Ukrainians, “many influential positions” in local government being held “by Russians or Ukrainians sympathetic to [Communist] rule, and “relative similarity” of their “languages, customs, and backgrounds”, meant there were “fewer points of conflict between the Ukrainians and Russians” than in Warsaw Pact nations. Throughout those satellite states, the CIA had to varying success already recruited clandestine networks of “freedom fighters” as anti-Communist Fifth Columnists. Yet, the Agency remained keen to identify potential “resistance” actors in Ukraine:

“Some Ukrainians are apparently only slightly aware of the differences which set them apart from Russians and feel little national antagonism. Nevertheless, important grievances exist, and among other Ukrainians there is opposition to Soviet authority which often has assumed a nationalist form. Under favorable conditions, these people might be expected to assist American Special Forces in fighting against the regime.”

‘Nationalist Activity’

A CIA map split Ukraine into 12 separate zones, ranked on “resistance” potential, and how “favorable population attitudes [are] toward the Soviet regime.” South and eastern regions, particularly Crimea and Donbass, rated poorly. Their populations were judged “strongly loyal” to Moscow, having never “displayed nationalist feelings or indicated any hostility to the regime,” while viewing themselves as “a Russian island in the Ukrainian sea.” In fact, as the study recorded, during and after World War I, when Germany created a fascist puppet state in Ukraine:

“Inhabitants of Donbass strongly resisted Ukrainian nationalists and at one point created a separate republic, independent of the rest of Ukraine. In the following years, they defended Soviet rule and Russian interests, often attacking the Ukrainian nationalists with more zeal than the Russian leaders themselves. During the German occupation in the Second World War, there was not a single recorded case of support for the Ukrainian nationalists or Germans.”

Image

Still, invading and occupying Crimea was considered of paramount importance. On top of its strategic significance, the peninsula’s landscape was forecast as ideal for guerrilla warfare. The terrain offered “excellent opportunities for concealment and evasion,” the CIA report noted. While “troops operating in these sectors must be specially trained and equipped,” it was forecast the local Tatar population, “which fought so fiercely” against the Soviets in World War II, “would probably be willing to help” invading US forces.

Areas of western Ukraine, including former regions of Poland such as Lviv, Rivne, Transcarpathia and Volyn, which were heavily under control of “Ukrainian insurgents” - adherents of MI6-supported Stepan Bandera - during World War II, were judged most fruitful “resistance” launchpads. There, “nationalist activity was extensive” during World War II, with armed militias opposing “pro-Soviet partisans with some success.” Conveniently too, mass extermination of Jews, Poles and Russians by Banderites in these regions meant there was virtually no non-ethnic Ukrainian population left.

Furthermore, in the post-war period, “resistance to Soviet rule” had been “expressed on a great scale” in western Ukraine. Despite “extensive deportations”, “many nationalists” resided in Lviv et al, and “nationalist cells” created by Bandera’s “task forces” were dotted around the Republic. For example, anti-Communist “partisan bands” had taken up residence in the Carpathian Mountains. The review concluded, “it is in this region [US] Special Forces could expect considerable support from the local Ukrainian population, including active participation in measures directed against the Soviet regime.”

It was also determined that “Ukrainian nationalist, anti-Soviet sentiment” in Kiev was “apparently moderately strong,” and elements of the population “might be expected to provide active assistance to Special Forces.” The capital’s “large Ukrainian population” was reportedly “little affected by Russian influence,” and during the Russian Revolution “provided greater support than any other region for Ukrainian, nationalist, anti-Soviet forces.” Resultantly, “uncertainty about the attitudes of the local population” prompted Moscow to designate Kharkov the Ukrainian SSR’s capital, which it remained until 1934.

The CIA document further offered highly detailed assessments of Ukrainian territory, based on their utility for warfare. For example, “generally forbidding” Polesia - near Belarus - was noted to be “almost impossible” to traverse during spring. Conversely, winter provided “most favorable to movement, depending on the depth to which the ground freezes.” Overall, the area had “proved its worth as an excellent refuge and evasion area by supporting large-scale guerilla activities in the past.” Meanwhile, “swampy valleys of the Dnieper and Desna rivers” were of particular interest:

“The area is densely forested in its north-western part, where there are excellent opportunities for concealment and manoeuvre…There are extensive swamps, interspersed with patches of forest, which also provide good hiding places for the Special Forces. Conditions in the Volyno-Podolskaya Highlands are less suitable, although small groups may find temporary shelter in the sparse forests.”

‘Strongly Anti-Nationalist’

The CIA’s invasion plan never formally came to pass. Yet, areas of Ukraine forecast by the Agency to be most welcoming of US special forces were precisely where support for the Maidan coup was highest. Moreover, in a largely unknown chapter of the Maidan saga, fascist Right Sector militants were bussed en masse to Crimea prior to Moscow’s seizure of the peninsula. Had they succeeded in overrunning the territory, Right Sector would’ve fulfilled the CIA’s objective, as outlined in Resistance Factors and Special Forces Areas.

Image
A civilian defence barricade constructed to prevent Right Sector entering Crimea, February 2014

Given what transpired elsewhere in Ukraine following February 2014, other sections of the CIA report take on a distinctly eerie character. For instance, despite its strategic position facing the Black Sea, the Agency warned against attempting to foment anti-Soviet rebellion in Odessa. The agency noted the city is “the most cosmopolitan area in Ukraine, with a heterogeneous population including significant numbers of Greeks, Moldovans and Bulgarians, as well as Russians and Jews.” As such:

“Odessa…has developed a less nationalistic character. Historically, it has been considered more Russian than Ukrainian territory. There was little evidence of nationalist or anti-Russian sentiment here during the Second World War, and the city…was in fact controlled by a strongly anti-nationalist local administration [during the conflict].”

Odessa became a key battleground between pro- and anti-Maidan elements, from the moment the protests erupted in November 2013. By March the next year, Russophone Ukrainians had occupied the city’s historic Kulykove Pole Square, and were calling for a referendum on the establishment of an “Odessa Autonomous Republic”. Tensions came to a head on May 2nd, when fascist football ultras - who subsequently formed Azov Battalion - stormed Odessa and forced dozens of anti-Maidan activists into Trade Unions House, before setting it ablaze.

In all, 42 people were killed and hundreds injured, while Odessa’s anti-Maidan movement was comprehensively neutralised. In March this year, the European Court of Human Rights issued a damning ruling against Kiev over the massacre. It concluded local police and fire services “deliberately” failed to respond appropriately to the inferno, and authorities insulated culpable officials and perpetrators from prosecution despite possessing incontrovertible evidence. Lethal “negligence” by officials on the day, and ever after, was found to go far “beyond an error of judgment or carelessness.”

The ECHR was apparently unwilling to consider the incineration of anti-Maidan activists was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed fascist government. However, the findings of a Ukrainian parliamentary commission point ineluctably towards this conclusion. Whether, in turn, the Odessa massacre was intended to trigger Russian intervention in Ukraine, thus precipitating “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Moscow that “Britain and the West could win” is a matter of speculation - although the Institute for Statecraft was present in the country at the time.

https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/declass ... rt-ukraine

******

The Hammer Falls: Russia’s Combined Night Strikes Left Ukraine Reeling

Image

Under cover of darkness, Russian forces launched one of their most intense aerial campaigns in recent weeks, striking targets across Ukraine with devastating effect. The tactical pause amid the Alaska talks is over. On the night of August 18th, the wave of strikes saw at least 140 Geran-type loitering munitions and four Iskander-M ballistic missiles unleashed against critical infrastructure and military facilities, demonstrating Moscow’s ability to sustain deep-strike operations even during high-level diplomatic talks between Ukraine and the United States. This was not the most massive Russian attack, but the scale of the confirmed destruction again highlights the impotence of Ukrainian air defense.

The port city of Odessa absorbed the most concentrated blows. With Russian precision strikes constantly dismantling key energy and logistics nodes in the southern region, at night the city came under one of the most devastating attacks. A critical electrical substation was reduced to rubble, plunging sections of the city into darkness. A nearby Nova Poshta logistics hub, known for handling military shipments, was left in ruins. The railway station in Usatovo was also struck.

Image

(Numerous videos at link.)

The most significant blow was inflicted in Usatovo. The assault completely destroyed all 17 storage tanks at the SOCAR oil terminal, which belongs to Azerbaijan’s state energy facility, sending towering flames into the night sky. The facility came under a series of consequent precision strikes. The attack also obliterated the terminal’s pumping station and technical buildings. These strikes on Azerbaijani-owned infrastructure marked a significant escalation in Russia’s economic warfare strategy. After years of tolerating Baku’s fuel shipments to Ukraine, Moscow lifted its restraint following recent anti-Russian rhetoric from Azerbaijan. The terminal’s destruction effectively severed a crucial link in Ukraine’s southern fuel supply network, delivering both a tactical blow and political signal.

In the morning, the city of Zaporizhzhia reeled from an Iskander-M missile strike that targeted critical infrastructure, reportedly leaving 17 wounded and compounding the region’s ongoing energy crisis. The attack demonstrated Russia’s continued focus on degrading Ukraine’s power grid and industrial capacity.

Another Iskander strike reached its target in Pavlohrad in the Dnepropetrovsk region. The precision strike hit the local mechanical plant specialized in solid-fuel rocket motor repairs for Ukraine’s Grom-2 missile program. The target was the local building #101, which was of strategic importance for the domestic missile program. The impact triggered secondary explosions among stored rocket components, killing multiple technicians and destroying specialized equipment vital to Ukraine’s domestic missile production efforts. The devastating strikes continue after Moscow declared that Kyiv’s Sapsan missile program was thwarted as a result of precision strikes on large industrial facilities across Ukraine, including on the Pavlohrad mechanical plant. LINK, LINK

Another drone strikes destroyed an energy station in Petropavlovka in the same Dnepropetrovsk region. As a result of the attack, a large fire broke out at the railway station nearby, destroying wagons and fuel tanks.

In a series of simultaneous drone strikes, Russian Geran UAVs struck targets across the Kharkiv region, including near Shevchenkovo, Otradnoe, Kochetka, Gnilitsy etc. The destroyed targets included military depots hidden at the local hatchery, farm, and the water pumping station that provides for the operation of military plant in Kharkiv.

The city of Kharkiv witnessed particularly grim consequences when a residential high-rise collapsed under circumstances that remain unclear. The incident reportedly left at least seven civilians dead and others trapped in the rubble. Despite Kyiv’s attempts to blame the Russian military for another attack on civilians, the evidence suppose that Ukrainian air defense is the one to blame. There were no Russian drone strikes reported in the city at the moment of the incident and Russian drones could not inflict such a heavy damage to a building, unlike air defense missiles.

Near Sumy, flames engulfed the state university building that intelligence indicated housed communications nodes for territorial defense units. The attack exemplified Russia’s evolving strategy of targeting dual-use facilities that blend civilian and military functions.

Russian strikes in the Sumy region destroyed military depots in Vovna, damaged energy station in Peschane.

After a prolonged pause, Russian drones reached the capital Kyiv region. According to local reports, at least two drone strikes damaged an flying club in Divichki, used by the Air Force of Ukraine for training of UAV operators.

With the ongoing Russian strikes deep in the rear regions, the war-torn Donbass areas that are under Ukrainian control are still bearing the brunt of assault.

Russian forces also continue degrading Ukraine’s drone capabilities. In a particularly effective strike, cluster munitions obliterated a launch site near Iverskoe in the DPR, destroying 100 Ukrainian UJ-22 and Palianytsia drones and killing 40 personnel in what amounted to a catastrophic blow to Kyiv’s long-range strike capacity.

Another UAV operating center was reportedly destroyed in Kherson.

Russian drones pounded Ukrainian positions in the area of Dobropolie. The main targets were the UAV control points of the 93rd Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the positions of the 38th Marine Brigade. Other destroyed targets included the UAV remote control points in at least two villages nearby. In Dobropolie, strikes hit the headquarters of the 33rd Mechanized Brigade and Marine Corps posts.

Another heavy blow to Ukrainian Donbass logistics was the strike of a group of Russian Geran UAVs on the facilities of the InterAgroLine company in Slavyansk. This agricultural facility was turned into a multifunctional rear complex of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, supporting logistics, transport supplies, engineering equipment, as well as mobile repair and restoration units.

As dawn broke, the scale of destruction became clear—not just in physical damage, but in the demonstrated vulnerability of Ukraine’s energy grid, arms production, and logistics networks. The strikes underscored Russia’s capacity to sustain complex, multi-front aerial operations as its forces remain engaged in grueling ground campaigns. With diplomatic channels active and battlefield dynamics shifting, the night’s events served as a stark reminder of Moscow’s military force.

https://southfront.press/the-hammer-fal ... e-reeling/

*****

Ukrainian planes in Moldova
August 19, 2025
Rybar.
Five military transport aircraft belonging to the so-called Ukraine have already been officially stationed at the military airfield in Moldova's Marculesti .

On August 13, residents of the city of Balti in northern Moldova filmed the flight of planes heading to nearby Marculesti.

The Moldovan authorities have acknowledged that five aircraft (An-26, An-32B, three An-32P) were accepted at the request of the Kiev regime for maintenance and are on the territory of the republic "in accordance with the law".

Information that the military airfield in Marculesti, which is located 70 km from the border of the so-called Ukraine, is used to repair the aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine , has been circulating for a long time.

In 2022, the Moldovan authorities approved a project and funding to rebuild the military airfield in Marculesti into a civilian international airport. However, the plan was suddenly scrapped just when the first talks began about handing over F-16 fighters to the Kiev regime.

The Moldovan authorities called the data on the Kiev regime using the airfield in Marculesti since 2022 disinformation .

However, Moldova has been drawn from the very beginning into serving the military and economic needs of the so-called Ukraine to its own detriment, being a transit territory for the supply of weapons and the export of cheap Ukrainian grain.

So the use of the airfield in Marculesti is quite logical if Chisinau is already violating its constitutional neutrality by making Moldovans a party to the conflict.

https://rybar.ru/ukrainskie-samolety-v-moldavii/

Google Translator

******

On Ukrainian Identity: Ukraine as a Buffer Zone
Posted on August 20, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. This article provides a useful complement to Putin’s many remarks about the history of Ukraine from a Russia perspective. It examines the forces that led to the formation of Ukraine as a “self-constructed identity” yet why it was left out until very late in the process of national formation along perceived or actual ethnic lines.

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, Ex-University Professor, Research Fellow at the www.geostrategy.rs” rel=”nofollow”>Center for Geostrategic Studies, Belgrade, Serbia

An imagined community


Ukraine is an Eastern European territory that was originally part of the western part of the Russian Empire and the eastern portion of the Polish Kingdom in the mid-17th century (the division according to the 1667 Peace Treaty of Andrusovo). That is a present-day independent state and separate ethnolinguistic nation as a typical example of Benedict Anderson’s theory model of the “imagined community” – a self-constructed idea of the artificial ethnic and linguistic-cultural identity [see, Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, London‒New York: Verso, 1983]. Before 2014, Ukraine was home to some 46 million inhabitants of whom, according to the official data, there were around 77 percent who declared themselves as Ukrainians.


Nevertheless, many Russians do not consider the Ukrainians or Belarusians/Belarus as “foreign” but rather as the regional branches of the Russian nationality. It is a matter of fact that, differently to the Russian case, the national identity of Belarus or the Ukrainians was never firmly fixed as it was always in the constant process of changing and evolving [on the Ukrainian self-identity construction, see: Karina V. Korostelina, Constructing the Narratives of Identity and Power: Self-Imagination in a Young Ukrainian Nation, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2014].


The process of self-constructing identity of the Ukrainians after 1991 is, basically, oriented vis-à-vis Ukraine’s two most powerful neighbors: Poland and Russia. In other words, the self-constructing Ukrainian identity (like the Montenegrin or Belarusian) is just able to claim so far that the Ukrainians are not either the Poles or the Russians, but, however, what they really are is under great debate, and still it is not clear. Therefore, the existence of an independent state of Ukraine, nominally a national state of the Ukrainians, is of very doubtful indeed from both perspectives: historical and ethnolinguistic.


National Self-Determination


The principle of the so-called “national self-determination” became popular in East-Central, Eastern, and South-eastern Europe with the proclamation of Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” on January 8th, 1918. However, as a concept, the principle was alive since the French Revolution, if not even before. The French Revolution itself supported a principle of national self-determination, which was already used in practice since the American Revolution (started in 1776), followed by the American War of Independence (ended in 1783) against the United Kingdom as a colonial master. In short, the concept is based on a principle that the source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. Therefore, the idea of a plebiscite was introduced as the political support for either independence or annexation of certain territories. For instance, France organized a plebiscite in order to justify the territorial annexation of Avignon, Savoy, and Nice in the 1790s. The same principle was used for the Italian and German unifications in the second half of the 19th century or for the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in Europe by the Balkan states in 1912‒1913.


The new European political order after WWI was established according to the principle of national self-determination as the territories of East-Central and South-East Europe were fundamentally remapped. The new national states appeared, while some have been enlarged by the inclusion of their nationals from neighboring countries. Exactly using this principle, the four empires were destroyed: the German, the Ottoman, the Russian, and Austria-Hungary.


However, the same principle of national self-determination was not applied to all European nations for different reasons. One of them was that certain present-day known nations at that time were not recognized as such, at least not by the winning Entente powers. That was, in fact, the case of Ukrainians, or better to say, of those Ukrainians left behind the borders of the USSR. Those trans-Soviet Ukrainians were one of the losers of the Versailles System after 1918. While a large number of the smaller nations (compared to the Ukrainians), from Finland to the Balkans, were granted either state independence (for instance, the Baltic States) or inclusion into the united national state (for example, Greater Romania), Ukrainians were deprived of it.


Unlike many other European nations, there were several Ukrainian political entities (state or federal unit) established during the years of 1917‒1920, either by the Germans or Bolsheviks. The Germans created a formally independent Ukrainian state in 1918, while the Bolsheviks established not only one Soviet Ukraine as a political entity within the Bolshevik state (later the USSR).


To be honest, there were several focal reasons why the Western winners did not create an independent Ukraine after WWI: 1) It could be considered as a German political victory on the former Eastern Front; 2) The country could be run by the nationalists close to the German concept of Mittel Europa and, therefore, Ukraine can become a German client state; 3) Independent Ukraine would be anti-Polish and anti-Semitic; 4) Independent Ukraine could become inclined to the Soviet side for the matter of the creation of a Greater Ukraine; 5) Many Westerners did not recognize an independent Ukrainian nation as a separate ethnolinguistic group; and 6) Ukraine as a federal entity already existed within the Soviet state.


Therefore, for all of above mentioned crucial reasons, the victorious powers after WWI decided not the sponsor the creation of an independent Ukrainian state as a national state of the “Ukrainians” applying the principle of national self-determination. Moreover, applying the historical rights, in 1923, the Entente powers gave reborn Poland Galicia and some other lands considered by the Ukrainian nationalists to be “Western” Ukraine. The Ukrainians within Poland did not get any national autonomy (differently to the case of the Soviet Ukraine) for the very reason they have not been recognized as a separate nation, i.e., an ethnolinguistic group.


Ukraine?


The Slavonic term Ukraine, for instance, in the Serbo-Croat case Krajina, means in the English language a Borderland – a provincial territory situated on the border between at least two political entities: in this particular historical case, between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Republic of Both Nations (1569−1795), on one hand, and the Russian Empire, on another. It has to be noticed that according to the 1569 Lublin Union between Poland and Lithuania, the former Lithuanian territory of Ukraine passed over to Poland.


A German historical term for Ukraine would be a mark – a term for the state’s borderland which existed from the time of the Frankish Kingdom/Empire of Carl the Great. The term is mostly used from the time of the Treaty (Truce) of Andrusovo (Andrussovo) in 1667 between Poland-Lithuania and Russia. In other words, Ukraine and the Ukrainians as a natural objective-historical-cultural identity never existed, as it was considered only as a geographic-political territory between two other natural-historical entities (Poland [-Lithuania] and Russia). All (quasi)historiographical mentioning of this land and the people as Ukraine/Ukrainians referring to the period before the mid-17th century are quite scientifically incorrect, but in the majority of cases politically inspired and colored to present them as something crucially different from the historical process of ethnic genesis of the Russians [for instance: Alfredas Bumblauskas, Genutė Kirkienė, Feliksas Šabuldo (sudarytojai), Ukraina: Lietuvos epocha, 1320−1569, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras, 2010].


The Role of the Vatican and the Union Act


It was the Roman Catholic Vatican that was behind the process of creation of the “imagined community” of the “Ukrainian” national identity for the very political purpose of separating the people from this borderland territory from the Orthodox Russian Empire. Absolutely the same was done by Vatican’s client Austria-Hungary in regard to the national identity of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian population when this province was administered by Vienna-Budapest from 1878 to 1918 as it was the Austro-Hungarian government created totally artificial and very new ethnolinguistic identity – the “Bosnians”, just not to be the (Orthodox) Serbs (who were at that time a strong majority of the provincial population) [Лазо М. Костић, Наука утврђује народност Б-Х муслимана, Србиње−Нови Сад: Добрица књига, 2000].


The creation of an ethnolinguistically artificial Ukrainian national identity and later on a separate nationality was part of a wider confessional-political project by the Vatican in the Roman Catholic historical struggle against Eastern Orthodox Christianity (the eastern “schism”) and its churches within the framework of the Pope’s traditional proselytizing policy of reconversion of the “infidels”. One of the most successful instruments of a soft-way reconversion used by the Vatican was to compel a part of the Orthodox population to sign with the Roman Catholic Church the Union Act recognizing in such a way a supreme power by the Pope and dogmatic filioque (“and from the Son” – the Holy Spirit proceeds and from the Father and the Son).


Therefore, the ex-Orthodox believers who now became the Uniate Brothers or the Greek Orthodox believers became, in great numbers, later pure Roman Catholics and also changed their original (from the Orthodox time) ethnolinguistic identity. It is, for instance, very clear in the case of the Orthodox Serbs in the Zhumberak area of Croatia, from the ethnic (Orthodox) Serbs to the Greek Orthodox believers, later the Roman Catholic believers, and finally today the ethnic (Roman Catholic) Croats. Something similar occurred in the case of Ukraine.


The 1596 Brest Union


On October 9th, 1596 it was announced by the Vatican a Brest Union with a part of the Orthodox population within the borders of the Roman Catholic Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth (today Ukraine) [Arūnas Gumuliauskas, Lietuvos istorija: Įvykiai ir datos, Šiauliai: Šiaures Lietuva, 2009, 44; Didysis istorijos atlasas mokyklai: Nuo pasaulio ir Lietuvos priešistorės iki naujausiųjų laikų, Vilnius: Leidykla Briedis, (without year of publishing) 108]. The crucial issue, nevertheless, in this matter is that today Ukraine’s Uniates and the Roman Catholics are most anti-Russian and of the Ukrainian national feelings. Basically, both the Ukrainianand the Belarus present-day ethnolinguistic and national identities are historically founded on the anti-Orthodox policy of the Vatican within the territory of the ex-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was in essence an anti-Russian political construction.


The Lithuanian historiography writing on the Church Union of Brest in 1596 clearly confirms that:


“… the Catholic Church more and more strongly penetrated the zone of the Orthodox Church, giving a new impetus to the idea, which had been cherished since the time of Jogaila and Vytautas and formulated in the principles of the Union of Florence in 1439, but never put into effect – the subordination of the GDL Orthodox Church to the Pope’s rule” [Zigmantas Kiaupa et al, The History of Lithuania Before 1795, Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of History, 2000, 288].


In other words, the rulers of the Roman Catholic Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the GDL) from the very time of Lithuania’s baptism in 1387−1413 by the Vatican had a plan to Catholicize all Orthodox believers of the GDL, among whom the overwhelming majority were the Slavs. As a consequence, the relations with Moscow became very hostile as Russia accepted the role of the protector of the Orthodox believers and faith, and, therefore, the 1596 Church Union of Brest was seen as a criminal act by Rome and its client, the Republic of Two Nations (Poland-Lithuania).


A Buffer Zone


Today, it is absolutely clear that the most pro-Western and Russofrenic part of Ukraine is exactly Western Ukraine – the lands that were historically under the rule of the Roman Catholic ex-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the former Habsburg Monarchy. It is obvious, for instance, from the presidential voting results in 2010 that the pro-Western regions voted for J. Tymoshenko while the pro-Russian regions voted for V. Yanukovych. It is a reflection of the post-Soviet Ukrainian identity dilemma between “Europe” and “Eurasia” – a dilemma that is common for all East-Central and Eastern European nations, who historically played the role of a buffer zone between the German Mittel Europa project and the Russian project of a pan-Slavonic unity and reciprocity.


In general, the western territories of present-day Ukraine are mainly populated by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Uniates. This part of Ukraine is mostly nationalistic and pro-Western (in fact, pro-German) oriented. Contrary, Eastern Ukraine is, in essence, Russophone and subsequently “tends to look to closer relations with Russia” [John S. Dryzek, Leslie Templeman Holmes, Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses Across Thirteen Countries, Cambridge−New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 114].


Since WWI up to today, the Germans have been the principal sponsors of the creation of the national state of Ukrainians for different geopolitical as well as economic reasons. Subsequently, different kinds of Ukrainian nationalists were siding with the German authorities. For instance, whereas the victorious Entente powers after 1918, supported by Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, or Czechoslovakia, were executing the policy of preservation of the Versailles System, the Germans during the interwar period were opposing it and fighting against it. It is from this viewpoint that explains why the Ukrainian nationalists accepted the Nazi policy of a “New European Order” in which a Greater Ukraine could exist in some political form, in fact, as a buffer zone [Frank Golczewski, “The Nazi ‘New European Order’ and the Reactions of Ukrainians”, Henry Huttenbach and Francesco Privitera (eds.), Self-Determination: From Versailles to Dayton. Its Historical Legacy, Longo Editore Ravenna, 1999, 82‒83]. Finally, even today, the main Ukrainian supporter and sponsor in its conflict with Russia is exactly Germany. Nevetheless, we have to keep in mind that after 1991, Russia left at least 25 million ethnic Russian outside the borders of the Russian Federation, a huge number of them in the post-Soviet Ukraine [see more in, Ruth Petrie (ed.), The Fall of Communism and the Rise of Nationalism, The Index Reader, London‒Washington: Cassell, 1997].

Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity, which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.

© Vladislav B. Sotirović 2025

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... -zone.html

******

Irrecoverable losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces since 2022 are 1.7 million people
August 20, 17:03

Image

Like a response to the Aeroflot hack. Hackers broke into the Ukrainian General Staff.

Ukraine lost 1.7 million servicemen during the SVO — these are killed and missing. Information — from the database of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was hacked by our hackers — media
Over the three years of the SVO, the Ukrainian army lost 1,721,000 people killed and missing. 118.5 thousand — in 2022, 405.4 thousand — in 2023, 595 thousand — in 2024 and a record 621 thousand — in 2025. A total of 1.7 million files — with full names, description of the circumstances and place of death/disappearance, personal data, contacts of next of kin and photos.
The information was obtained as a result of a complex hack of the PC and local network of the employees of the Ukrainian General Staff by hackers from Killnet, Palach Pro, User Sec, Beregini

Image

Image

Image

In Ukraine, they traditionally shout about this: "You are all lying, there are no losses."
It is also worth noting that the Russian WarTears project, which calculates enemy losses according to its model, gave about 750 thousand irretrievable losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

It is also worth noting that according to Lost Armor's calculations, during the exchange of the dead since the beginning of the SVO, the ratio of the exchanged dead was 5.45 to 1 in our favor. The enemy gave up conditionally 5.5 times more dead than he gave us.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10022265.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 22, 2025 11:56 am

Political lanterns
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/22/2025

Image

“I just want to know what happens at the meeting,” Donald Trump stated in an interview with Fox News , adding that “they are in the process of preparing it and we will see what happens.” The US President was referring to the most discussed issue this week, the possible meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. If it takes place, it would be the second time the two leaders met, only after the Normandy Format summit in December 2019. At that time, the joint press conference of the four participants—Macron, Merkel, Putin, and Zelensky—reaffirmed the same thing as the final communiqué: their commitment to the Minsk agreements as the only possible solution to the war in Donbass. As Ukraine publicly admitted after the Russian invasion in 2022, when non-compliance with the Minsk agreements no longer mattered, Volodymyr Zelensky privately notified his Western allies that the agreements were unworkable, a subtle way of signaling that Kiev had no intention of implementing them.

Now that Western media and analysts are once again insisting on the argument that Russia is breaking agreements and its word cannot be trusted—something they also repeated when Ukraine flagrantly violated the only peace agreements signed in this conflict—the memory of Minsk is one of the reasons why Moscow insists on delaying the meeting with Zelensky until preparatory work has been done to make the meeting productive. Despite Donald Trump's words, assuming the meeting will happen soon and his hopes for progress, the two countries have been expressing reluctance for several days. Sergey Lavrov's remarks on Tuesday, refuting the idea that Russia had already agreed to a meeting with Zelensky and specifying that the commitment is merely to raise the profile of the negotiating delegation, must be added to Zelensky's own. "Security guarantees first, then the summit with Putin, says Zelensky," was the headline on France 24 yesterday . Despite demanding that Russia unconditionally accept a meeting with its president, Ukraine reserves the right to set its own conditions. "We want to have an idea of ​​the architecture of security guarantees within seven to ten days," the demanding president stated.

Zelensky's comment harks back to the fall of 2024, when kyiv believed itself strong after the Kursk incursion, the front remained static, and the final months of the Biden administration were preparing for the verge of obtaining permission to use long-range weapons on Russian territory. At that time, Volodymyr Zelensky presented his "Victory Plan," a list of demands to his allies so that Ukraine could achieve what he had specified in the "Peace Formula" he had presented, only to allies and explicitly excluding Russia, at the peace summit organized by Andriy Ermak in Switzerland. The sum of those two documents—a list of impossible objectives and demands for complete capitulation to Russia that did not correspond to the balance of forces on the front, and a series of demands on its allies to achieve that desired victory—indicated kyiv's negotiating strategy. When it was already clear that Donald Trump was the leading candidate to become president and that, if he took office, he would do so with a very different tactic regarding Ukraine, Zelensky opted to preempt this and present a speech whose narrative was centered on peace , achieved, of course, through force . In that strategy, the only negotiation Bankova was interested in was the one in which she would talk with her allies to find out what each would do in defense of Ukraine (and in attacking Russia), something that is being repeated now. "We have to know what each country will be willing to do at any given moment," Volodymyr Zelensky declared yesterday in his crusade to achieve security guarantees that imply a commitment from his allies to send troops to Ukraine in the event of another Russian attack. "NATO's Article V is not enough," declared Andriy Ermak, advisor to the President's Office, in an interview with La Repubblica . Ukraine's main objective is not to prepare an agenda of issues to discuss with Vladimir Putin, as the Russian Federation demands, but rather to ensure that kyiv arrives at that meeting having previously negotiated a security structure that will likely make an agreement with Russia unviable.

In recent hours, Sergey Lavrov has insisted on Russian demands, very similar to those Moscow and Kyiv negotiated in the summer of 2022, far from the spotlight, when the Istanbul pre-agreement of April seemed a distant memory. Yesterday, the Russian Foreign Minister reiterated Russian demands, also in line with what was proposed at that time, when Moscow also demanded all of Donbass, but adding to the reality of the current front. Russia is no longer willing to abandon the territories of Zaporozhye and Kherson under its control, as it proposed at the time. The increased territorial demands are a form of punishment for Ukraine for choosing to continue the war rather than accept the agreement and are also intended to act as a warning, emphasizing that conditions will become harsher as time goes on.

In addition to territorial demands—possible only if Donald Trump imposes his desire for peace for territories with security guarantees involving NATO troops on the ground and in large numbers, the only scenario in which Kiev could consider such a loss of territory—Russia continues to demand the same thing it did three years ago: rights for the Russian-speaking population, culture, or religion, and security guarantees for Ukraine in which it is taken into account. Underscoring the continuity of its demands, Sergey Lavrov specifically mentioned that the Russian proposal is based on the postulates presented in 2022, not by Moscow, but by Kiev, terms that Ukraine ultimately renounced, opting for war as the only possible solution.

“EU High Representative Kaja Kallas stated that the EU would distrust the agreements reached with Russia. Therefore, it intends to continue supporting the Ukrainian armed forces and promoting new sanctions against Russia, regardless of the agreements reached, as it does not believe in them,” Sergey Lavrov also insisted, implying that European countries are opting to continue their strategy as it has been presented until now. In addition to the desire to continue arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, there is also the apparent willingness of Western countries to offer Kyiv the security guarantees that only Moscow offered in 2022. This is the only aspect in which Zelensky can claim to be negotiating more forcefully now than before, although it will be necessary to read the fine print to analyze the type of guarantees that Western countries, unwilling to risk a direct confrontation with Russia, intend to offer.

“Ukraine proposed—and our delegation agreed—to design security guarantees with all permanent members of the UN Security Council: Russia, China, the United States, France, Great Britain, and others like Germany and Turkey,” Lavrov recalled yesterday. However, kyiv's demands have increased compared to three years ago, and it no longer only rejects Russia's participation—which is understood as Moscow's way of reserving the right to veto Ukraine's defense by other countries—but also that of other states like China. If just a few months ago Zelensky still hoped to attract Beijing to the Ukrainian position, now that he has become Donald Trump's designated opponent, Ukraine rejects any Chinese participation in future security guarantees. Only NATO countries seem acceptable, something that will evidently make the possibility of an agreement with Russia even more difficult.

Mutual distrust between Russia and Western European countries continues to grow and is being fully exploited at this time, as both parties try to show their strength in the face of potential bilateral negotiations in which each wants to achieve the most and give up the least. In the case of European countries, this stance is summed up by Macron's attitude, who called Russia an "ogre at the gates" and expressed pessimism. "When I look at the situation and the facts, I don't see President Putin with much desire to make peace right now," he told Meet the Press during his recent visit to Washington. However, the need to see peace within reach, a prerequisite for maintaining a good relationship with Donald Trump, requires them not to close the door on anything. "Your president's optimism is something to be taken seriously. So if he believes he can get a deal, that's great news, and we have to do what we can to have a great deal," he added. As co-leader of the Franco-British Coalition of the Willing initiative , a proposal to send NATO troops camouflaged in their national flags to Ukraine, the French president continues to make proposals that he is well aware Russia cannot accept.

The smiles with which they always refer to the war, as well as the gloomy faces on Monday at the White House upon hearing Trump's proposals to seek direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine without first demanding a continental ceasefire, betray the representatives of European countries and their community institutions. The European Union, which resisted including in its narrative the references to peace that Kiev had already begun to use so as not to alienate Donald Trump, has continued to propose unworkable ideas to guarantee the maintenance of the status quo . Even the two-day ultimatum for Russia to accept the ceasefire they demanded could be considered a bluff used to try to blame Russia for the lack of progress toward peace and thus get the United States to apply the coercive part of its strategy of incentives and threats against Russia. The tactic is now so clear that even a pro-Ukrainian and pro-European outlet like Politico reported this week that “Europe believes Trump’s peace talks will fail. Yet it wants them, to expose Putin. The plan is to play along with Trump’s peace efforts until he realizes Putin has no intention of ending the war.” In this game, which has been going on for more than a decade, the game played by European countries and their Ukrainian proxy has always been clear: delay and obstruct any attempt to achieve a final, binding resolution in favor of a tactic of rejecting their commitments and demanding concessions from the enemy, always with the intention of making it seem that it is the opponent who is preventing peace.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/22/faroles-politicos/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
When and if it comes to signing agreements with Ukraine, the question of the legitimacy of the signatories from the Ukrainian side will arise (c) Lavrov

And this is already about the question of the legitimate cocaine Fuhrer. Any paper that he wants to sign can then easily be cancelled on the basis of its legal illegitimacy from the point of view of Ukrainian legislation. Therefore, the question of legitimacy will not disappear from the negotiations. Just like the question of elections in Ukraine, which theoretically should restore at least the appearance of legitimacy of power in Kiev.

***

Colonelcassad
And another important clarification from Lavrov on the topic of the rumors about Putin agreeing to negotiate with the cocaine Fuhrer without conditions.

1. Russia is ready for such a meeting, but only after the appropriate conditions are prepared for it.
2. Before that, work must be done to prepare such conditions, read meetings of delegations.

And here, the Russian position has not moved anywhere, despite various rumors. A meeting with the cocaine Fuhrer must complete the process, when they meet and sign the things that have already been agreed upon. But there is no particular interest in simply meeting for the sake of clowning and legitimizing the cocaine Fuhrer.

***

Colonelcassad
0:13
Fake exposed: strike on "civilian" Flex plant in Mukachevo

On August 21, 2025, during a massive missile and drone attack on Ukraine's military infrastructure, an industrial facility on the outskirts of Mukachevo was struck . We are talking about the Flex Ukraine plant , a subsidiary of the Singaporean-American corporation Flex Ltd. , officially registered as "Flex Electronics TZOV Plant" .

Almost immediately, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andriy Sybiga stated that "the strike was carried out on a peaceful American enterprise", and the attack itself was "terrorism against business".

However, available OSINT data , Flex's production profile , as well as its technological capabilities completely refute these statements.

Technical profile of the Flex plant: evidence of military and dual use

The plant in Mukachevo is part of the global production chain of Flex Ltd. , one of the largest contract electronics manufacturers in the world. The company manufactures products on order of third parties and has a closed technological cycle, including:
• Production of DC/DC converters (including isolated and non-isolated);
• Interface power modules with several outputs — key components for drones , radio communications and on-board control systems ;
• Evaluation boards and tools for assembling electronic prototypes, including power stages ;
• Printed circuit boards for network equipment , servers , radio systems and communication means.

According to official data from the state register (KVED), the company is engaged in:
• Production of communication equipment ;
• Production of radio equipment for receiving and transmitting information ;
• Production of generators , engines , computers and peripherals , including devices for digital signal processing ;
• Production of plastic cases necessary for UAV assembly.

Thus, Flex Ukraine is a typical dual-use facility , the products of which are used in the interests of the Armed Forces of Ukraine both in terms of drone platforms and in providing secure communications, navigation and power supply to mobile command posts.

The strategic significance of the strike: suppression of NATO industrial logistics

The strike on the plant in Mukachevo was not an isolated episode. It fits into the general tactical logic of suppressing logistics and production hubs in the western regions of Ukraine - zones where the following are concentrated:
• hubs for receiving and processing Western military aid;
• high-tech industrial sites with the potential to work under military contracts;
• airfields servicing military cargo deliveries from NATO countries.

In particular, the following have already been hit multiple times:
• The airfield in Lutsk , used by the 204th Tactical Aviation Brigade , as well as for receiving cargo from the territory of Poland ;
• The airfield in Dubno , used for logistics and deployment of Western aviation equipment;
• An earlier strike on the airfield in Chernivtsi , used in the reconnaissance support system.

Thus, the defeat of Flex is part of a comprehensive operation to destroy the technological and logistics chains that ensure the functioning of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Political component: fake "invisibility" under the US flag

The Ukrainian side, in fact, tried to pass off the legal presence of American capital as a guarantee of the inviolability of the facility. In Kiev's rhetoric, the attack on Flex is allegedly an "encroachment on American business."

This sounds especially indicative against the background of previous statements by US President Donald Trump , who claimed that "the Russians will not risk striking American companies in Ukraine." However, practice has proven the opposite: the state affiliation of capital does not matter if the facility serves the enemy's defense sector .

Statements by Ukrainian officials about the "civilian nature" of the Flex plant are deliberate disinformation aimed at creating a false image of a "terrorist attack." In fact, we are dealing with a technologically rich dual-use facility involved in providing the military infrastructure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

The war in Ukraine ended and kyiv lost (to the US) in 2014
Indrajit Samarajiva

Aug 19, 2025 , 3:52 pm .

Image
A group of bloodthirsty babies and their nanny visiting "Daddy": that's how Trump coined it at the last NATO summit (Photo: White House)

Even some of my readers have the Ukrainian delusion that the empire, which has been wrong about every war, turns out to be right about this one. That's not true. Ukraine is just one front in the war the white empire is waging against the world, and I hope it loses. Fortunately, albeit tragically—admittedly so by Russia—it is losing. Ukraine is broken, and the empire is bored. The men of Ukraine have been thrown away like toy soldiers, and, as the meme goes, America is saying, " I don't want to play with you anymore ." That's the meaning behind these negotiations. They're irrelevant. What remains is surrender.

Negotiations or peace demand
The negotiations must be analyzed in this context. Trump has said that Ukraine isn't his war and has visibly exposed the now illegitimate—without elections—Zelensky. However, the Deep State and the frivolous Europeans truly believe their own propaganda and want more. So they're trying to put lipstick on a pig they've already killed and negotiate. But with what leverage? With more sanctions that didn't work last time, more promises of weapons they can't produce, to put into the hands of battalions of ghosts?

These negotiations are similar to those attempted by the Nazis at the end of World War II, which the Red Army ignored. As Marshal Georgy Zhukov said in his memoirs: " General Krebs, an experienced military diplomat, did his best to involve us in endless negotiations, but his ruse failed. I have already mentioned that General Sokolovsky, who was in charge of conducting the negotiations, categorically told Krebs that a cessation of hostilities was possible only after a complete and unconditional surrender of the Nazi troops to the Allies. Thus ended the conversation." This is humorously dramatized in a deleted scene from Der Untergang .



Similarly, the meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska was very short and inconsequential. Putin did not budge from his official position that there would be no ceasefire—to reinforce Ukraine—until Ukrainian forces completely withdraw from the Donbas, that is, capitulate. As Simplicius said :

"The main victory confirmed in the negotiations, in contrast to the various speculative parameters currently circulating, was aligning the United States with Putin's demand for 'a deal before a ceasefire,' rather than Zelensky's and Europe's competing demand for 'a ceasefire before a deal.'"

In Putin's own words , the nature of that agreement would be a "fair balance in the field of security in Europe and the rest of the world," which is quite broad, and within which Ukraine is rapidly reducing its share. The truth is that Ukraine's influence is diminishing, while Russia's is only improving. They have attrition on their side, considering they depend on the Americans' notoriously short attention span. Anyway, after the summit, Putin said:

"I have said several times that, for Russia, the events in Ukraine are associated with fundamental threats to our national security. Moreover, we have always considered the Ukrainian people our brothers, as I have often repeated. We share the same roots, and what is happening to us is a tragedy and a source of great sorrow. Therefore, our country is genuinely interested in putting an end to this.

At the same time, we are convinced that for a Ukrainian settlement to be sustainable and lasting, all the root causes of the crisis that I have repeatedly mentioned must be eliminated, all of Russia's legitimate concerns must be taken seriously, and a fair balance in the field of security in Europe and the rest of the world must be restored."


The empire has an expansive concept of national security, extending thousands of miles from its capital, but it can't understand Russia's concerns about hostile troops on its borders. This is the historical injustice Putin wants to discuss politically, but he's also not afraid to shake the dust militarily. That seems to be the only language the empire understands, and for them, negotiations are mere ruses. See Minsk I and Minsk II.

German satrap Angela Merkel said it in December 2022 in an interview with Die Zeit : "The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to buy Ukraine time, which it used to strengthen itself, as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the same Ukraine as today." This is what the Europeans are still trying to do, and if someone fools you three times, you are the fool. Like the idiot US President George W. Bush—who now seems relatively sane: "Fool me once, it's your fault; a second time... it's yours too; I won't be fooled again." One hopes so.

The Nazi charlatans of Europe, who call themselves the "Coalition of the Willing"—the most pathetic nomenclature possible—said that "they—the coalition of participants—once again emphasized their willingness to deploy security forces after the cessation of hostilities, as well as to ensure the security of Ukraine's air and sea spaces and restore the Armed Forces of Ukraine." So what they're proposing is a ceasefire to continue fighting when convenient. A Minsk III. Thank goodness Russia doesn't believe them now. Frankly, there's no one credible to negotiate with in the empire, and Russia is winning the war on the ground. Why stop?

Russia's position
The common idiocy is that Russia is on its knees, but that's not the picture at all. Larry Johnson claims that "Russia's current GDP, using Purchasing Power Parity, is estimated at $7.1 trillion, making it the fourth-largest economy in the world under this metric, and larger than any European economy, according to IMF estimates for 2025." Europe continues to act like Russia is a backward place, but it's economically beneath it and isolated since the US blew up Nordstream and cut off their balls. Johnson goes on to contextualize from public data, saying:

"Russia has low unemployment, declining inflation, and has lowered its debt-to-GDP ratio significantly than all the major European economies. The UK and France are on an unsustainable economic path, especially if they can't get gullible fools around to continue buying their debt. By the way, did I mention that the US debt-to-GDP ratio is 125%? The US, France, and the UK are living on borrowed time... I meant borrowed money. If there is a financial crisis in the world, Russia is better positioned to weather the storm than the US and its NATO allies. Furthermore, if the US decides to stop funding the war in Ukraine, the UK, France, and Germany lack the financial muscle to support Zelensky and his band of thieves. I wonder if Trump and the Europeans will discuss that on Monday?"

The reality, the central fact, is that Russia is governed for the benefit of Russians, while Europe is being humiliated by the United States. The United States is robbing its own population for the narrow benefit of a few carnivorous capitalists. The entire white empire is a fraud, and they caught Ukraine in a protection racket and ruined it.

The white empire's biggest complaint about Russia, or Iran, or China, or North Korea, is not their political system but simply their independence . This is the one thing the empire cannot forgive, and if its knees won't bend, they must break them. But they can't break Russia if it outproduces and outstrips them. This is a turning point toward a new world order, in which Russia gives the orders and doesn't take them. Clausewitz said that "war is a mere continuation of politics by other means," and Russia is writing politics on the ground.

If you view the war—limitedly and incorrectly—as Russia versus Ukraine, Russia can completely destroy Ukraine's military and industry, while Ukraine is not allowed—for the most part—to attack inside Ukraine. The United States sacrificed them like a pawn, and Europe's bishops instigated it. Ukraine never had a chance to win; they just had to make Russia lose more. The media line—and idiotic theory—was that Russia was about to fall and the revolution was about to begin, but this is nothing new. It's just Hitler's theory rehashed: "We just have to kick in the doors and the whole rotten structure will collapse." It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Russia has destroyed at least three Ukrainian armies, even though the latter has battalions and brigades in name only, just a few forcibly conscripted men defending every kilometer of a porous front. Meanwhile, on the other side, many Russians are better off than before, the army is growing rather than shrinking, and, if anything, the Russian population is more hardline than Putin. Truly, Putin is the empire's best option for negotiating, but even he can reach an agreement between them, and no one else takes them at their word. So the war continues.

What this means
The negotiations, the phone calls, the idea that the United States, let alone Europe, are equal players—these are all a farce. The white empire can ruin the game and Ukraine with it, it can despoil Palestine and destroy lives, it can impose tariffs on its toys and scream, but that's all. Putin stopped their deception in Ukraine and holds all the cards. The state of war in Ukraine, which will continue until Kiev gives up the Donbas, over which they have been fighting since 2014, or Russia simply takes it. There will be no NATO in Ukraine, and it's not at all clear that there will be NATO in Europe either. They are a worn-out farce, mashallah .

As Zhukov said while they were pursuing the Nazis: "And since the Germans at that moment refused to accept unconditional surrender, our troops were ordered to finish off the enemy immediately." That's what's sadly happening at the front, where people my age, forced into combat, aren't putting up much of a fight. During the final surrender ceremony, Zhukov reported the following interaction, which sadly still speaks volumes:

"[Field Marshal General Keitel] said: 'As we drove through the streets of Berlin, I was horrified by the scale of the destruction.' One of our officers replied: 'Mr. Field Marshal, weren't you terrified when, on your orders, thousands of Soviet towns and villages were wiped off the face of the earth and millions of our people, including many thousands of children, were buried beneath their ruins?' Keitel paled and shrugged nervously, but said nothing."

Westerners mourn the destruction of Ukraine, but why are they like this in the first place? Don't they wonder why destruction spreads wherever they "help"? These people are like Lennie in John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men . Someone should take them back and shoot them. The fact is, the United States lied about this war, as with any war, and they were always the bad guys. Just compare the state of Kiev with that of Gaza and you can see who's fighting fair.

The white empire is committing genocide right now and wants us to believe it's right about Ukraine. And these people still want to lecture us about how bad Russia is? What a murderous joke. Forget negotiation, it's not worth talking to white people anymore. It's a defunct identity of a dying empire, with nothing but death to offer in the end. One wishes the white empire would be defeated not only in Ukraine but throughout the world with which it is at war. But it's a start. This is the first front to fall in its offensive against Asia. May the rest soon crumble completely.

https://misionverdad.com/traducciones/l ... uu-en-2014

Google Translator

******

Brief Frontline Report – August 21st, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 21, 2025

The Russian Ministry of Defense reports: "As a result of decisive actions by units of the "South" Group, the settlement of Aleksandro-Shultino in the Donetsk People's Republic has been liberated." Marked on the map with a Russian flag*

Image
ЛБС 02.5.2025=Line of Combat Contact May 2nd, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

The village of Aleksandro-Shultino (48°28′50″N 37°49′28″E, approximately 200 residents) is located on terrain advantageous for combat operations: at the northern end of the watershed of the Naumikha and Bakhmutka rivers (near the confluence of the rivers) and adjacent to the Kamenovataya ravine along the railway line. To the northeast of the village, along the Naumikha River (on opposite banks), run the highway and railway leading to the city of Konstantinovka.

Image
ЛБС 09.4.2025=Line of Combat Contact April 9th, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

Approximately 3.5 km to the north is the Russian Armed Forces stronghold, Predtechino. Consequently, the Ukrainian Armed Forces grouping located further east, in the Oskino tract and along the right bank of the Seversky Donets-Donbass canal, is now under threat of operational encirclement (the canal is shown with a light blue line).

The Aleksandro-Shultino - Belaya Gora area is a convenient bridgehead for developing an offensive towards the southeastern suburbs of the city of Konstantinovka.

A brief note on the breakthrough by the Russian Armed Forces grouping towards Zolotoy Kolodez - Kucherov Yar. (Back to the first map) The situation in the breakthrough area has stabilized; our units are conducting defensive battles and reconnaissance-in-force, drawing upon themselves the meager reserves of the AFU.

Some sources have begun to show hints of mild panic, suggesting that a transition to defense means a loss of momentum and initiative.

For those unfamiliar with military tactical science, here is a brief explanation: defense is one of the PRIMARY forms of combat.

The Combat Manual of the Russian Armed Forces defines it as follows: The purpose of defense is to repel an offensive (attack) by superior enemy forces, inflict maximum losses on them, hold a strongpoint (position, objective), and thereby create favorable conditions for subsequent actions. Defense must be stable and active, capable of withstanding enemy strikes employing all types of weapons, repelling an offensive by their superior forces, and their attacks from the front and flanks. It must be prepared for prolonged combat under conditions of enemy use of high-precision weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and electronic warfare.

The stability and effectiveness of defense are achieved by:

· The endurance, steadfastness, and persistence of the defending units and their high morale;
· Skillfully organized defense and fire systems;
· Continuous reconnaissance of the enemy;
· Thorough camouflage of occupied positions and lines;
· Skillful use of advantageous terrain conditions, its engineering preparation, and the application of combat methods unexpected by the enemy;
· Timely maneuver by units and firepower;
· Immediate destruction of enemy forces that have penetrated the defense;
· Constant implementation of measures for radiological, chemical, and biological protection, protection against high-precision weapons, and enemy information-psychological influence;
· Stubborn and prolonged retention of strongpoints (positions, lines);
· Comprehensive support and preparation of personnel for prolonged combat operations, including under conditions of complete encirclement.

All these requirements for defense are being met by our heroic units, and a high degree of command and control is maintained. These are the hallmarks of an organized defense.

An organized, planned transition to defense is a proactive combat action aimed at inflicting maximum damage on the enemy and preparing favorable conditions for the further development of offensive actions.

Simultaneously, while units are wearing down the enemy in defense, neighboring units are developing offensives against the flanks of the attacking enemy, widening the base of the salient to ensure logistics and restraining his units that are attempting to storm our defenses.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-21st

******

Nazis Prepare to Flee Odessa: "Moskvorotism Everywhere, a Storm of Russian Music"
Pavel Badaev. 21.08.2025 10:57 (Moscow time), OdessaViews: 2348

Author's column , Zen , Odessa , Topic of the day , Ukraine


And if you want to laugh. Against the backdrop of the pigsty that the Nazis have turned Odessa into , and continue to kick the barely warm body, the Nazi Muzychko is crying - he hates this cotton wool city, he is being offended, it's "shit" here. And this is just some kind of holiday!

This is how the possessed “professor” of the Odessa University described his daily life:

Image

"I called the police again when I heard the song "You, My Russia!" and something like that from the window of another Odessa house. Loudly. Across the entire street."

The police, of course, didn’t come, otherwise Muzychko would have definitely bragged.

"Of course, it's really cool to create a bubble for yourself and live in it and write bravura posts about the cool Ukrainian Odessa, where everything goes according to the plan of the Ukrainizers and de-Russifiers, but... In fact, it's advisable not to even leave the house, not to ride public transport, not to walk the streets, not to communicate with neighbors. And I'm not even talking about monitoring social networks - it's gloomy there," the Nazi wails.

And he gives real examples of “darkness”.

“If you don’t close your ears and eyes, you can see and hear:

Muscoviteness is everywhere.
A barrage of Russian music.
Brazen and loud listening to Russian political and historical content.
Conversations that make your ears wilt.
And much more."


And here is his conclusion:

"With all due respect to those who do not give up, wearing rose-colored glasses and making bravura statements in the style of "don't pay attention, everything is going as it should" is not a way out. On the contrary, we should recognize the threatening and extremely unsightly reality of an extremely wadded and disgusting Odessa, a city that is extremely uncomfortable for Ukrainians. A city where the government is anti-Ukrainian. There is no reason to love this Odessa. Well, maybe we can only respect certain people who are sitting on their suitcases, because they themselves understand everything.

You feel it especially clearly when you return from your travels to the real Ukraine, where you actually want to live, and not in all this crap. Especially since even the vaunted sea here has been polluted."


They are the ones who made a mess - the "wanderers".

The comments from the followers of the Muzychko sect are also encouraging:

"Horror. Promoskalsky horror."

"...for the umpteenth time (!) I heard that the war started because of people like me. Because I asked a native Crimean woman to stop talking about how it would be better to seize everything right away... she was supported by six pensioners on the trolleybus. It's good that I got off two stops later. It was impossible to endure this even for three minutes. They are also aggressive towards everything in Ukrainian."

“…and you constantly feel real physical pain from what you hear and see: from the Muscovite children, their parents, teachers hardened in Soviet ways, sellers with their “women” and “native Odessans”

"Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepr and Zaporozhye are extremely Russian cities. That is why Ukrainians do not feel comfortable living there, because the Ukrainian worldview needs to be gnawed out there."


Etc.

But why did all these occupiers sitting on suitcases decide that they would have time to grab their stuff and run away?..

https://politnavigator.news/nacisty-got ... muzla.html

Google Translator

******

Required Constitutional Rewriting to End US War on Russian Speaking Ukrainians
Karl Sanchez
Aug 20, 2025

Image

In order to come to the defense of Russian speaking Ukrainians attacked by the Outlaw US Empire in 2014, Russia entered into a series of alterations to its Constitution to admit those regions no longer desiring to be part of the longstanding artificial political construct known as Ukraine. The artificial political nature of what’s known as Ukraine—how it was cobbled together over several centuries by the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and two world wars—is well known by historians and is an established fact regardless of the current attempts to alter that fact. This essay’s aim isn’t to dispute that fact but to show the only way to a peaceful resolution of the Outlaw US Empire’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent armed conflict aimed at destroying its Russian speaking population is via the complete redrawing of the borders of what we’ll continue to call Ukraine and the necessary alteration of Ukraine’s Constitution that’s already been shredded by those forces that invaded. What will be discussed are the changes to the physical nature of Ukraine brought about by the Special Military Operation (SMO) to free Russian speakers from the tyranny imposed by Outlaw US Empire and their NATO oppressors—it goes without saying that Ukraine lost what sovereignty it had when it was invaded by the Outlaw US Empire in 2014 and had an alien government installed controlled by the Empire, and that sovereignty has never been restored.

The argument made by the current illegitimate president of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky is that the Ukrainian Constitution doesn’t allow for any territorial alterations, so he must wage war until those territories that voted to leave, join Russia and are now incorporated into the Russian Constitution are recaptured. However, the realism told on the battlefield tells a very different story along with the atrocities by Ukrainian and NATO Nazi troops committed since the 2014 invasion. Also affecting the solution is a realistic assessment of the historical past of the various extremist groups claiming to be Ukrainian Nationalists that are currently allied with the Outlaw US Empire and NATO and have been supported by them since 1945 as admitted by US government documents.

One of Russia’s SMO aims is the Denazification of Ukraine. The history of Nationalist extremism is well over 100 years old and the current generation’s indoctrination is such that seeds are sown for that extremism to continue. Thus, any realist expectation for 100% Denazification must be seen as utopian. That realization is what prompted Russian President Putin to announce the need for a buffer zone to separate the future Ukraine from the Russian and Union States. Logic dictates that the buffer zone be incorporated into Russian territory so it can be properly administered by Russia and perhaps settled by Cossacks as such borderlands once were. Here’s the general map Medvedev proposed:

Image

The current battlefield situation is in flux since the Ukrainian extremists and their Western backers don’t want the conflict to end—their announced goal remains the same: To inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. As a result, Russia continues to gain territory that was previously part of Greater Russia. This fact makes it necessary to look at what part of Ukraine is the extremist’s heartland. This map suggests that area:


The region to the West of the green area on the above map is generally where that heartland’s located. There’s a general correlation with Medvedev’s map. However, the territorial solution is only one aspect of what must be accomplished. In order to satisfy the desires of those remaining within Ukraine, they must be offered a choice of which political entity they want to reside within—The Russian Federation, the new Ukraine, or some other nation having a historical portion of the current Ukraine, Poland for example —which would be accomplished via referendum. However, there’s a prerequisite for that vote—the people must be allowed to know what sort of constitutional regime they’ll be deciding to reside within. Russia or another already existing nation obviously presents an already existing Constitution that would require subsequent amending to admit whatever new areas are incorporated into Russia or other nation. On the other hand, Ukraine will need a completely revamped Constitution that realizes the results of the conflict, defines its future behavior toward its citizens, international organizations and international norms. Who will be the Constitution’s composers then becomes the issue followed by the issue of approval—by the UN most likely. Of special interest to all—Russia in particular—will be how the historical problem of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists will be dealt with. The expectation of very strong political opposition to a factual approach to the issue given the clear continuing belligerence of NATO and the Outlaw US Empire in the nations in close proximity to Russia—Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia—is a potential hindrance to arriving at an agreeable and timely draft Constitution that can be submitted for approval to the UN.

The further issue of security guarantees sought by all sides demands an international agreement that can be based of some previously broken OSCE treaties that provided for Indivisible Security. Russia has proposed a Eurasian wide security system, while China had proposed its Global Security Initiative which a super majority of nations already favor where its key appealing feature is the elimination of Hegemony. Both proposals are actually based on the UN Charter which is also a universal global peace treaty that has never been completely obeyed by the Outlaw US Empire, its vassals, and other entities—former colonial nations and the victims of South Asian Partition being prime examples. As we saw with the three OSCE Treaties, they were all broken by NATO’s expansion. Finland recently broke its treaty with the USSR/Russia of “everlasting neutrality,” and the remnants of Ukraine’s Constitution says it’s to be a neutral nation too. So, it’s clear treaties can easily be broken by nations choosing to be Outlaws, although their populace often never has a say in the matter. Thus, the issues of Trust and Credibility become paramount—Who will ensure the guarantors of security act properly? That was the duty the UN Security Council was formulated to perform. Thus, Humanity is again faced with the same big issue it faced 80 years ago.

In closing, it must be noted that Alastair Crooke noted Ukraine is a “Slavic State” not a “European State,” which was a rather profound statement to make that unfortunately sits at the heart of the very longstanding animus with Europe between the primary ethnic groups—Germanic/Celtic peoples and Slavs—that formed the basis for both World Wars and the atrocities associated with both. Russia seems to have decided to turn to its Eastern roots as the best way to solve this problem, but the Slavic states to its West still face the old animus—Serbia is the obvious example. Perhaps solving Ukraine will help removing the elite forces that drive the animus for their own gain at the expense of their own peoples and peace. Human Rights are clearly at the forefront of the Ukraine and overall European problems, which have continued for far too long. It’s time to end them, and the idea that any people are exceptional or superior to another. All Humanity demands a just solution. This is one.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/required ... -rewriting

******

Ukraine's Future - A 'Steppe Corridor' - A Neutral, Transit-oriented State

While Russia is confidently prosecuting the war in Ukraine towards its inevitable end.

Meanwhile the 'West' is still negotiating with itself about the conditions under which it will have to capitulate.

Discussions continue about 'security guarantees' for Ukraine even as the only serious ones are those that Russia is willing to give.

The confused arguments about 'guarantees' are reflected in the reports of them. Consider this nonsense:

A security guarantee could encompass a wide range of issues. In return for Russia ending its invasion, a security pact could include a pledge of U.S. air support for any European-led operations should Russian troops resume their assault.

If Russia ends the war NATO like 'security guarantees' are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?

How is that supposed to compute? Russia started this war to prevent a further extension of NATO into Ukraine. Why should it end the fighting if, in consequence, Ukraine would end up as a quasi-member of that pact?

All the 'security guarantees' talk is just obfuscation of the attempt by some European leaders to prolong the war by further dragging the U.S. into it:

Days before the [sanctions] deadline expired, Putin invited Witkoff to Moscow and offered a proposal, seen by the White House as sufficient grounds to set up last week’s Alaska summit meeting. There, Putin succeeded in convincing Trump that an immediate ceasefire to allow for complex peace negotiations was not required, allowing Russia to continue its attacks on Ukraine, without the risk of new U.S. sanctions.

The move alarmed European leaders, who raced to Washington on Monday to back up Zelensky during a meeting at the White House. After the meeting, they appeared satisfied by Trump’s openness to security guarantees. If Putin does not accept the terms, that could make the Kremlin the obstacle to Trump’s peace deal, insulating Ukraine from having to choose between untenable concessions of territory and inviting Trump’s ire.


Russia is not going to allow any of this:

[O]n Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov struck a blow at another major part of Trump’s peace effort, downplaying expectations for a swift bilateral meeting with the Ukrainian president, and further blocking the prospects for any deal on security guarantees for Ukraine. He said Russia would only agree to the measures if it had an effective veto over future efforts to defend Kyiv.

Russia will simply stick to its plan:

Russia’s conditions to end its war would essentially subvert Ukraine’s sovereignty, neuter its military and seize territory in eastern Ukraine that it has not captured in battle. Moscow wants to also permanently bar Ukraine from NATO and other international groupings and prevent it from hosting foreign troops — terms that would force Ukraine into a close, unwanted economic and political partnership with Russia.

A close economic and political partnership with Russia, unwanted or not, is indeed the most likely future for whatever is by then left of Ukraine.

Some Ukrainians, like the former presidential advisor Alexander Arestovich, do understand that:

The key task for Ukraine today in all these Alaskan tales is to preserve political independence in the long term.
...
Ukraine has only one way to preserve it: acknowledging the shared symbolic capital with Russia and Belarus, adopting a neutral status, and building good-neighborly relations with Russia and Belarus while maintaining political independence and the unique role of a “crossroads of worlds”- between Russia and Europe.
Economically, the most promising role is that of a “steppe corridor” - between Russia, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the EU.
In short, this is about a fundamental shift in project orientation - from a narrow, nationalist one to a broad, transit-oriented one.

In a sense, this could be called a “Great Return” - to Ukraine’s natural historical and cultural role.

By way of analogy - modern Kazakhstan.
...
In conclusion, the fundamental challenge for Ukraine lies not in tactical maneuvers but in recognizing the strategic perspective: the necessity of reimagining its role as a neutral, transit-oriented state in order to preserve independence in the emerging geopolitical order.


Posted by b on August 21, 2025 at 14:41 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/08/u ... .html#more

*****

Which Western Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Be Acceptable To Putin?
Andrew Korybko
Aug 21, 2025

Image

He might hypothetically agree that the resumption of NATO’s present support for Ukraine (arms, intelligence, logistics, etc.) in the event of another conflict wouldn’t cross Russia’s red lines but he’s unlikely to compromise on the issue of Western troops in Ukraine once the present conflict ends.

Steve Witkoff’s claim that Putin allegedly agreed to the US offering Ukraine “Article 5-like protection” during the Anchorage Summit, which Trump repeated during his White House Summit with Zelensky and a handful of European leaders, raises the question of what form this could hypothetically take if true. Assuming for the sake of analysis that he did indeed agree to this, it’s important to clarify exactly what Article 5 entails. For starters, it doesn’t obligate allies to dispatch troops if one of them is attacked.

Per the North Atlantic Treaty, each member only has to take “such action as it deems necessary”, which could include “the use of armed forces” but doesn’t have to. As was explained earlier this year here, “Ukraine has arguably enjoyed the benefits of this principle for the past three years despite not being a NATO member since it’s received everything other than troops from the alliance.” Arms, intelligence, logistical, and other forms of support have already been provided to Ukraine in the spirit of Article 5.

It might therefore be the case that Putin agreed that such “Article 5-like protection” could be resumed in the event of another conflict without crossing Russia’s red lines. Although Russia objects to Ukraine’s remilitarization after the present conflict ends, it’s possible that it could agree to this too as part of a grand compromise in exchange for some of its other goals being met as explained here. What Russia doesn’t agree to, however, is the dispatch of Western troops to Ukraine after the present conflict ends.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova declared on the day of the White House Summit that “We reiterate our long-standing position of unequivocally rejecting any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO military contingents in Ukraine”. This position isn’t expected to change since one of the reasons behind the special operation is to stop NATO’s expansion inside Ukraine. Western boots on the ground there afterwards would therefore amount to the perceived failure of Russia’s primary goal.

This would especially be the case if they’re deployed along the Line of Contact, but their deployment west of the Dnieper in parallel with the creation of a demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” region controlled by non-Western peacekeepers as proposed here could hypothetically be a compromise. That said, Russia would prefer for there to only be non-Western peacekeepers, if any at all. The deployment of foreign military forces, regardless of the country, could embolden Ukraine to stage false-flag provocations.

To summarize, in the order of the most hypothetically acceptable Western security guarantees to Ukraine to the least hypothetically acceptable from Russia’s perspective, these are: 1) the resumption of Western support for Ukraine only if another conflict erupts and without any peacekeepers at all; 2) continued Western support but with non-Western peacekeepers; and 3) continued Western support, Western troops west of the Dnieper, and non-Western troops in a demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” region.

The scope of Ukraine’s demilitarization and the extent of Western security guarantees to it after the present conflict ends are of the utmost importance for Russia in order to prevent Ukraine from once again being weaponized as a launchpad for Western aggression. It’s therefore highly unlikely that Russia will compromise much on this issue, especially the scenario of Western troops in Ukraine. Russia might be more flexible on other issues, but on this one, it might prove unwavering.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/which-we ... guarantees
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Sat Aug 23, 2025 11:59 am

Warmongering solutions
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/23/2025

Image

“Today, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is in Ukraine. During our meeting, we discussed, first and foremost, what next joint steps we can take to provide greater security for Ukraine and all of Europe and bring the war closer to a real end,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote yesterday. All parties say they want an end to the war, but always with a clear nuance: that their main demands be met. Perhaps Donald Trump, who continues to insist that both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are tired of the war and want to end it, is the only person who still sees an agreement between Russia and Ukraine as relatively easy, which would only require the meeting between the presidents that the White House claims is being prepared, even though the press reveals nothing but demands and recriminations between them. Trump's plan is simple and based on his unique understanding of war. Misunderstanding that Russia is seeking territory, he offers Moscow a territory swap that could give Russia more than what it has managed to capture militarily in Donbass (in exchange for territories in other oblasts ). With this approach, Trump forgets that the issue of security, not territory, is Moscow's main priority. In exchange for a territorial commitment, the White House is willing to give Kyiv what it has been seeking for years—although not at the cost of losing territory—security guarantees. This aspect has become the most discussed in the media and is already the focus of the political debate between Kyiv and Moscow, who are laying out their demands and reaffirming the red lines they have insisted on since 2022.

“Amid the setbacks Ukraine suffered following President Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in Alaska, officials in Kyiv found a glimmer of hope. They seized on an American proposal to include security guarantees for Ukraine, designed to deter future Russian aggression, in a potential peace deal,” wrote The New York Times after the meeting between Putin and Trump, that is, before the meeting with European countries and Ukraine that continental capitals are trying to present—essentially to highlight their role in the negotiations, which in reality was limited to listening and laughing at Donald Trump's jokes—as a major breakthrough in resolving the security issue.

The military architecture that will emerge from this war is not only important for Ukraine and Russia, which see it as a way to impose favorable conditions for the day after peace, but also for European countries, which are preparing an armed peace not too dissimilar to the Korean scenario, with which to move from endless war to eternal conflict. In this way, the United Kingdom will justify a greater presence in the Black Sea, a position it has considered strategic since the 19th century, when it participated alongside France in the Crimean War against Tsarist Russia. Brussels will be able to continue its policy of continental rupture, closing ranks on the Atlantic, rearmament, and political, economic, and military submission to the United States, that strategic ally that the EU has not yet realized is a rival.

From the position expressed yesterday by Kaja Kallas on the BBC , where she stated that the territorial issue is "the trap Putin wants to lure us into," European countries are pushing for security guarantees for Ukraine that would make an agreement with Russia absolutely unviable. The goal, increasingly less subtle, is to have Russia reject a possible agreement, a gamble that relies on imposing terms that cross Moscow's red lines on the most important issue: NATO's presence in Ukraine, which even Donald Trump has cited as one of the root causes of the war.

The emphasis on security guarantees, specifically on terms that make an agreement unviable, is shared by the political and media classes, which distrust Trump's words but cannot avoid triumphalism every time the US president expresses pro-Ukrainian positions. Just yesterday, a significant portion of the press boasted about what Donald Trump posted on his personal social media platform. “It is very difficult, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking the invading country. It's like a great sports team that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! That's what happens with Ukraine and Russia,” he wrote, later recalling his predecessor and insisting that “the corrupt and grossly incompetent Joe Biden did not allow Ukraine to FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND ITSELF. How did that happen? In any case, this is a war that NEVER would have happened if I were president: ZERO CHANCE. Interesting times ahead!!!” Yesterday, the US President again insisted on mentioning the two-week deadline to determine what will happen or "do something else."

The media, which has interpreted Trump's words as a sign of the return of the language of ultimatums, is undoubtedly possible. While that version is certainly possible, it is also possible that Trump is looking for a scapegoat to justify his inability to force Vladimir Putin to give in. So far, Russia has limited itself to fine words, flattery that sometimes borders on the ridiculous, and promises of a good future relationship. It has not complied with the ceasefire that the United States sought for months, the European ultimatum, and has not even truly accepted the Zelensky-Putin meeting that Trump once took for granted. The US president seems to be realizing that it is easier to pressure a completely dependent country than one that, only in this war, is sovereign and reliant solely on itself. Even so, political and media actors seek to continue exerting pressure by trying to impose security guarantees that Moscow cannot accept.

“Although the details of the U.S. proposal remain unclear, Trump said Putin agreed that Ukraine should have strong security guarantees under a deal, though not under NATO auspices, according to two senior European officials who were briefed on the call. American troops could participate, Trump told the Europeans. If Trump's proposal materializes, it would mark a victory for Ukraine, which has long sought postwar security guarantees to prevent a future Russian invasion but has so far received only vague commitments,” The New York Times wrote , despite Moscow's clarification that the security guarantees it is willing to accept are those contingent on permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council proposed by Ukraine in 2022. In contrast to that idea, put forward when the United States and other European countries refused to offer security guarantees to Kyiv, the current approach seeks to eliminate all non-NATO members and create a mechanism based on Article V of the alliance. Politicians, journalists, and think tankers falsely claim that these guarantees, which would imply a military presence by NATO countries in Ukraine, would be acceptable to Russia, as they would not imply membership in the Alliance.

“Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have spoken of an ‘Article 5-like’ guarantee outside of NATO itself, albeit one based on the commitment in the alliance’s charter that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all of them. But it’s hard to imagine that NATO wouldn’t quickly become involved if any alliance member state with troops stationed in Ukraine went to war with Russia,” The New York Times explains , adding that “it’s also far from certain that Russia would change its position and accept that troops from NATO countries could be stationed in Ukraine under a form of de facto NATO-backed guarantee.” The paper prefers not to understand that this certainty of NATO involvement is more than enough reason for Russia not to change its position regarding the military presence of alliance members as part of a peace agreement.

The US's desired approach is well known (and has been repeatedly rejected by Moscow). "One possible solution could be the deployment of 15,000 to 20,000 European troops in Ukraine, according to Camille Grand, former NATO Deputy Secretary General, who has studied options for such security guarantees. The troops would be located away from the front, in support of the Ukrainian army, which is already the largest and most experienced in Europe, with some 900,000 personnel," the outlet adds, forgetting that the largest and most experienced army in Europe is not Ukraine's but Russia's. The proposal, which is short on personnel, requires US assistance to provide air cover, surveillance, intelligence, and, if possible, the direct participation of the American F-35s that the EU hopes will be deployed to Romania. Judging by Scott Bessent's words, the United States is no longer so reluctant to participate, always at a distance, even more protected than European troops, who would be assigned to the safest parts of the country so that the Ukrainians would remain on a highly militarized front. This week, without any shame in admitting that the United States profits from the misfortune of war, the Treasury Secretary stated that "we sell weapons to the Europeans, who then sell them to the Ukrainians. And President Trump raises the price of weapons by 10%. So maybe that 10% covers the costs of air cover." In other words, Washington is not willing to give up the economic benefits of the war it claims to want to stop.

With no interest in making viable proposals that would bring peace so that Ukraine can begin to rebuild and recover part of its lost population, the proposals published in the media seek only Cold War scenarios with the potential for direct military confrontation. "A Pentagon statement indicated that US and European planners had drawn up military options for 'appropriate consideration' by allied national security advisers. Reuters was the first to report that military leaders were preparing these options," the British agency explained yesterday.

“Final details remain to be finalized, a source familiar with the matter said, but European countries would provide “the bulk” of the forces involved in security guarantees for Ukraine,” the article added, specifying that “one option is to send European forces to Ukraine, but with the United States in charge of command and control, sources told Reuters . U.S. air support could take various forms, including providing more air defense systems to Ukraine and enforcing a no-fly zone with U.S. fighter jets.”

The mention of a no-fly zone, an undoubtedly European proposal that the United States would probably not accept, as it would entail shooting down Russian missiles and aircraft, invalidates any possibility of an agreement with the Russian Federation, as it would be considered practically a declaration of war. The idea harks back to a proposal presented a few months ago that didn't even want to wait for a ceasefire. "What is 'Sky Shield,' the plan Europe is designing to protect Ukraine from Russian missiles and drones?" Deutsche Welle published on social media in April . It added that "the plan includes the deployment of a European force of 120 combat aircraft designed to shoot down bombs and drones launched by Russia against Ukraine." The German outlet's post referred to a proposal initially published by The Guardian and which garnered support on social media from people like Jessica Berlin, a well-known German commentator determined to continue fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. “Russia needs to lose, and lose badly. Russia needs to leave Ukraine on its knees, begging for mercy,” he went so far as to say. “European-led Ukraine air protection plan could stop Russian missile attacks,” headlined the British outlet, adding that “the Sky Shield proposal, drawn up by military experts, would operate outside NATO and deploy 120 combat aircraft.” The initiative shares with the plans of Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron the desire to create the conditions for an armed peace more akin to an eternal war than the ceasefire they claim to defend and the final agreement pursued by Donald Trump.

“A European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to protect the skies from Russian attacks over Kiev and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, according to a plan drawn up by military experts,” wrote The Guardian , quite naively, though it should be aware by now why such an action has not occurred in Ukraine despite Kiev’s attempts to enlist its allies in the war effort. “According to its proponents, Sky Shield would be a European-led air protection zone, managed outside of NATO, to stop Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure. It could operate as part of the “truce in the sky” proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” wrote The Guardian in April , still without questioning the viability of the initiative or the chances that direct involvement by NATO countries would not be interpreted as a collective declaration of war by the alliance rather than by the specific countries participating in it.

“Its supporters include Philip Breedlove, a former US Air Force general and NATO’s Supreme Commander in Europe,” The Guardian added , a detail that, given the former US military officer’s role in trying to achieve a war on the Eastern Front many years before 2022, should be enough to dismiss the initiative entirely. Adding to the belligerent Breedlove are “Sir Richard Shirreff, a former British Army general and NATO’s deputy supreme commander at the beginning of the last decade, as well as former Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Another supporter, Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister, declared: ‘The implementation of Sky Shield would be an important component of Europe’s surge, ensuring Ukraine’s security effectively and efficiently.’”

Unworkable like most others, Sky Shield is just one of the initiatives that have been presented since the US-led diplomatic push for peace began. However, its goal is not to protect Ukraine from war, but from a negotiation that could stop it, the most feared scenario for those, like Breedlove, who have been trying to provoke a war with Russia for years. “If we had closed the skies over Ukraine in 2022, Russia's war wouldn't have lasted a year. It's never too late to do the right thing,” wrote Jessica Berlin, taking advantage of the return of the no-fly zone idea, as unworkable and belligerent now as it was when Zelensky demanded it in February 2022. “Starting with Sky Shield,” she declared. Those who have always opted for war have not lost hope of creating the conditions for an even more dangerous confrontation, even if it is in the name of seeking peace.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/23/soluc ... elicistas/

Google Translator

*****

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
NATO sent Ukraine weapons worth a total of $50 billion in 2024, and similar amounts of support are planned for 2025, said NATO Military Committee Chairman Giuseppe Cavo Dragone.

"NATO countries provided 99% of all military aid. In 2024, its volume reached $50 billion. In 2025, we have already reached $33 billion, but by the end of the year we will match the previous figure," Dragone said in an interview with Corriere della Sera. "We intend to continue military aid and even increase it."

Dragone also said that NATO is not discussing the issue of sending military contingents to Ukraine to guarantee security.

***

Colonelcassad
The enemy admitted that he lost a MiG-29 fighter (most likely Polish) at night. The pilot was killed. The circumstances of the loss of the aircraft are not disclosed.

P.S. They write that the aircraft crashed while landing. Major Sergei Bondar was killed. But we will not take his word for it - I would not be surprised if he fell victim to another "Geraniya", which already has a couple of aircraft to its credit. Well, the "anti-aircraft defense titans" can also be checked.😁

***

Colonelcassad
1:18
"Alabuga-Start" and Bloomberg myths Bloomberg

decided to contribute to the information war against the SEZ "Alabuga" . Journalists stated that the South African authorities have launched an investigation into the recruitment of South African women to work at Russian factories associated with military production. The girls allegedly end up being drawn into military action in the so-called Ukraine. The special economic zone "Alabuga" in Tatarstan, where the "Alabuga-Start" program operates, was cited as an example. Bloomberg links it to the production of "Geranium" drones. However, the reality is much more prosaic: the program was created to fill the labor shortage at civilian , including foreign, enterprises , and not to recruit "drone operators", where no one is allowed in from the street.

🔻What is the essence of the program and what are Western media deliberately keeping silent about?

▪️In "Alabuga" - a huge territory with dozens of different technology companies - they initially refused to poach personnel from Russian enterprises and actually began to attract migrants from abroad. This is done to minimize internal competition for workers.

▪️Who is hired: primarily young girls, to reduce the potential for conflict and fill the niches of professions that are not particularly attractive to men: catering, housekeeping, as well as crane operators, fitters, engineers, etc.

▪️The clients for the personnel are not only Russian enterprises, but also Turkish , French and other companies – all residents of the zone.

▪️Recruiters work in 78 countries, and the coverage is not limited to Africa - the list includes countries in Latin America and Asia.

Yes, there is a Geranium drone manufacturing plant in Alabuga . But turning the very fact of recruiting women to work in the economic zone into “military-industrial complex recruitment” is pure manipulation. No one is recruiting “drone operators” under the Alabuga-Start program, and they certainly aren’t “recruiting for the SVO.”

If Bloomberg’s statements had any basis, we would have already seen reports about “African women storming Pokrovsk” as part of the Russian Armed Forces. But we haven’t seen anything like that yet.

Thus, Western media are presenting an ordinary personnel project as part of a “hybrid war,” which fits into the usual pattern: any domestic initiative in Russia that, on the one hand, benefits the economy and, on the other, demonstrates a sound approach to migration policy , becomes a target for discreditation.

***

Colonelcassad
According to official information alone, more than 5,000 Ukrainians have illegally crossed the border with Romania through the mountains this year, the country's border police reports.

In total, more than 26,000 Ukrainians have fled to Romania since the beginning of the SVO. This is potentially five brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
In reality, according to analysts, the number of escapees is many times greater.

***

Colonelcassad
Forwarded from
RT in Russian
There are about 6,000 Ukrainian prisoners of war in Russia, a source in the security agencies told RT. They are being held in FSIN facilities. Some have been held since the spring of 2022. According to an RT source, about 1,000 Russians are prisoners of war in Ukraine. RT previously reported that the Ukrainian side, without explanation, removed 1,000 of its soldiers from the exchange lists, who have been sitting in Russian prisons for several years. The VSAU officers wrote a petition to Zelensky asking whether they are needed in their homeland. The prisoners also asked why there is no “all for all” exchange. Vladimir Putin handed over an album with their names and photographs to Donald Trump during the summit in Alaska. All information about them is also collected on the website 1000ua.ru . Those who have relatives in Ukraine may also be among your friends and loved ones in Europe or the United States (where RT is blocked). Give them a link to the post: https://t.me/Zerkalo_NewZ/68692 .

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Brief Frontline Report – August 22nd, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 22, 2025

The Russian Ministry of Defense reports: "Russian troops have liberated the settlements of Katerinovka, Vladimirovka, and Rusin Yar in the Donetsk People's Republic."

Image
ЛБС 09.4.2025=Line of Combat Contact April 9th, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

The village of Katerinovka (48°24′50″N 37°45′15″E, approximately 670 residents), a stronghold of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near the eastern shore of the Kleban-Byk reservoir, transitions north into the village of Kleban Byk. Kleban Byk remains the last major AFU stronghold before the village of Pleshcheevka. Securing access to Pleshcheevka will allow our assault groups to freely clear the northern shore of the reservoir and prepare a bridgehead for exerting pressure on the southern approaches to the city of Konstantinovka (Ivanopole-Berestok).

Image
ЛБС 02.5.2025=Line of Combat Contact May 2nd, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

The village of Rusin Yar (48°27′08″N 37°30′13″E, approximately 200 residents) was a forward stronghold in the AFU defensive area Sofiyevka - Vidnogo ravine - Rusin Yar, which covered the important Sofiyevka-Konstantinovka supply route. It was a significant AFU defensive node enabling the maneuver of forces and equipment to the west of Konstantinovka. The liberation of Rusin Yar threatens the rear and left flank of the AFU grouping engaged in combat against the Russian Armed Forces grouping that broke through the AFU defenses in the Mayak-Kucherov Yar direction.

Image

The village of Vladimirovka (48°26′28″N 37°20′57″E, approximately 670 residents) was one of the strongholds in the AFU defensive area Pankovka-Vladimirovka-Shakhovo. This area secured the Novoye Shakhovo-Shakhovo supply route, the radial Druzhkovka-Sofiyevka transport artery, and the radial Gruzskoye-Shakhovo road (Gruzskoye is spelled "Hruzskoe" on the map). Furthermore, this expands the base of the breakthrough, ensuring security and logistics for the Russian Armed Forces grouping operating in the penetration zone, and disrupts coordination between the eastern and western groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that are engaged in combat against our breakthrough group.

The liberation of Rusin Yar and Vladimirovka represents the planned expansion of the deep wedge driven into the operational depth of the AFU defense north of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk).

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-22nd

******

SITREP 8/22/25: Peace Talks Unravel and the March Goes On
Simplicius
Aug 22, 2025

Another turn of the ceasefire carousel, and more deja vu. Lavrov has again confirmed that Putin and Zelensky can only meet after all the underlying work is first accomplished, in terms of agreeing on the various subordinating issues. In short, it means there will be no such meeting any time soon.
(Video at link.)

And to complete the touch of deja vu, Trump again gave a two-week notice after which he warned the US could “change its approach” toward ending the conflict.

The only novel thing of interest was Trump’s tweet that appeared to house a subtle threat:

Image

The fact that the tweet came at the same time that Trump was giving his two-week ultimatum and hint of “changing direction” seems to imply that Trump could give Ukraine offensive weapons to “attack” Russia. Of course, that would clash with his claims of “Biden’s war”, given that doubling down with offensive weaponry would certainly solidify the conflict as Trump’s war. But it could just be another in a long line of examples of Trump selectively cherry-picking credit and blame—anything that sounds goodly and powerful notched to his credit, and anything weak and misguided to Biden’s.

As I said in the last report, Trump is essentially playing a game of illusions where the optics themselves are the ends rather than the means:

Image

The desperate and shallow attempts to parallel current half-hearted initiatives to those of hardier times will age badly.

Oddly enough, Bannon summarized things best this week: (Video at link.)

The only imperatives that continue to matter are those of the battlefield, which is where we’ll turn straightaway.

Let’s start with the fact that Russia launched another large-scale attack last night, which included cruise and hypersonic missiles of all kinds, and struck many an interesting object.

The most interesting was a factory in Mukachevo, in the Zakarpattia region, reportedly belonging to the American Flextronics corporation.

Image

The factory is said to produce electronic circuit boards, with Ukrainian sources claiming they are exclusively civilian, but Russian ones stating they are involved in the production and assembly of units for various military objects like the Bayraktar and other drones:

Mukachevo, Zakarpattia region.

For the first time in this conflict, strikes reached deep into Zakarpattia, previously considered Kiev’s rear “safe zone.” At least two Kalibr cruise missiles hit the Flex LTD plant, a division of the US-based corporation Flextronics (Flex Ltd.), one of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers.

The Mukachevo site housed production of printed circuit boards, control systems, microprocessor units, and assembly components for military hardware and drones. It was also the hub for adapting Western electronics to Kiev’s weapon systems: Texas Instruments processors, STMicroelectronics microcontrollers, Vicor power modules, and telemetry units for Bayraktar TB2, Warmate, Punisher, and Vampire drones, as well as 90% of all Kiev-produced UAVs.

The destruction of this facility is critical. Explosions devastated cleanrooms, Siemens and Juki SMT lines, and testing stations from Keysight and Rohde & Schwarz. The strike on Mukachevo represents a strategic turning point: Kiev lost its key center for integrating Western electronics into drones and precision weapon systems.
(Video at link.)

The destruction appeared large-scale:

Image

It is interesting for the fact that we’ve heard recently that Russia is shifting its strike designations from purely military to more civilian-industrial and energy related targets, particularly those with dual-use production lines. Some have posited this suggests Russia has initiated a new ‘phase’ of conflict designed to finish off Ukraine.

Many other plants were hit according to reports, including the SpecOboronMash in Zhitomir, hit by Kinzhals, which produced and repaired parts for armored vehicles, and another Motor Sich plant in Zaporozhye.

Interestingly, two Zircon missiles were claimed by Ukraine to have been used in the strikes.

One Russian report:

Sumy:

A Zircon 3M22 hypersonic missile struck the Military Police headquarters on Lebedinskaya Street, 21. At least 18 were killed and 27 wounded, most of them officers. The use of Zircon highlights the priority of the strike: Kiev forces lost a command structure essential for rotations and disciplinary control, which will inevitably affect troop management.


Granted, Ukraine has also been walloping Russian oil production sites recently, but we all know who wins the “blow-for-blow” battle of attrition when it comes to degrading infrastructure.

Also came the news—referenced by Steve Bannon in the earlier video—that a Russian hacking collective allegedly hacked Ukrainian General Staff databases to reveal 1.7 million KIA and missing soldiers. They posted a handful of documents as proof, with claims that the lists contained all missing and liquidated soldiers:

Image
Image

Many reacted with outright skepticism at the number, and for good reason. It does seem hard to believe, however just as food for thought, recall that it was Zelensky himself who gave Ukraine’s mobilization figures as roughly 30,000 per month in each year of the war thus far:

Image

Just taking 30k multiplied by the 41 months of the war, we get ~1.2 million. But you must add that to the 1m or so that Ukraine was said to have started the war with after the first initial mass call-up of reservists, which added to the already several-hundred-thousand-strong Ukrainian army at the time. With those you get 2.2m, from which we can subtract Ukraine’s current claimed strength of anywhere between 600k - 1m, and get somewhere between 1.2m to 1.6m that are “missing”, which seems to match up with the figures from the Russian hack.

However, recall that even if the AFU has lost 1.4m or so—taking the middle number—those would be irrecoverable losses which includes both KIA and seriously wounded or maimed. Given that the ratio between these is usually 1:1 or a bit higher for the maimed in most wars, we can then assume 700k or so would be killed and another 700k maimed, which is likely closer to the real Ukrainian losses.

However, we must not forget desertions, of which even Ukrainian authorities claim are something north of 200,000+ since the start of the conflict. You can shift it down to 600k killed, 600k maimed, and 200k deserted. Although, keep in mind the desertion figures simply count initial desertions but don’t include the fact that many if not most of those desertions end up being brought back, whether by force or by their own choice. It’s a known phenomenon in the AFU that a huge portion of deserters go AWOL to “take a break” and then return on their own after several weeks or longer.

This news also happens to come a mere couple days after another exchange of bodies took place where Russia again returned 1,000 deceased AFU soldiers, and Ukraine returned 19 Russian ones. Make of that what you will.

Most will continue the cliche about “Russia is advancing so it’s gathering more corpses”, yet oddly enough, each time Ukraine massively advanced, like in the Kursk and Zaporozhye offensives, the body exchanges did not disproportionately favor Ukraine…why is that?

Image
Blue: Ukrainian bodies returned, Red: Russian bodies returned

Well, it seems on the Zaporozhye offensive it actually slightly did, but something drastically changed after that.


Now for the frontline updates.

There continues to be back and forth claims on the northern Pokrovsk breakthrough direction. Ukrainian channels claim they are pushing forward while Russian channels deny this and say the opposite, that Russian forces are actually expanding control once more, after the ‘elite’ AFU reinforcements had some initial success.

From a Ukrainian source:

Image

At the moment, according to Suriyak at least, Russian forces have slightly widened their hold near the key settlement of Kucheriv Yar, as shown below, which included the capture of Pankovka, circled in red:

Image

As can be clearly seen, this is slowly creating a mini-cauldron around Shakhove and adjoining settlements.

Ukrainian counterattacks have had some undeniable success on several fronts, pushing Russian “DRG” forces out of Pokrovsk city itself, and elsewhere. This is likely due to the reinforcements sent, which may have well been the reserves that were being prepared for some other ‘surprise breakthrough’ on the Russian border.

But it has undeniably slowed the Russian advance a bit, though not stopped it completely. One Russian source even claims Russians have retaken much of the areas north of Pokrovsk that Ukrainians recaptured, such as some of Vesele:

Druzhkovka direction

Despite the reserves deployed by the Kiev forces and their “victorious” reports, the situation for them remains difficult and uncertain.

Kiev reserves managed to push our units back a little in the Zolotoy Kolodez – Rubezhnoye area. But they didn’t achieve any decisive success, despite all their bragging. In the eastern part of Zolotoy Kolodez, Russian forces regained and are holding their positions, continuing the fight for the village. Moreover, as reported earlier, Russian units have once again secured the southern part of Vesyoloye, having first taken the Viklechnaya gully, and advanced along the Vesyoloye – Zolotoy Kolodez line toward Petrovka.

Southward, the Kiev forces are pressing around Nikanorovka and Oktyabrskoye (Shakhovo), trying to “cut off” the Russian penetration into their defensive lines farther north along the Dorozhnoye – Nikanorovka – Mayak – Shakhovo line.

However, Russian reserves brought into the battle did not allow them to reach this goal. Russian units pushed back the Kiev counterattacks and are gradually regaining lost positions and expanding the corridor.

Heavy clashes continue with growing Russian advantage. The Kiev forces, who tried to break through to Mayak, were driven out of their positions and pushed back north toward Oktyabrskoye (Shakhovo).

Fierce engagements are also ongoing in the Volnoye – Roza Luxemburg (Novoye Shakhovo) area.

As already reported, Russian units expelled the Kiev forces from Pankovka and are fighting in the northern part of Vladimirovka.

Neighboring Russian units are attacking and advancing toward Oktyabrskoye (Shakhovo) and Artyomovka (Sofievka) from the east and northeast, creating a flanking threat for the Kiev forces and forcing them to divert reserves that were meant to eliminate the Russian breakthrough near Kucherov Yar and Vesyoloye.


Apart from that, there were a few small advances on the Velyka Novosilka front that are not worth covering until they accumulate into larger settlement grabs.

The biggest news is that the advance from recently-captured Predtechyne into Konstantinovka city proper has been confirmed by Suriyak and others, with some mappers even having Russian forces geolocated in the first interior blocks of the city itself, although Ukrainian accounts claimed that these early forward scout units were expelled:

Image

Also, some of the area to Konstantinovka’s south was liberated, and as you can see a cauldron has formed between the new Predtechyne salient and the Oleksandro-Shultyne line just below it which will likely be collapsed next, bringing the entire front up much closer to the main city like so:

Image

Image

On the Krasny Lyman front, Russian forces wedged deeper into Zarichne after recently capturing neighboring Torske:

Image

A wider view shows us what the situation now looks like—Russian forces are collapsing the Serebriansky forest area designated by the blue line where Ukrainian forces are retreating:

Image

Meanwhile Seversk continues to be slowly encircled.

A French analyst explains why Trump’s “gift” of Donbass to Russia would be catastrophic to the AFU. You can see his map below which shows how most of Ukraine’s main deep trenchwork and fortification systems would immediately jump to Russia’s “rear”, allowing a bloodless bypass of these systems:

Image

This is why giving away Donbass cannot be an option for Ukraine

Donald Trump will ask Zelensky to give away Donbass in exchange for a ceasefire with Russia. It would mean giving 9 cities and the main fortifications to Russia without a fight.


If hostilities were to restart thereafter, Russia would have nothing but free countryside to pass through, provided that enough time had not elapsed allowing Ukraine to build new fortifications there.

One grim outlook was provided by a Ukrainian drone unit commander in a post that made huge waves:

Image

Transcribed version:

About aerial reconnaissance

In the coming months, aerial reconnaissance as a type of systemic activity may cease to exist.

In the reconnaissance-strike contour of operational-tactical depth, the key word is precisely "reconnaissance." Without visual confirmation of a target, almost no one ever flies out to strike it, and searching for a target with a strike asset is practiced very rarely.

At present, almost along the entire front line, the enemy is deploying a layered line of FPV-interceptors, creating so-called "kill zones," which sometimes extend 15–20 km deep into enemy territory. All reconnaissance aircraft attempting to fly there during the day are very likely to be shot down. For now, they are not systematically shot down at night, but this is only a matter of time. Climbing higher (to 4,000–5,000 meters) also produces no result; the enemy has learned to shoot down there as well. Conducting "sector reconnaissance" in most directions is now impossible.

There are areas on certain axes where, during the daytime, no one even tries to put wings into the sky anymore, understanding that they will be shot down, and this creates a vacuum for enemy maneuvers.

This is the systemic result of the work of the Russian "Rubikon Center for Advanced Drone Technologies" and their mobile fire groups.

Reconnaissance of the forward edge, the line of contact, will remain; it is almost impossible to suppress it.

But operational-tactical level reconnaissance is gradually disappearing and requires a breakthrough revolutionary counter-solution. If none is found, then with the growing mass use of Rubikon in the sectors, and with traditionally poor autumn weather, aerial reconnaissance will cease to be regular.

What might these solutions be? Casual observers mention "mini-EW" on reconnaissance drones, an "evader system" (when, upon detection of an enemy interceptor, the wing sharply performs maneuvers that reduce the chance of being hit), flights at high altitude.

These are crutches, which will be easily countered technologically.

So far there is no solution. And finding that solution is the number one task for manufacturing companies and for many military R&D centers. If no solution is found, in the next spring campaign it will be very difficult for us.

The time for gigantic, expensive reconnaissance aircraft for huge sums is unambiguously over. Depth will be covered by "photowings," Leleka M2, Hory, Vectors, Domakhas, and Shark-D.

Let me remind you that it was precisely we who first came up with the mass use of FPV-interceptors against reconnaissance wings, faced with a huge influx of enemy wings and the lack of sufficient SAM systems to shoot them down.

We will also have to find countermeasures to this. Because there will not be enough drones for everyone.

-Serafym Hordiienko, drone crew commander of the 14th Separate Regiment -


Firstly, he validates something I’ve been harping on for a long time: that this big “FPV” threat everyone talks about relies almost entirely on other slower, larger drones which can be relatively easily taken out.

There are two main important types: the ‘recon’ drone and the signal extender. FPVs cannot function without either one of these. First: because FPVs fly very low and lose their signal fast after line of sight to the controlling unit is cut. Therefore they are required to have a signal booster drone somewhere very high above that can ‘triangulate’ the signal to them.

Second: FPVs don’t have much battery time and are typically not used in ‘free hunt’ mode because they’re optimized to carry as large a warhead and as small a battery as possible, in order to maximize lethality. Letting them loiter around and ‘free hunt’ for targets would quickly drain the battery, therefore they’re almost exclusively used after a recon drone has first scouted out some targets or a general target-rich area for them to feast on. (The exception is fiber-optic drones, but they are not in great enough comparative number to make a dent in this regard, and they still suffer the same battery issue as the fiber only provides signal but not electric charge.)

These signal and recon drones are generally larger, slower Mavic types which can be jammed, taken out, etc., particularly as they’re forced to fly relatively high for their purpose. Russia has now prioritized detecting them with various small and portable radar systems, as well as other methods, and this is what the screed above is decrying.

He believes that if Russia continues to scale up this systematic destruction of Ukrainian secondary UAVs which are essential for FPV function, then soon Russia may effect an entire front-wide negation of Ukrainian FPV and recon drone capabilities. This would allow Russian assault forces free-reign to advance without fear of being detected or hunted, which would wildly swing the conflict in Russia’s favor even more so than at present.

To temper this, I have seen similar recent reports from some Russian units on certain fronts complaining of the same systematic work on the Ukrainian side, where more and more Ukrainian units are utilizing portable Israeli radars to take out Russian recon drones, greatly complicating Russian efforts on those fronts. I’m sure the effort exists and is serious, but it’s likely the Russian one will be scaled at a faster rate due to well-known logistical realities.

On that note, another new look at a Ukrainian supply route near Kramatorsk being adorned with the now-ubiquitous and mandatory anti-drone net tunnels: (Video at link.)

Some Russian sources complain that Ukraine has systematized these net tunnels to a greater extent than Russia, and has been covering virtually every road with them, but it’s likely because Ukraine has far more need of it.

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sit ... ks-unravel

******

Direct NATO Intervention In Ukraine Might Soon Dangerously Turn Into A Fait Accompli
Andrew Korybko
Aug 22, 2025

Image

Trump’s negotiating strategy is to “escalate to-de-escalate” in a very risky attempt to coerce concessions, which he might soon apply against Putin after being emboldened by its success with Iran.

The White House Summit between Trump, Zelensky, and a handful of European leaders officially concerned “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which is an ultra-sensitive issue for Russia. It was therefore alarming from its perspective that Trump subsequently said that the proposed deployment of French and British troops to Ukraine “will not create problems for Russia.” To make it even worse, he also spoke about helping them “by air”, while another report claimed that 10 countries are willing to send troops.

While it hasn’t been confirmed, this sequence of events suggests that Trump’s envisaged endgame in Ukraine is the deployment of NATO troops (even if not under the bloc’s banner), which may include a US-enforced (partial?) no-fly zone and/or promises of US air support if they’re attacked. All three – NATO troops in Ukraine, a no-fly zone, and the de facto extension of Article 5 mutual defense commitments to allies’ troops there (contrary to Hegseth’s declaration in February) – go against Russia’s security interests.

Nevertheless, it’s hypothetically possible that Putin might agree to at least some of the above, but only in exchange for far-reaching Ukrainian and/or Western concessions elsewhere. To be clear, neither he nor any officials below him have even hinted at anything of the sort, instead always opposing these plans and threatening that they might even use force to stop them. Having said that, “diplomacy is the art of the possible” as some have said, and these three briefings would contextualize any such quid pro quo:

* 7 August: “What’s Responsible For The Upcoming Putin-Trump Summit?”

* 16 August: “What’s Standing In The Way Of A Grand Compromise On Ukraine?”

* 21 August: “Which Western Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Be Acceptable To Putin?”

In sum, Trump’s carrots and sticks might convince Putin that it’s better to accept this scenario than oppose it, but it might also be presented as a fait accompli for pressuring him into accepting it as part of a peace deal if he still opposes it instead of risking an escalation if it unfolds during active hostilities. After all, the US, UK, and the EU are all actively coordinating on the “security guarantees” that they’ll soon present to Russia, and this could dangerously include plans to directly intervene in the conflict.

Trump’s negotiating strategy is to “escalate to-de-escalate”, which thus far most dramatically took the form of the US bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, in a very risky attempt to coerce concessions from others. He might therefore possibly tell Putin that the US will imminently create a (partial?) no-fly zone over Ukraine and provide air support to NATO allies’ troops, who’ll also imminently deploy there, if they’re attacked while carrying out “non-combat” duties if he doesn’t agree to peace on the West’s terms.

Those same terms, however, might include the three aforesaid outcomes – NATO troops in Ukraine, a no-fly zone, and the de facto extension of Article 5 to allies’ troops there – that go against Russia’s security interests. Putin would in that scenario thus be forced into a dilemma whereby he’d either risk World War III by defending its interests via strikes against those troops and breaking the US’ no-fly zone or accepting them for the sake of preventing World War III and hoping that the consequences will be manageable.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/direct-n ... in-ukraine

******

Romanian NATO outpost near Russian border
August 22, 17:04

Image

Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base: New Western Outpost in Ukrainian Theater of Operations

In light of ongoing consultations on “security guarantees” ( https://t.me/z_pravdi/345 ), the White House leadership has repeatedly made statements that during Trump’s presidency there will be no regular US Army units on Ukrainian territory. However, both Trump himself and other officials say that America will help the “coalition of the willing” from the air, and US Air Force fighters will be stationed in Romania. The choice of these countries is not accidental.

Those who monitor the movement of NATO reconnaissance and combat aircraft along the Ukrainian borders and in the Black Sea are well aware of the international airport of the city of Constanta (Aeroportul Internaţional Constanța Mihail Kogălniceanu), which has long been a base for various NATO aircraft, including the anti-submarine P-8A Poseidon. Moreover, British and German Eurofighter fighters are constantly on duty at the airfield. The choice of this airbase is not accidental - it is located practically on the Black Sea coast and is closest to Odessa (300 km) and Sevastopol (400 km).

Analysis of satellite images dated July of this year shows that large-scale construction has been launched near the international airport - a new runway, aircraft parking areas, and wide high-speed taxiways are almost ready. All this suggests that NATO countries are creating a huge military base in Romania aimed at containing Russia in the Black Sea region. It is expected that by 2040, the Mihail Kogălniceanu airbase will become the main deployment point and logistics center for NATO aviation in Europe, thereby replacing Germany's Ramstein, which has been a stronghold for the US Air Force and other NATO countries in Europe since the Cold War.

This example clearly shows how the West is moving its military bases closer and closer to the borders of the Russian Federation, plausibly denying this and mimicking between the NATO alliance and the "coalition of the willing", which does not change the essence of what is happening.

https://t.me/z_pravdi/356 - zinc

And it all started with the deployment of missile defense systems in Romania, allegedly to "contain Iran". Now you don't have to wear masks. Everything is open and clear.
By the way, some of the nuclear warheads from the Turkish Incirlik airbase were once taken to Romania.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10026384.html

Dangerous "Rubicon"
August 23, 11:04

Image

Ukrainian volunteer Berlinskaya whines about the increasing effectiveness of the actions of the Russian Armed Forces units "Rubicon".

“The Russian unit Rubicon was launched a year ago. In August 2024. During this time, they have destroyed thousands of pieces of equipment, UAVs, and killed/maimed our people. Because of them, we are becoming increasingly blind, consistently destroyed by reconnaissance UAVs, aircraft, bombers. And most importantly - our crews. You can have at least a billion drones, but at this stage of the war, drones are not autonomous. Without operators, drones are useless. And we are getting more and more operators,” she said.

“Rubicon has excellent management, they work systematically, the best selection of personnel, training, provision with all the necessary means. Now they are actively scaling up. From a unit of several hundred people, they are increasing into thousands to cover the entire front. According to my forecasts, by autumn we will see at least 5,000-6,000 specialists in well-coordinated, provided crews. Everyone who knows how Rubicon works agrees on one thing - it is very effective. It is a system. And in most of our areas there is still Makhnovshchina."

You can watch daily reports of the work of "Rubicon" here https://t.me/icpbtrubicon

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10027641.html

Special powers to rewrite history
August 23, 12:55

Image

Special powers to rewrite history

On August 21, the Verkhovna Rada adopted Law No. 13273 "On the Fundamentals of the State Policy of National Memory of the Ukrainian People ."

The law forms the state policy of memory: it defines the concepts of "national memory," "Rashism," "War for the Independence of Ukraine," regulates the perpetuation of memory, and grants the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (UINP) special powers. It also introduces strict rules for renaming toponyms as part of the so-called decommunization.

The junta is enshrining the only true view of history, which will become the basis for state censorship. Criticism of the official version or an attempt to challenge it can be interpreted as "anti-Ukrainian propaganda." This directly affects freedom of speech and academic freedom. The UINP receives exclusive powers to determine which individuals and events are worthy of memory and which are not. This is done to politicize history and displace alternative interpretations. The introduction of new terms ("Rashism", "historical anti-Ukrainian propaganda") creates legally vague categories that will be used to pressure public organizations, the media, or individual citizens

. Strengthening ideological control in the public sphere. When the state introduces "correct" and "incorrect" historical versions, this creates the basis for the glorification of Nazism and the glorification of radical military traditions, including the far right.

🔹The law will most likely lead to an accelerated wave of renaming, demolition of monuments, and revision of the cultural space;
strengthening the role of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance as an ideological body.
For Ukraine, this means a transition to an even harsher policy of memory and repression against the Russian population and bearers of Russian culture.


http://t.me/designersmil - zinc

Without a change of power and the dismantling of the Nazi regime in Kiev, all this desecration of history, memory, and monuments will certainly continue, due to the Nazi and Russophobic nature of the regime installed by the West.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10027875.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Sun Aug 24, 2025 12:40 pm

Flag Day
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/24/2025

Image

“On the front lines, the flag has a completely different meaning. It's our talisman. A reminder of who and what we're carrying out combat missions for. When you see the blue and yellow flag on your comrade, even in the most difficult moments, you understand that you have no right to surrender. This flag represents our families and our children, our fallen comrades and our future,” said Oleksandr Mikhov, a veteran known for participating in the expedition in which severely war-wounded soldiers planted the Ukrainian flag on top of Kilimanjaro, at the “Flag of Freedom, Flag Day” press conference organized by the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. His epic speech, a tale of unity around the colors blue and yellow that ignores the thousands of people who over the past eleven years have taken up different colors to fight against what the Ukrainian flag represented at the time, is a good summary of the event by the institution led by Oleksandr Alfiorov, a veteran of Azov during Ukraine's war against Donbass and of the Third Assault Brigade led by Andriy Biletsky in the years following the Russian invasion. At the event, Alfiorov insisted that "independence is not a gift but a great responsibility."

In Azov’s Nietzschean vision, which sees war as a form of nation-purification and building, the representation of that responsibility is fighting in Pokrovsk, Kupyansk, having done so by wantonly bombing the few remaining civilian population in Shirokino during the Donbass war, confronting Zelensky when he was trying to withdraw the armed forces from a two-square-kilometer area - which they subsequently recaptured - to secure the 2019 Normandy Format meeting, or demonstrating by challenging the government to denounce “the capitulation” that the implementation of the peace agreements signed in 2015 would entail, and which Ukraine had no intention of complying with.

Alfiorov gave much of the spotlight to the people he had invited to the event, among whom Yulia Paevskaya, Taira , a well-known paramedic from Praviy Sektor, stood out. “I would like to talk about weapons, because everything in the world is a weapon. Even things that at first glance may seem incapable of causing harm. For example, the flag itself. The Russians are now taking the flag of the USSR out of the drawer of history, the flag under which our ancestors were tortured. My grandfather was shot under the flag of the USSR. The Russians want to impose it on us. Bring it here and replace our blue and yellow flag with this flag with the hammer and sickle,” he stated, exaggerating to the point of exhaustion the presence of Soviet symbols, which existed, as could be seen in Alaska, but are scarce in the imagination of today's Russia. He also overlooked the fact that the hated red flag with the hammer and sickle was carried by millions of Ukrainian soldiers who fought against fascism while the political ancestors of those who participated in the event fought for Ukraine's independence alongside Hitler's Germany. Disappeared for more than three decades, the flag of the Soviet Union continues to provoke hatred from both liberals and the far right.

On the weekend of Flag Day and Independence Day, the Ukrainian government has made, as it does every year, an enormous effort to paint everything—the country, its discourse, and its propaganda—blue and yellow, representing the institutionalization of nationalist discourse as the national discourse. In its emphasis on presenting reality in a simplified way, assuming that, despite what the polls show, the entire population supports its leader in the way he is managing the war and, in his own way, seeking peace, this nationalist, chauvinist, and openly exclusionary point of view is, today, the only acceptable one in the country. Those who dare to object or resist accepting a Ukraine centralized ideologically, culturally, linguistically, religiously, or politically are ignored, relegated to the political ostracism of invisibility for those without access to the media, or labeled fifth columnists , Russian agents, or collaborators, and therefore persecuted, punished, demonized, or expelled from the country.

Blue and yellow, the triumphalism of the struggle, and the future recovery of lost territories have been the norm repeated in the statements of Ukrainian politicians and military units. In their respective messages, the two Azov armies, Prokopenko's in the National Guard and Biletsky's in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, emphasized this message. "We will win what is ours, and the blue and yellow flag will fly again over the free and liberated cities and towns of Ukraine," wrote Biletsky's Third Army. “Soldiers of free Chernihiv, Odessa, Lutsk, and Zaporozhye, and of temporarily occupied Luhansk and Simferopol, Energodar, and Mariupol, are giving their all today so that the blue and yellow flag may rise over every Ukrainian city and town. We take it from those who came before us and we will pass it on to those who will develop and defend Ukraine in the future. It is the symbol of our will, our talisman against the darkness,” added Denis Prokopenko's First Army Corps, always without mentioning who these ancestors were who fought for Ukraine's freedom in the 20th century and why they did so, fighting against the allies who currently arm and finance Azov.

Unsurprisingly, the Ukrainian military leader has also expressed himself in the same terms as the two armies descended from the Azov army, born from the most extreme fringes of the nationalist right in 2014. In a message that concludes with the customary "Glory to Ukraine, Glory to the heroes" that the Ukrainian army has adopted from the OUN-UPA, Syrsky, who describes the flag as a sacred banner, affirms that it also symbolizes "the personality and manifestation of the State." “Our blue and yellow flag flew over the heroes of the liberation struggle over a hundred years ago. Under the blue and yellow banner, soldiers of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the Ukrainian Army of Galicia, and later the Ukrainian Insurgent Army [UPA] fought for state independence. The blue and yellow flag is known throughout the world as a symbol of freedom. The flag that Russia fears,” Syrsky writes, not bothering to maintain the subtlety of not mentioning by name groups like the UPA, which collaborated with Nazi Germany in the occupation of Ukraine, the Holocaust, the mass murder of communists, and the ethnic cleansing of the Roma and Polish populations.

“The flag of the people fighting for their independence and holding back the Russian horde, which seeks to kill and destroy freedom,” he continued, joining the growing list of insults that the European political class has directed this week at Russia, Huns, ogres, and cannibals. Like the disciples of Biletsky and Prokopenko, Syrsky also focused his speech on the recovery of lost territories. “This flag is raised by the Ukrainian army at the front and in liberated Ukrainian cities and towns. Activists of the resistance movement in the temporarily occupied territories. Ukrainian athletes on the podiums of the World Championships. Our national flag will fly over Kyiv forever. And when the time comes, I believe that Ukrainian soldiers will raise it in Donetsk, Luhansk, Simferopol and Sevastopol, Mariupol, Berdyansk, and many other Ukrainian cities and towns that will be recaptured.”

When sovereignty is a myth and instead of regaining territories, more are lost, the legend can be presented as fact only if the symbol, the flag, is confused with reality. In this war, Russia depends solely on its resources, on its ability to continue trading with the Global South, which has not joined the unilateral sanctions imposed by the West, and on evading, to the extent possible and with the help of those same countries, the coercive measures of the United States and the European Union to maintain a portion of trade with the Atlanticist bloc. In the Ukrainian case, the war has meant the absolute submission of the state to its raison d'être, to continue the struggle, and to its economic consequences.

“100% of Ukraine's GDP is now debt. This has never happened before. According to economic indicators, we are bankrupt,” says MP Mykhailo Tsymbaliuk. “So what can be done? Well, I propose that for Independence Day we sew the largest Ukrainian flag ever seen and organize a community campaign to collect Pushkin and Bulgakov books, to recycle them and turn them into waste paper. Oh, I almost forgot: let's also introduce language patrols in Kyiv schools to stop the use of the enemy's language ,” wrote historian Marta Havryshko, a Ukrainian-speaking Lviv native but deeply concerned with the right of the Russian-speaking population to have their language present in public spaces. Very useful for diverting attention from more worrying issues, Zelensky reiterated yesterday that “Ukraine only has one official language.” The Ukrainian president, who came to power promising his support base, primarily the Russian-speaking part of the country, to tone down the nationalist content of the laws passed by his predecessor, including the one on language use, but who abandoned his proposals as soon as he took office, insists on presenting as unacceptable what he included in his electoral platform. Following in the footsteps of Petro Poroshenko, who appointed Volodymyr Vyatrovich, a historian who once claimed there was nothing Nazi about the SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Galizien," as guardian of Ukraine's historical memory, Volodymyr Zelensky has appointed another who, in one of his first interviews, positioned himself even further to the right.

In early July, American academic Sergey Radchenko commented on social media that he had watched the two interviews given by Oleksandr Alfiorov "simply to check that his words weren't taken out of context and, no, it's really that serious." The historian at the Kinssinger Center at Johns Hopkins University, an expert on the Cold War and well-versed in this war, reacted to Leonid Ragozin's post , in which the Russian opposition journalist reported that "The new director of Ukraine's National Institute of Remembrance, Oleksandr Alfiorov, says that Putin cannot be compared to Hitler because Hitler—he believes—had a high level of education and was influenced by German philosophy and art (fact: Hitler did not have a university degree). He also adds that Russians cannot be compared to Germans (from the Holocaust period) because Germans are very cultured, and Russians are worse than orcs and more like goblins. Alfiorov, Ragozin recalled, "is an alumnus of the original Azov and the 3rd Assault Brigade, controlled by the political leadership of the Azov movement. Perhaps the first neo-Nazi to command a government institution in Europe." A neo-Nazi whose discourse does not differ at all from the official narrative of the State.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/24/el-dia-de-la-bandera/

Google Translator

********

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
"On August 24 at 00:26 Moscow time, an unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UAV) of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down by air defense near the Kursk NPP. When the device fell, it detonated, damaging the auxiliary transformer. The local fire was extinguished by fire crews. As a result, unit No. 3 was unloaded by 50%. There were no casualties.

Currently, unit 3 is in operation at the Kursk NPP. Unit 4 is undergoing scheduled maintenance. Units 1 and 2 are operating without generating. The radiation background at the industrial site of the Kursk NPP and the adjacent territory did not change and corresponds to natural values. "


As a result of the UAV fall near the Kursk NPP, the auxiliary transformer was damaged, as a result of which unit No. 3 was unloaded by 50% — Rosenergoatom

The IAEA stated that they are aware of the transformer fire at the Kursk NPP due to "military activity".

***

Colonelcassad
Belgorod direction, sabotage and mines

In the Belgorod direction, as in other northwestern regions of Russia, enemy activity is noted. Several days ago, information was circulated about sending a sabotage and reconnaissance group to the Shebekino area, but this was a fake.

- However, Ukrainian saboteurs are noted in the Krasnoyarsk direction. In the forests near Kolotilovka, breakthrough attempts have been recorded more than once. At the same time, active FPV fire is going on in the village itself.

The enemy is also strengthening its rear positions. Several pairs of snipers from the rifle battalion of the 17th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade were transferred to Miropolskoye.

- The Grayvoron direction is also unsettled. And sabotage and reconnaissance groups from the SSO Sever center are actively working there, taking advantage of the wooded area, trying to break through Kozinka.

- Fighting is underway on the southwestern outskirts of Volchansk. Our troops are probing the defense in small groups, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces are trying to counterattack. Clashes are also noted near Zybino.

And there is an assumption that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will try to counterattack more powerfully. The first groups of the 159th Separate Motorized Brigade from the Nikolaev region have arrived in Kharkov, and are expected in the Vovchansk direction.

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces are also being reinforced in the Valuyki direction. Servicemen from the 101st Separate Motorized Brigade of the 61st Separate Motorized Brigade in Khatney have arrived there, and are planning attacks on Milove.

@rusich_army

***

Colonelcassad
The Ukrainian authorities intend to evacuate about 237 thousand citizens from the frontline areas.

This follows from a statement by the Ukrainian Ministry of Community and Territorial Development. It is noted that this summer the Ukrainian authorities have already evacuated more than 64 thousand people from the Dnipropetrovsk region and the territory of the DPR controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This was done, allegedly, so that as few people as possible in the territories liberated by the Russian Armed Forces would have the opportunity to "forcibly" obtain a Russian passport.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Brief Frontline Report – August 23rd, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 23, 2025


The Russian Ministry of Defense reports: "Units of the "West" Group have decisively liberated the settlement of Srednee in the Donetsk People's Republic."

Image
ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. ЛБС 01.01.2025=Line of Combat Contact January 1st, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.*

The village of Srednee (49°07′25″N 37°42′21″E, approximately 160 residents) stretches for almost 3 kilometers along the right bank of the Nitrius River. The liberation of this village is one of the stages of supporting actions in preparation for an offensive towards the locality of Rubtsy (second map). Firstly, it expands the bridgehead on the western bank of the Nitrius River, the tip of the "wedge" is being driven into the AFU defense in this direction. Secondly, it strengthens the right flank of the Russian Armed Forces on the Shandrigolovo (Shandryholovo)-Zarechnoe line, aiming to block a potential enemy counterattack from the Drobyshevo-Liman-Zarechnoe area. On August 16, the locality of Kolodezi (the left flank of this line) was liberated.

Image
ЛБС 20.4.2025=Line of Combat Contact April 20th, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

Offensive actions by the Russian Armed Forces in the area of the locality of Zarechnoe and in the Serebryanskoe forestry are also aimed, among other things, at ensuring this task (further south toward Seversk).

The Russian Ministry of Defense reports: "As a result of decisive actions by units of the "South" Group, the settlement of Kleban-Byk in the Donetsk People's Republic has been liberated."

Image
ЛБС 09.4.2025=Line of Combat Contact April 9th, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

The settlement of Kleban-Byk (48°25′38″N 37°45′52″E, approximately 460 residents) is a large settlement on the eastern shore of the Kleban-Byk Reservoir. By liberating this settlement, the Russian Armed Forces have blocked the eastern passage for the exit of AFU units remaining on the southern shore of the reservoir. With an advance to the locality of Pleshcheevka, another "pocket" (Aleksandro-Shultino - Pleshcheevka) will be formed, trapping AFU units defending the approaches to the outskirts of the city of Konstantinovka on the southeastern face of the line of combat contact.

Translation Note: When Russian is written by hand, the "г" (when typed) looks like a backward "S," and the "и" looks like our "u." Also, the typed Russian "т" looks like a western "m" when it is written as script. Lastly, the "д" turns into something that looks like a "d." Hopefully, this helps if some of the symbols seem unfamiliar to you!
If you're paying attention to the Russian on the maps, Mikhail uses both Russian print and Russian script.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-23rd

******

The Putin-Zelensky meeting was a sham. So what’s Trump’s next move?

Martin Jay

August 23, 2025

Team Trump now knows that the Europeans are more transfixed with keeping the war going than finding a solution.

The Ukraine war continues to be a kaleidoscope of half-truths and deception with, in particular, the West doing more than its fair share to stir the pot and fan the flames of more smokescreens each day. Trump is perhaps the biggest bluffer here with his recent role of playing chief negotiator with both his Alaska meeting with Putin followed by his ‘round table’ of EU leaders. The former was logical, rational and productive as it was a starter’s pistol for a closer dialogue with Russia, acknowledging Moscow’s power and prestige; the latter was really a charade carried out by Trump to continue to pretend to be the most powerful person in the whole circus, demonstrating to the whole world what a pathetic new low Europe has become in the shake-up of the new multipolar world order. Was Trump playing the Europeans like a fiddle? More than most can understand. He masterly creates a forum of dialogue with his Oscar-winning performance of a mediator who listens earnestly to their views. But the objective from Trump was clear: make it look like a real process of discussion and diplomacy is underway while all along the bigger plan is for Trump to do absolutely nothing to get a peace deal – or at least one which he can take the credit for.

Trump does want a peace deal, but he is rapidly becoming wiser to the realities that the two sides are so far apart on the key issues, that the chances of it happening are even more remote than in April 2022. Since the Alaska meeting, Team Trump has shifted. It now knows that the Europeans are more transfixed with keeping the war going than finding a solution to break the cycle of conflict which, without a shadow of doubt, is going Russia’s way. There may be some division within the camp of EU leaders but ultimately, the Europeans still believe they have a chance to turn the tables around and gain ground on the battlefield. They are banking on nothing major happening in the next 7 or 8 weeks when the rain comes and tanks and armoured trucks cannot move so easily. Of course they are anxious to buy time which is why the German chancellor pushed for the ceasefire option, which is not fooling the Kremlin one bit.

The interesting thing is that Trump is humouring them. It’s as though he believes the outcome for peace will come much faster when the battlefield landscape has changed once again in Russia’s favour (when Pokrovsk falls) and that it is better to position himself closer to Putin than to America’s traditional allies. He has told them that security guaranties that they would insist upon which need to be there from the U.S. could be provided, but in reality this is just an illusion as Trump knows full well it is unlikely that Putin would agree to this and even more unlikely that Trump would put U.S. boots on the ground given the problems he is having with his MAGA base – who voted for him to do precisely the opposite with U.S. soldiers around the world. His advisors might well have even told him that U.S. soldiers in Ukraine could be a liability and too dangerous an option. They might go from being a tripwire to actually being a catalyst to start a war with Russian forces and the idea that Trump would gamble with this is far-fetched at best.

Trump put the motions in place for a sit-down meeting between Putin and Zelensky but in reality most knew this would never happen as quite apart from Putin worrying that the Ukrainian president’s signature won’t be worth anything on any peace treaty he signs, the subject of Crimea is pulled out of the hat to derail any possibility of talks. It’s important to Zelensky that he is able to portray Putin as the one who is impossible to deal with, but in reality the opposite is the case as any idea of peace in Ukraine comes with a high price for the caretaker President of the country. Just as the British rejected Churchill as a peacetime Prime Minister in the months after the Second World War, the Ukrainians are likely to do the same but for different reasons.

Unlike Churchill, Zelensky has become a multibillionaire from being at the vortex of a massive money laundering scheme involving western aid and arms while his own close cabal of advisers and military leaders fill their pockets from numerous corrupt scams. And the Ukrainians know this.

In my own investigations over the reselling of arms, which end up in Libya before they are resold to African warlords and South American drug cartels, it is interesting if not revealing how the most protected and cherished piece of information which must be guarded at all costs by Zelensky is the real number of his own people are dead or missing.

This is not so much because Ukrainians would rise against him but more about a multibillion dollar scam which his own generals are involved in whereby dead or missing Ukrainian soldiers’ salaries are diverted to their pockets.

Russian hackers however have breached the Ukrainian General Staff’s database, revealing losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine which might even shock the Ukrainians. According to the compromised digital registry, if the data is correct, Ukraine, they are claiming lost 1,721,000 troops killed or missing over three years of the conflict, with the last year (2024) being the heaviest with 600,000 lost. 1.7 million Ukrainians lost to a war with Russia which the U.S. entirely created the pretext for, is alarming and gives us a clue to how desperate Zelensky is to get any men – even 60 year olds – to fight in the war.

How will the history books write this up for Zelensky?

“If these numbers are true — and they are likely to be — Zelensky and NATO will go down in history as the greatest disaster ever to befall Ukraine” writes Italian journalist and author Thomas Fazi.

“Virtually all these deaths could have been avoided if NATO hadn’t deliberately provoked this war by bringing to power its proxies through violent regime change, proceeding to transform Ukraine into a Western military outpost on Russia’s border — and then sabotaging every chance of ending the war, including in the early days of the invasion” he adds.

Another “fog of war” half-truth may well be that the Europeans are so desperate to keep Zelensky in power (as he knows where all the bodies are buried, figuratively speaking, in relation to their own threatened legacies) that the talk of European and U.S. soldiers to be deployed to Ukraine is not as part of a grandiose peace deal, but more of a bigger, valiant act of aggression to halt Russia’s advance. We are now entering a new level of desperation from the EU side which we have never seen before and so this inevitably means more fake news, false allegations and acts of rank stupidity among them.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... next-move/

******

The Caesars suffer losses
August 23, 2025
Rybar


Image

Recently, there has been a small surge in attacks on the CAESAR self-propelled guns at the front. France began supplying them to the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the spring of 2022, together with the Danes, having transferred over 70 howitzers in 6x6 and 8x8 variants.

An analysis of open source data confirms the loss of at least 16 guns, half of which were disabled this year.

What is known about the losses and their causes?
The very first "Caesar" was destroyed by Russian troops at the very beginning of the Central Military District during the battle for Zmeiny Island - at that time, French installations were shelling a patch of land from the direction of Vilkovo in the Odessa region.

The greatest number of losses in 2025 occurred on the southwestern border of the DPR , where the enemy began to transfer artillery to stop the breakthroughs of the Russian Armed Forces to the Dnepropetrovsk region .

The increase in the number of damaged Caesars can be explained by two factors. On the one hand, the operating range of FPV drones has increased significantly, and if previously it was relatively safe to operate from a distance of 10-15 km from the front line, now there is a risk of being caught in a swarm of attack UAVs.

At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were experiencing problems with vehicle repairs and a shortage of parts for them due to the "zoo" of weapons. Apparently, France had established the production of components, which allowed the "Caesars" to spend less time in repairs.

The exact number of CAESARs transferred to Ukraine is unknown - even Western estimates differ in some places by an order of magnitude. But no new deliveries are expected from next year due to the French desire to replenish their arsenals.

At the same time, assembly of the Bogdan self-propelled guns from Czech chassis and other components was established in Zakarpattia . So the Ukrainian Armed Forces have less urgent need for new Caesars than before.

Current realities clearly illustrate the growing demands on artillery systems: those howitzers that were previously considered long-range and accurate can now sometimes be difficult to call such.

In the refinement and development of new domestic self-propelled guns, this point should play a key role.

https://rybar.ru/czezari-nesut-poteri/

Google Translator

******

Attack on Chornomornaftogaz towers 08/13/2025
August 23, 2:50 PM

Image

Interesting details of the story about the recent attempt by the Ukrainian Armed Forces' sabotage forces to be active near the Chornomornaftogaz rigs off the western coast of Crimea. At that time, the enemy denied having suffered losses, but as it turned out, several valuable specialists went to feed the fish.

Enemy resources report that on August 13 of this year, during another attempt to attack the towers in the Black Sea, one of the units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces suffered losses. A total of three were reported killed, including an officer with the rank of captain 2nd rank named Marchenko.

The obituary states that Marchenko participated in military operations in Donbass since 2014. For some time, he served in the 140th reconnaissance battalion of the Marine Corps as a deep reconnaissance company commander, but later transferred to the 801st PDSS center.

It is also stated that the unit of the 801st center allegedly received an order from the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Syrsky himself to carry out a task in the area of ​​the towers, but the center commander refused the task, for which he was immediately transferred. Captain Marchenko also refused, and was also removed from the staff. Be that as it may, but Marchenko on August 13, 2025 still found himself in the area of ​​the towers as part of one of the units, where he was overtaken by the hand of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

@okspn - zinc

Of course, this is not the same epic landing on Tendrovskaya Spit, where ours mowed down quite a few "saboteurs" (one was captured), but it is also normal.

P.S. The enemy also admitted today that at night, under unknown circumstances, a MiG-29 (most likely Polish) was destroyed. The pilot died.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10028090.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:47 am

Independence, sovereignty and the discourse of the last decade
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/25/2025

Image

On the most nationalistic weekend of the year, Independence Day followed Flag Day, continuing with a clear message: Ukraine is strong, united, and supported by its allies, who are there to assist it in its struggle, always without trying to steal the spotlight or give orders. “The Ukrainian people have an unbreakable spirit, and your country's courage inspires many. As you commemorate this important day, know that the United States respects your struggle, honors your sacrifices, and believes in your future as an independent nation,” wrote the note on behalf of Donald Trump commemorating Ukraine's independence, in a style quite different from the messages clearly written by the president himself. The message, which concludes with “God bless Ukraine,” is similar to that of other Western authorities, who emphasize the courage of the Ukrainian struggle and, above all, the unity of its people. Twelve years ago, before the Maidan protests erupted and a political cycle of revolutionary situations began in Kyiv and Simferopol, the irregular change of government, the response of Donetsk and Luhansk in the form of People's Republics, the anti-terrorist operation designed to justify the use of the army on national territory, the war in Donbass, the seven years of blockade in the Minsk process and finally the Russian invasion in February 2022, Viktor Yanukovych celebrated in 2013 the last Independence Day on which one could speak of unity, at least in the territorial aspect.

However, even then, the fissures in Ukrainian society were evident. The glaring territorial, cultural, economic, and even class differences that could be observed at the time made possible both the victory on Maidan and the response of a segment of society against what was perceived not as a revolution, but as a coup d'état supported from abroad. The same can be said of the response in Crimea, where despite the narrative of a Russian invasion, even Western polls have consistently shown year after year that the population has not regretted the choice to look to Moscow for protection against what was—correctly—perceived from the outset as a nationalist-tinged government seeking to erase essential social, cultural, and linguistic aspects of the identity of different regions.

Willing to use any present or past argument as a political weapon against his opponents, Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that it was Barack Obama who "gave" Crimea to Russia. As even the belligerent National Security and Defense Council, chaired by a radical, Andriy Parubiy, understood, Ukraine had no arguments with which to fight back in that situation. From a distance, the backers of an independent Ukraine, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Victoria Nuland, could only watch in horror as their newest acquisition for Western civilization lost one of its most important territories. Their only option involved going to war against Russia. The overwhelming majority in favor of secession made possible a swift, clean operation in which Ukraine could not wait in the distance and evacuate the portion of its army that wanted to return to Ukraine while a significant percentage joined the Russian army. Nothing says unity like the secession of a part of a territory, spurred by popular participation in the seizure of military bases and the adhesion to the neighboring country, without the foreign troops present in the territory having to fire a single shot.

In Donbass, the population's reaction was less forceful due to a combination of circumstances. Unlike in Crimea, the rejection of Kiev and the desire to seek Moscow's protection were not so overwhelming. After all, groups like the miners had been among the most exalted for their role in achieving independence—generally exaggerating their influence—and, with the exception of small organizations quickly outlawed, such as the Donetsk Republic, there had been no separatist movements in Donbass. In 2014, the unity of Ukraine resulted in a portion of the population of Donetsk and Luhansk taking up arms against the anti-terrorist operation decreed by the de facto government of Tuchinov and Yatseniuk. The latter opted to send special forces, battalions like Azov, and armored vehicles equipped with recruits who quickly surrendered to the organized citizenry of Slavyansk, who used their bodies to stop the first convoys with violent intentions.

That year, and in the eleven years that followed, the unity of the Ukrainian people, so often reiterated by official Ukrainian discourse, its Western allies, and the sympathetic press, could be observed in the existence of a front line where Ukrainian citizens fought against other Ukrainian citizens upon whom Kiev sought to impose the only possible vision of the country and the meaning of their citizenship. The tanks sent by Turchynov and Yatseniuk in the spring of 2014, coupled with the way Kiev reacted to the Odessa massacre and showed its willingness to allow attacks against the civilian population such as the one that occurred on May 9 of that year while the population was trying to celebrate Victory Day, had made it impossible to reconcile Ukrainian political identity with Russian cultural and social identity. Thus, the only option for unity in a diverse country with very different ideological and national sensibilities disappeared. Faced with this reality, palpable in the differences of opinion regarding the European Union, Russia, or NATO, and also in the reaction of different sectors of the population to the victory on Maidan, the secession of Crimea, the Odessa massacre, the Donbass rebellion, or the Ukrainian reaction that caused the war, the European and Western tactic has been simply to deny that this other part of the country exists or has ever existed.

In this way, by blaming Russia for the reaction of the Crimean population, calling the Donbass rebellion an invasion, and claiming that Minsk was, at the same time, the victor's peace with which Moscow wanted to subjugate kyiv, and an agreement that the Kremlin refused to comply with despite Ukraine having already implemented its part, a simplified view of the war has been presented in which the narrative of unity remains credible to a segment of the Western population. This has also allowed Western countries, especially European ones, to fight to protect Ukraine from a peace they do not like now, but which they also did not like when kyiv was the aggressor, refusing to reclaim Donbass by means of a commitment to grant parts of Donetsk and Luhansk limited political, cultural, linguistic, and economic autonomy, less than that enjoyed by European regions such as the Basque Country or Catalonia, or by a common political cause of Western activism such as Iraqi Kurdistan. In his message yesterday, Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his rejection of peace through engagement with Russia, something that depends not on kyiv but on Washington, which is committed to a resolution through a territorial peace agreement, but which has the support of European countries.

“Every day, the people of Ukraine demonstrate courage and strength. We stand firmly with them. Only Ukraine can decide on Ukraine's borders and future. We must ensure that this never happens under pressure, and we will continue to pressure Russia to end the war,” wrote the German Foreign Ministry, one of the two European countries that negotiated a roadmap to peace for Kiev that it never intended to fulfill, in its message for Ukraine's Independence Day. The Ukrainian people , understood as those residing in the territory under Ukrainian control and considered loyal, also had the right to choose which points to comply with in the only peace agreement signed during the eleven-year conflict. The result, agreed upon with the European countries, which never pressured Ukraine to comply with an agreement whose main objective was to buy time for rearmament, was Ukraine's non-compliance with each and every point of the peace agreement, including the one that obliged Ukraine to resume economic relations with Donetsk and Luhansk. Instead, kyiv opted to impose an economic, banking, and transportation blockade that further widened the gap between Donbass and Ukraine.

“The United States is committed to Ukraine's future as an independent nation. We believe in a negotiated solution that defends Ukrainian sovereignty and guarantees its long-term security, leading to a lasting peace,” wrote Marco Rubio, a key influence on the most important person in determining the future of a Ukraine that claims to make its own decisions. Despite his usual triumphalism, Kiev's dependence on foreign funding to maintain the state, pay public salaries, supply the army, and develop its own weapons is not decreasing but increasing, and will continue—that is, at least, Kiev's objective—beyond the ceasefire. “Today, both the United States and Europe agree: Ukraine has not yet won, but it is definitely not losing. Its place is at the table; it is not told, 'Wait for me outside.' It is told, 'You decide,'” Zelensky stated in the country's promotional video for the 34th Independence Day celebrations, commemorated at a time when Ukraine's sovereignty, autonomy, and independent decision-making are more limited than ever. Just a week ago, a summit without Ukraine or European countries laid some of the groundwork for a possible negotiation process. Three days later, Zelensky requested the presence of six European leaders as an escort to ensure Ukraine was taken into account by the White House.

“We continue to support Ukraine. This is not just a reminder of Ukraine’s Independence Day: Parliament has consistently supported Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity,” the European Parliament wrote. On Saturday, the Commission announced that it had coordinated the payment of the next tranche of its financial contribution to Ukraine to coincide with Independence Day. To the triumphalist speeches and the exaltation of unity and sovereignty was added a figure, 168 billion euros, an amount delivered so far by the EU member states, without which the independent and sovereign Ukraine would not have been able to continue fighting, nor afford to continue with its reforms to liquidate the meager remnants of the social state it inherited in 1991. With no possibility of staying afloat without continuous and massive financing from its allies and privileged loans that it knows it will not be able to repay from the IMF, the World Bank and other foreign institutions, Ukraine insists that it is independent and sovereign despite being the perfect example of economic dependence. And to ease the burden on its backers, the only solution kyiv proposes is not to seek peace and normalize the political and economic situation, but to leave the Russian public and private funds held in the EU since February 2022 in its hands. To overcome its dependence on foreign funding, Ukraine hopes that EU countries will take over funds that could only be legally expropriated if they belonged to a country on which war has officially been declared.

Despite the millions of people who have fled, the lost territory, and as one of the poorest countries in Europe, completely dependent on its allies, kyiv boasts of its position. “Ukraine doesn’t ask, it offers. Alliance and partnership. The best army in Europe. Advanced defense technologies. Resilience expertise. We say, ‘We need the EU.’ Yes. But it needs us no less. And everyone recognizes that. And that’s how Ukraine is recognized. Not as a poor relative, but as a strong ally,” Zelensky stated in his Independence Day message. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.

“What are friends and neighbors saying about Independence Day? Me: Pride, but also tiredness: 4 years of war, bombing, losses. We will remain independent. We hope Trump, Zelensky, and Europe will achieve peace, but we doubt it will happen soon,” wrote Timofey Mylovanov, Volodymyr Zelensky's first economy minister and now a full-time propagandist for the Ukrainian cause, on social media, describing his appearance on CNN . Nothing says sovereignty like hoping that foreign allies will deliver the country the outcome it expects from the war.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/25/indep ... ma-decada/

Google Translator

*****

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
The Chinese Foreign Ministry reported that China does not plan to send its peacekeepers to Ukraine. At the same time, China supports peacekeeping efforts and welcomes a diplomatic resolution of the conflict (if it happens).

Regarding guarantees and peacekeepers, US Vice President Vance said yesterday that the issue of "guarantees" will be discussed with Russia one way or another. Russia probably discussed the issue of "guarantees" with Trump, but there was no de facto discussion with Ukraine and the US European satellites. At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry has already indicated that the Russian Federation considers the deployment of NATO troops and bases in Ukraine unacceptable. This makes the issue of peacekeepers from third countries not associated with either NATO or Russia relevant.

***

Colonelcassad
In Odessa, police lieutenant Igor Gapenko was killed, who actively packed up Odessans who were then sent to slaughter. He "packed up" a guy who later died.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

*****

Brief Frontline Report – August 24th, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 24, 2025

The Russian Ministry of Defense reports: "Units of the "Center" Group have liberated the settlement of Filiya in Dnepropetrovsk Region as a result of offensive actions."

Image
ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 01.01.2025=Line of Combat Contact January 1st, 2025. ЛБС 01.02.2025=Line of Combat Contact February 1st, 2025. ЛБС 01.3.2025=Line of Combat Contact March 1st, 2025. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary. Граница областей=Oblast Border*

The village of Filiya (48°05′06″N 36°45′08″E, approximately 130 residents) is a small village on the right bank of the Solenaya River in Ukraine's Dnepropetrovsk Region. The terrain in the area of the village is heavily broken, where the Kalmychkova and the Orekhovaya (Nut) ravines end. These ravines were used to provide support for AFU units that had entrenched themselves in the "pocket" to the east.

Image
ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 30.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 30th, 2024. ЛБС 01.01.2025=Line of Combat Contact January 1st, 2025. ЛБС 01.4.2025=Line of Combat Contact April 1st, 2025.

Located 3.5 kilometers to the north is the AFU defensive area Muravka-Novopavlovka, which protects the major defensive hub of Udachnoe-Novopodgorodnoe-Mezhevoe. This hub stretches along the railway and highway that supply the entire Pokrovsk direction of the AFU from the strategic Kharkov-Sinelnikovo-Zaporozhye railway supply route.

Image
Blue: Kharkov-Sinelnikovo-Zaporozhye railway supply route. Red: E50 (M50) highway. Orange: Railway route from Sinelnikovo, no longer in operation in the Pokrovsk area.

It is likely that, having secured the area to the south (on the Iskra/Yskra-Temirovka line), the command of the Russian Armed Forces is beginning the destruction of the enemy's Muravka-Novopavlovka defensive area.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-24th

******

Bullets for babushkas

Liberals for executions. Mobilization forever. Anti-corruption activists condemn anti-mobilization protests. No constitution for the workers and peasants.
Events in Ukraine
Aug 24, 2025

The negotiation theatre continues. Many commentators find succor in lip-reading Trump or Putin or speculating which of the latter’s doubles was sent. Personally, I’m quite tired of the psychoanalyzing.

Despite the constant peace talks, the war is more vicious than ever. In early August, Russian forces around Pokrovsk made their quickest ever advance since early 2022, moving forward around 15 kilometers in just several days. In response, Ukraine transferred its most effective troops away from other locations on the vast, 1,000 kilometer frontline.

Ukrainian forces managed to stem the Russian advance around Pokrovsk. However, their method of containing the breach is symptomatic of the broader problem. The Russian strategy isn’t simply to breakthrough at a specific point - it is to exhaust Ukrainian forces along a massive frontline by constant pressure everywhere. I wrote about this strategy a week ago here.

Said strategy has shown its latest fruits - Russian forces advanced significantly between August 19 and 24 in the Serebriansky forest of the Luhansk oblast. Here is what Ukraine’s OSINT group DeepState wrote on the matter on August 24:

🏹 The enemy continues to build on their success, taking advantage of previous advances and the problems that have arisen in the area. They mainly operate in small infantry groups that infiltrate deeper into the territory, maintain constant pressure on Ukrainian positions, and look for any opportunity to hide in order to consolidate. There are cases when Ukrainian Armed Forces positions exist only in reports, and then the enemy suddenly appears in the rear at the positions of drone operators or electronic warfare units, and so on.

⚔️ The most difficult situation is currently in the forest on the northern bank of the Siverskyi Donets River, from Hryhorivka to Dronivka, where the enemy can easily cut off the route near the latter, which would create unfavorable consequences for the positions located there. Therefore, we hope that those positions will be withdrawn in time so that they do not fall into encirclement.

🇷🇺 At present, the enemy is trying to completely drive the UAF out of the Serebrianske Forestry and put an end to the years-long history of fighting for it. The enemy is exerting pressure in the direction of Yampil and has already been observed in the area of the Yampil–Zarichne road. In Zarichne itself, the situation is also developing unfavorably for Ukrainian forces, as the enemy is gradually moving into the settlement past Ukrainian positions, making it increasingly difficult to dislodge them from there.


Image
August 19

Image
August 24

The advance here is ‘only’ around 5 kilometers. However, the fact that the advance has been made on a wide front makes it less likely that forward Russian forces could be surrounded, as Ukrainian forces claim has happened around the recent Dobropillia salient.

And besides, the distance moved isn’t the deciding factor in a war in attrition. Here, what matters is the losses suffered by the enemy.

The past few months have seen a number of dour Ukrainian interventions on the problem of losses:

—Ukrainian serviceman and journalist Ihor Lutsenko, July 25: 5-8 thousand killed, the same number permanently wounded. According to significantly deflated official statistics, 19,000 desertions a month. Official claims of 30,000 mobilized a month, more realistically under 20,000. As a result, the army has been shrinking by 10–15 thousand people each month.

— Ukrainian military fundraiser and analyst Maria Berlinska, August 1: ‘Daily killed: up to 300. Wounded: up to 750. Desertions: up to 500. Approx. per day: 1,550. Approx. per month: 46,500. Mobilized: up to 20,000. So we’re going into a deficit of 26,500 per month.’

Meanwhile, Berlinska stated that the Russian army is growing by ‘roughly 9-10 thousand men per month’, given existing losses and enlistment levels.

Now, Berlinska probably wasn’t saying this with the aim of fomenting pacifist sentiment in society. On the contrary - she is well-known for constantly pushing to mobilize women and the youth.

Amidst what seems like peace talks, the bet of the Ukrainian government and political establishment is clearly on war. Today, we’ll take a look at several signs pointing to the continuation and intensification of forced mobilization - whose suspension, by the way, has been one of Russia’s key demands for a peace settlement. Among today’s topics:

— A historical polemic by Ukraine’s premier liberal, western-funded publication, arguing in favor of civilian massacres against villages that resist mobilization

— New calls by military figures to execute men or women executing mobilization

— Large scale protests by ordinary people, largely women, against violent forced mobilization

— The use of live fire against anti-mobilization protestors, severely wounding several grandmothers in a poor village

— Western-funded ‘anti-corruption civil society activists’ condemn the anti-mobilization protests. Protests are only legal for those supporting war to the bitter end. As one Ukrainian social media user put it:

You mention the law and the Constitution, which are “on pause” for workers and peasants, while the fat, pro-government bastards and their spawn are feeling just fine. Do you really think that in the fourth year of full-scale war people don’t see the social injustice???

— While Zelensky half-promises to allow younger men out of the country (electioneering?), his prime minister proposes new legislation increasing punishment for those attempting to escape the world’s most democratic concentration camp.

But before we get to the paid content, a snapshot of the human cost:

On August 22, the western-funded Ukrainian media outlet suspilne reported on another death by mobilization in the city of Zaporozhye. The patriotic Ukrainian-language reporter lets the Russian-language widow do most of the talking:

Yulia Balabakh buried her 48-year-old husband Roman. He was mobilized on July 22, and already the next day his body was found in the camp of the Basic Military Training Center in Dnipropetrovsk region. The woman says she was only informed about the death of her beloved a week later.

"On Monday, the 29th, in the morning I called the unit. They told me: ‘He’s fine. Either he or the commander will contact you. Leave your details.’ And literally half an hour later, representatives from the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center came and handed me a paper about my husband’s death."

The woman explains that Roman had not updated his data at the military enlistment office and did not have military registration documents. He was detained near his home and taken to the district recruitment and social support center, and at night to the military unit.

"He never got in touch. I called the unit, and they told me: ‘Our database has not been updated yet, call back in three days.’ I didn’t wait those three days. I called the next day. And so they strung me along like that for a whole week."

When the woman received the death notice, the cause was listed as acute heart failure. But Yulia says she does not agree with the conclusion of the forensic examination carried out by the unit.

"Yes, maybe that’s what it was, because no heart could withstand such a beating. But he died because he was simply beaten to death. It’s not clear why he was beaten. His whole body was covered in injuries. His eye was black, his cheeks, forehead, ribs. I couldn’t even bring myself to examine his legs. The back of his head was smashed and covered in blood."




(Paywall with free option.)

https://eventsinukraine.substack.com/p/ ... -babushkas

*****

Russia Intercepts Ukrainian Drones Amid Kiev’s Refusal to Agree to Peace Proposals

Image
(FILE) Ukranian Soldier. Photo: EFE.

August 24, 2025 Hour: 5:20 am

Russian air defenses successfully shot down 95 fixed-wing Ukrainian drones overnight across 14 Russian regions, including the Crimean Peninsula, as confirmed by the Russian Defense Ministry

Briansk Governor Alexandr Bogomaz shared on Telegram that the border area was struck in an attack he described as “barbaric”, resulting in injuries to at least three civilians, including a child, and damage to multiple homes.

In Samara, authorities reported that an unidentified industrial facility was targeted by the attackers.

Meanwhile, Leningrad Region Governor Alexandr Drozdenko noted on Telegram that about ten drones were shot down last night while attempting to hit a Novatek gas company terminal. The debris from the drones caused a fire, he added.

The large-scale drone assault led to the temporary closure of airports in at least six Russian cities, with flights resuming only in the early hours of this morning.

The text reads: Updated information on the consequences in the village of Sven – Transportnaya. As a result of the barbaric attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, unfortunately, a child born in 2013 was injured. The boy was taken to the regional children’s hospital, where he is receiving all the necessary medical care. Wishing a speedy recovery to the injured! —As translated by AI—

Regarding peace talks, the head of Kiev’s regime Vladimir Zelensky opposed all the proposals that Trump considers necessary to resolve the Ukrainian conflict during his recent meeting with the U.S. President at the White House, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared on Friday.

Furthermore, Lavrov clarified that the meeting between Putin and Zelensky is not yet scheduled, emphasizing that the Russian leader is willing to meet with the Ukranian President.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/russia-i ... proposals/

******

Putin's Preventive War: The 2022 Invasion of Ukraine
Barry R. Posen

Author and Article Information
International Security (2025) 49 (3): 7–49.
https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00501

Abstract
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is consistent with the logic of preventive war. States often initiate wars because they fear the consequences of a shifting balance of military power and thus strike to forestall it. They fear that, once the balance changes, the rising power may either attempt to coerce them, or initiate war later under much more favorable circumstances. The tendency to consider preventive war is exacerbated if the declining state also sees itself as having a special, and fleeting, window of opportunity to prevent the shift. This essay reviews a range of evidence to argue that Vladimir Putin likely viewed Russia's strategic situation through a preventive war frame. NATO membership for Ukraine would shift the balance of power against Russia, and U.S. and NATO military cooperation with Ukraine intensified during the Joe Biden administration. These developments likely convinced Putin that he did not have much time to forestall Ukraine's NATO membership.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine in 2022 is consistent with the logic of preventive war.1 Simply put, one reason states often initiate wars is because they fear the consequences of a shifting balance of military power.2 In the logic of preventive war, the declining state worries that an existing competitor may initiate war later under more favorable circumstances, or that a rising state may use its newfound muscle to coerce the declining state. Notable preventive wars since World War II include when China intervened in Korea in 1950 to prevent the United States from unifying the Koreas and settling its own forces on the Chinese border; Israel's attack on Egypt in 1956 to forestall its absorption of a huge new supply of tanks and fighter aircraft from the Eastern Bloc; and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 to forestall Iraq from possibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

The tendency to consider preventive war is exacerbated if the declining state simultaneously sees itself as having a special, and fleeting, window of opportunity to prevent the shift. Putin likely believed that Russia faced such a moment. Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would irretrievably shift the balance of power against Russia. During the Joe Biden administration, the United States and NATO intensified training, arming, and advising Ukraine, activities that likely convinced Putin that he did not have much time to forestall NATO membership through military action at reasonable cost. Offering this very logic, Avril Haines, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, explained that Putin attacked because “military action would be the best remaining option to prevent greater Ukrainian integration with the West, which he believed to be a significant threat to Russia's national security. Furthermore, given the trend lines, it would only get more difficult to affect a military option over time.”3 Even Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO, understood Russia's preventive motive: “So he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”4

Historians will debate whether it was Putin's strategic calculus or his commitment to a nationalist or imperialist ideology (or some combination) that best explains the 2022 war. In the months since the war began, discussion of a strategic motivation has atrophied. This is unfortunate because if the Russians did have strategic motives, even in part, then understanding these motives could contribute to the diplomacy of an ultimate war settlement.5 Additionally, looking at the invasion through the lens of preventive war theory may provide some policy lessons for other dangerous conflicts of interest.

This article takes the form of a “case explaining” case study.6 Theory is mobilized to better understand murky events. In contrast to most political science case studies, which treat the credibility of a theory as the matter at issue and the case as valid evidence that supports or undercuts the theory, here the theory is treated as valid, and the “facts” of the case are at least partly at issue. Put another way, there are many facts, but there is an uneven and incomplete supply of them, and analysts use the theory to make sense of those facts that do exist. I also use the theory as a coarsely ground lens to spy out some facts that may be hidden in the weeds.

An extant general theory is an excellent guide to structure disparate evidence. Theories make predictions—it is possible to organize the events of the case to see if they conform to these predictions. Importantly, if the going-in theory is itself a strong one, and many of its predictions are confirmed, then that explanation for the case becomes more credible, in part because the initial theory is itself strong. If the theory is deductively sound, and more importantly has explained historically similar events, scholars are entitled to give the explanation extra weight in understanding the case at hand, if they can show that the case looks like this class of events.

Thus, I first review the theory of preventive war and briefly consider what scholars believe about its prevalence historically. This theory is itself deduced from realist international relations theory, which endures as the strongest explanation of patterns in international politics. Then, I assess whether the major predictions from the theory are present in the case.

The most general prediction of the theory is that the growing prospect of Ukrainian membership in NATO would seem threatening to Russia in the eyes of the Russian foreign policy establishment, not merely in the eyes of Putin. The prediction is credible because most great powers have historically viewed other great powers on their borders as a threat, and NATO membership for Ukraine would put the United States squarely on Russia's doorstep. In the post–Cold War period, many Western experts on Russia and national security predicted for years that Russia would see NATO enlargement as a threat.

Second, the theory predicts that declining states should note their changing status and attempt to reverse it if they can. Russian leaders told the West that they would view NATO on their doorstep as a threat. Russian diplomacy and published strategy documents expressed security concerns. They tried to warn NATO off.

Third, the theory predicts that the declining state's fears should have some basis in fact. I will show that the on-the-ground changes in Russia's military situation that would attend Ukrainian membership in NATO would prove problematical for Russian security. Moreover, the history of U.S. and NATO military deployments during and after the Cold War suggested strongly that capabilities dangerous to Russia would ultimately move forward into Ukraine alongside NATO membership. Indeed, NATO forces were already regularly turning up in Ukraine. Russian spokespersons and documents warned repeatedly that they observed these developments, feared them, and explained why they feared them. I review evidence to show that their fears of the specific military implications of NATO's presence in Ukraine were reasonable.

Fourth, the theory suggests that Putin and his advisers ought to have had evidence that NATO membership was a genuine prospect and not simply a talking point. I discuss why Russian observers could have viewed the prospect of NATO membership as an impending development that had been gathering momentum since NATO announced future membership for Ukraine in 2008. Although a steadily deteriorating power position produces preventive motives, growing momentum helps confirm the fears of the declining state. The history of NATO's relations with Ukraine, reviewed below, also suggested to Russia that ultimate membership was likely. Some have argued that Russia had to know that NATO membership was not likely because there was no Membership Action Plan (MAP), the last hoop NATO aspirants once had to jump through. I will show that NATO was forging so many other connections with Ukraine that the absence of a MAP would not have reassured Russia much.

The theory also predicts that the window of opportunity to do anything about the emerging problem is closing. I will discuss the extent to which Russian observers likely viewed Western military cooperation with Ukraine as proceeding at a pace that would make it increasingly difficult for Russia to do anything militarily to prevent Ukraine's membership in NATO. “War now,” appeared to be better than “war later.” NATO and NATO member states’ military relations with Ukraine deepened Ukraine's integration with NATO and improved Ukraine's combat power, and Russia noticed.

One caveat is in order. A preventive war theory cannot explain the exact moment when a war begins, and I do not try to do so. Instead, it indicates whether the state faces a growing incentive to act. These pressures mounted in the years immediately preceding the war, as Geoffrey Roberts demonstrates in his perceptive treatment.7 The choice of war is a major decision. Leaders such as Putin must contemplate how they and the state they lead will fare in such a war. One important question leaders must ask is simply whether the military can come up with a plausible plan for victory.8 I do not take up this issue in detail, in part because these internal deliberations are hidden from most of us, though Western intelligence may possess evidence that bears on the question.

The article proceeds as follows. The first section reviews the extant theory of preventive war from which I have inferred the predictions above. The second section addresses ambiguities in extant preventive war theory that blur the difference between efforts to forestall windows of vulnerability and states’ temptations to exploit windows of opportunity. I then review the evidence of the preceding twenty-five years to demonstrate the extent of its conformity with the predictions of the theory. I close with a brief review of competing theories for why Russia invaded Ukraine and some implications for policy.

The Theory of Preventive War
Many international relations scholars consider preventive war to be a fact of life in international politics.9 This group is comprised of political scientists, such as myself, who are realists of one sort or another, but also diplomatic and military historians.10 “Preventive war, however abhorred in diplomatic language and abhorrent to democratic public opinion, is in fact a natural outgrowth of the balance of power,” Hans Morgenthau instructed us in his classic mid-twentieth-century work, Politics among Nations.11 In a world without governments and police forces, any state can do to any other whatever its power allows. States therefore seek power at minimum to protect themselves, but also to pursue their interests against those who would block their way. Under these conditions, states are sensitive to changes in the balance of power. When some states develop alliances, build bases, seize or negotiate privileged access to strategic real estate, and increase the size and quality of their militaries, others take note. Because each state must look after itself, states often do not wait to see how well others will do as they endeavor to increase their power.

Realist theory predicts this sort of behavior, and history suggests it is common.12 States act preventively to forestall reversals of power relationships.13 Scholars of preventive war routinely cite Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian War to illustrate the logic: As quoted by Alfred Vagts, “Men do not only defend themselves against a superior when he has attacked them, but also strike the first blow, to prevent his attacking them.”14 It is important to stress again that these theories are not hortatory: They do not advise statesmen to have preventive wars. These are predictive and explanatory theories. Preventive wars happen because states are generally insecure; given that they live in an anarchical world, they are on the lookout for looming threats to their security.

Many scholars agree that the preventive motive for war is strong. They come to this view either through studying many wars or focusing on particular cases that demonstrate the power of the preventive motive relative to others.15 In any given case, scholars may disagree on both how many wars preventive motives help explain and the extent to which preventive motives explain why a state initiates war. From 1650 to 1990, a great power initiated a conflict for preventive reasons in a third of the wars (twenty out of about sixty involving at least one great power).16 Included in this list are all the world wars: the Seven Years War, the French revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II. Stephen Van Evera, in a careful survey, finds nineteen preventive wars, from the Peloponnesian War through the 1991 Persian Gulf War, to which I would add the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the 2022 Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine.17 Quantitative studies also suggest that there are many preventive wars, though scholars disagree on whether preventive motives are a strong cause of war.18

Preventive wars are thus theoretically predicted and commonly practiced, and in modern times, legally proscribed, though that has not kept even liberal states from undertaking them. Ironically, practitioners and theorists also generally view preventive war as unwise—prone to go awry. Those advising against it often paraphrase Otto von Bismarck's famous adage that preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death.19 (It is noteworthy, however, that even Bismarck found the idea of preventive war attractive earlier in his career.)20

There is, to my knowledge, no comparative treatment of preventive wars that failed. But scattered observations in the literature on preventive war, and deduction from extant theories, provide some insights. First, those who have the capability to launch preventive war are often, by definition, already strong. Thus, they are watched warily by others, who for their own security reasons will be disinclined to give a bold move the benefit of the doubt. In multipolar systems, other great powers are likely to join the victim if they have the wherewithal and the time: Balancing happens.21 Second, those undertaking prevention may not understand that others base their decisions to form alliances on not only the power of a potential adversary but also perceived malign intent. Initiating war tends to make a state appear malign, even if the initiator had a pretty good reason. Stephen Walt notes that states balance against threats, and in addition to power, a component of threat assessment is how states perceive malevolent intent.22 Third, military defense often has an inherent advantage, as Carl von Clausewitz argued.23 Wars seldom go exactly as planned. And failure to achieve a quick victory gives the preceding balancing mechanisms a chance to work and bring assistance to the target's side. Finally, and perhaps ironically, states may understand that preventive war is a bit of a desperate measure, and thus they wait too long. The balance of power is indeed moving against them, and that shift turns out to be already well underway.

States considering preventive war have alternatives. They can dig deeper into the national purse to try to generate more material power by investing in either their militaries or their economies. They can fortify their borders. They can court alliances themselves. And they should always consider that the momentum of their adversary's rise may simply slow or perhaps even stop. The state should compare whether the costs and risks of initiating war are greater than exploiting political and military defensive measures.24 That said, these alternatives are uncertain. Even states that consider all these nostrums, and are aware of the pitfalls, could choose preventive war after calculating the risks and costs. Foreign policy is not an exact science.

Western official sources regularly assert that Russia was unprovoked when it invaded Ukraine. It was not a preemptive war, they say. Preemptive wars—when one party attacks because it has good reason to fear imminent attack by another—are legitimate in international law, but this occasion does not often arise.25 Putin had no reason to fear imminent attack on Russia. In that sense, the war was unprovoked, and by modern standards, entirely illegitimate. Though preventive wars are historically common, they enjoy little support in modern international law.26 The United Nations Charter outlaws preventive war, if only because it outlaws states from initiating almost any war: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”27 Moreover, the charter confers the right of preventive action to the UN Security Council. Thus, if the argument below convinces readers that Putin's motives were preventive, and that he came by these motives through a reasonable strategic appraisal, this does not legitimate his war. It does help explain it.

(Much more at link.)

https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/49/ ... nvasion-of
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Tue Aug 26, 2025 11:47 am

Weapons, sanctions, and security guarantees: the importance of the United States
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/26/2025

Image

In his letter to Ukraine commemorating Independence Day, Donald Trump emphasized the courage of the Ukrainian people, but also emphasized that "now is the time to end this senseless killing" and specified that "the United States supports a negotiated resolution that leads to a lasting peace that ends the bloodshed and preserves Ukraine's sovereignty and dignity." Unsurprisingly, Zelensky has focused solely on the positive aspects and continues to ignore the obvious differences in how the two countries view the next steps. The Ukrainian president also prefers to ignore the fact that his definition of peace, which in Ukraine's unrealistic version implies no concessions to Russia, is also not the same as that of his American counterpart.

Zelensky and his allies appear to have lost hope of returning to the idea of ​​a ceasefire imposed by force on Russia, for which Ukraine is demanding increased sanctions and has significantly intensified its drone attacks against targets in the Russian Federation, primarily oil refineries and pipelines. Even at the White House meeting, despite knowing that Donald Trump did not want to hear this argument, Foreign Minister Merz tried to bring up the subject again. Although currently shelved, Trump's ability to change his mind depending on the last person he spoke to makes it impossible to rule out the possibility that, after the two-week grace period he has again granted Russia, the United States will once again demand the "unconditional ceasefire" mandated by the European ultimatum of May 9. However, at least for the moment, Washington is committed to reaching a final agreement that dictates the political, territorial, and security terms to end the war. For months, this has been the scenario most feared by Ukraine and European countries, especially if it led, as appeared to be the case with the Alaska meeting, to an agreement between Russia and the United States that excluded the voices of Ukraine and European countries.

As time passes, Ukraine remains focused solely and exclusively on the war. The increase in attacks on its rearguard is evident and deserves in-depth analysis. In recent days, attacks have focused primarily on oil refineries and pipelines. The objective is clear: beyond military pressure, Ukraine wants to exert the economic pressure it demands from its main ally. It is no coincidence that Ukraine is currently attacking the sector that the United States has also targeted: oil. For the same reason that Washington fought against the construction of Nord Stream from the outset until Joe Biden—temporarily—admitted defeat, the United States is seeking to undermine Russia's ability to maintain a share in certain markets. "It's time for our European colleagues to get their act together or get out of the way," said Scott Bessent a few days ago. The US Treasury Secretary was referring to the issue of the purchase of Russian oil. “They keep telling us, ‘The United States has to do this; the United States has to do that.’ President Trump has imposed secondary sanctions and tariffs on India for consuming Russian oil, but the European Union has done nothing,” he insisted. Washington is demanding that the EU definitively renounce Russian oil, something it can only do at the expense of its economy, against the wishes of countries like Slovakia and Hungary, and gradually. It also hopes that the EU will join the sanctions against New Delhi.

As historian and economist Adam Tooze explained in one of the most recent episodes of his podcast, Ones and Tooze , the idea of ​​imposing a cap on Russia's crude oil sales was precisely intended to benefit a country like India. To maintain its market share and the resulting revenue, Russia would sell oil at steep discounts, which New Delhi could then export for significant economic and geopolitical gains. As then-EU Foreign Minister Josep Borrell acknowledged, the EU could thus obtain Russian oil indirectly and at a reduced price, further benefiting a country the West is trying to distance itself from Russia, a historic ally, and other members of the BRICS. The sanctions, which have greatly angered the fervently pro-Western and pro-US Indian government, significantly hamper the objectives for which this policy was conceived and have already had consequences. If the aim was to promote India's rise as a geopolitical counterweight to China in the most important region of the moment, the Asia-Pacific, the sanctions have achieved exactly the opposite. After years of coldness and even confrontation, days after the sanctions were imposed, Narendra Modi confirmed his upcoming visit to China, his first since 2018.

China, which has been very vocal in its displays of solidarity with India, has not, at least for the time being, received secondary sanctions from the United States despite being by far the largest customer of Russian oil. The fact that this crude oil is not primarily used for re-exportation and that China is not considered a market already captured by Western customers makes a difference. China is also too large a customer, so expelling Russia from it would create instability in the oil market, which is also undesirable. As the US demand that the EU commit to purchasing billions in US energy products demonstrates, the objective of the sanctions and demands for a trade shift toward its products are fundamentally dedicated to expelling Russia from the European market. Hence, kyiv can afford, for example, to attack the oil pipeline linking Russia to the European Union and that even now, three and a half years after the invasion of Ukraine, it continues to transport crude oil to Slovakia and Hungary, two of the European countries with which Donald Trump maintains the best relations.

Despite the weekend reaffirmation of its sovereignty and independence, Ukraine depends on maintaining a good working relationship with the United States, which can, with a single phone call, force kyiv to accept unwelcome conditions. This was the case in the spring, when Washington temporarily halted the supply of weapons and intelligence, considering the Ukrainian government insufficiently committed to peace. The minerals agreement was another example in which kyiv had to sign a colonial-style document, which places at least part of its future revenue from the exploitation of its natural resources in the hands of the United States. Although Kiev claims the agreement is favorable to Ukraine, the fact that the Rada had to ratify it without having read it calls into question the word of Volodymyr Zelensky or Yulia Svyridenko, the current prime minister who signed the document without the fanfare expected on the day the Ukrainian president decided to refute Donald Trump and JD Vance and ended up expelled from the White House and urgently appearing on Fox News to apologize and request another audience with his American counterpart.

Ukraine's chances of achieving some of its objectives—maintaining its territory and securing security guarantees as close as possible to NATO's—rely on maintaining its good relationship with the United States, avoiding being seen as the obstacle to peace it has been since 2014, and continuing to place that blame on the Russian Federation, regardless of whether or not there are any Russian moves in favor of negotiations. Hence, the US position is decisive, not only in exerting the economic pressure with which kyiv—somewhat naively—hopes Russia will have to negotiate between a rock and a hard place, but especially in defining the security guarantees to be offered to Ukraine.

Ukraine's main current concern is security guarantees, which are the key element in reaching an agreement with Russia, since favorable defense conditions are the only way kyiv and its European allies will accept—rather than sabotage, as they did for seven years in Minsk—a negotiated solution to the war. Troops, intelligence, and air cover are, in this context, the three elements that will determine the type of security guarantees European countries can extract from the United States for Ukraine. In all of these, the decisive role is that of Washington, which has actively and passively made it clear that the bulk of the cost, logistics, and execution of any armed mission and the rearmament of the Ukrainian army will have to be borne by European countries. European NATO members have already made clear their willingness to pay for any intervention and weapons for Ukraine as long as the United States allows them to be acquired commercially. And judging by the silence regarding Scott Bessent's remarks about how the surcharge Donald Trump imposes on weapons sold by Washington to the EU for later delivery to kyiv could cover part of the costs of air cover, Brussels also seems willing to pay the United States for its role in providing security guarantees to Ukraine.

However, all indications are that, at least for now, the US is determined to limit its involvement, not just its economic involvement. “The Pentagon’s top policy official told a small group of allies Tuesday night that the United States plans to play a minimal role in any security guarantees for Ukraine, in one of the clearest signals yet that Europe will have to take responsibility for maintaining a lasting peace in Kyiv. The remarks by Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, came in response to questions from European military leaders at a meeting led by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine. The defense chiefs of Britain, France, Germany, and Finland pressed the US to reveal what troops and air assets it would provide to help Ukraine maintain a peace deal with Russia, according to a European official and another person briefed on the talks,” Politico wrote last week . The talk about pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, the three countries that had pledged to lead the deterrence mission, indicates Europe's lack of confidence in its ability to organize such a contingent, equip it, and provide it with the necessary material and intelligence for its implementation. Even when managing a mission that would be based in the rearguard and operate after a ceasefire agreed upon with Russia, European countries need the muscle of their American ally to feel secure.

Colby's position is consistent with his geopolitical stance, according to which Europe is no longer a key region for the United States, which in any case is guaranteed not to form a "counter-hegemonic bloc" against Washington. Colby, who sees Asia as the place where Washington should direct all its resources, is also opposed to NATO expansion into countries that are difficult—or expensive—to defend and whose contribution to US security is negligible. This explains his attempt to suspend the shipment of such important weapons as Patriot missiles a few weeks ago, which was reversed by the media scandal created and Donald Trump's inability to maintain a coherent position. "The Kremlin has many towers," is often said about the different factions surrounding the Russian president at any given time, something that can also be applied to the current White House, making it impossible to predict what path Donald Trump will ultimately take. Last Monday, he hinted that US troops could participate in security guarantees for Ukraine and the following day he stated the exact opposite. What has become clear is that the current White House responds particularly well to the money argument, so increased procurement of US weapons and a solid financial offer for the services that London and Brussels expect from the United States—intelligence, surveillance, air cover, and perhaps even logistics—will be the main arguments over the coming weeks.

Despite Ukraine's proclamations of sovereignty and strategic autonomy from European countries, its geopolitical and defense position remains dependent on the United States.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/26/armas ... os-unidos/

Google Translator

******

From cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Armenia: Biolabs Under US Control — a Bomb Under the Country

Continuation of the old story with American biolabs on the territory of the former USSR. Now in Armenia.
There are 12 biolabs in Armenia, built and affiliated with the Pentagon. Total investment is over $50 million.

As in similar cases, questions are starting to be asked about outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, West Nile fever, African swine fever, and anthrax. As in identical cases in the former Soviet republics, the local population is also starting to ask questions.

From the US point of view, these facilities can be used not only “for science”, but also as an element of military infrastructure against Russia and Iran. The US considers Armenia’s costs in this regard to be insignificant, just as Ukraine’s costs for hosting an entire network of military biolabs were insignificant for the US.

In the coming years, outbreaks of strange/rare diseases and growing public discontent with the proximity of such facilities can be expected.
Russia and Iran will certainly put pressure on Pashinyan to close these facilities as posing a threat. The US will naturally seek to preserve them and ensure that they are not actually controlled by Armenian legislation, as was already the case in Ukraine, where the activities of the laboratories were removed from Ukrainian legislation, including experiments on Ukrainians.

We can expect this topic to become more relevant, as well as the growing attention of Armenian society to this topic against the backdrop of the struggle between Russia, the US and Iran for influence in Armenia, where the factor of military biolabs will be far from the last.

***

Colonelcassad
1:36
A pensioner lived in a cellar in a village near Krasnoarmeysk in the epicenter of shelling for seven months.

In order to hold out until liberation, Svetlana Churilova stocked up on food and water in advance and placed them in four cellars.

But it was almost impossible to get to them and the well nearby, since she was constantly being watched and attacked by Ukrainian drones.

Her pigs, ducks, chickens, dogs and cats were killed in the shelling. Russian soldiers who were waiting out the attack in Svetlana's cellar were wounded.

All this time, she did not wash herself and chased away rats that were stealing food. To keep from going crazy, she kept a diary.

"The village was completely bombed. There were 12 of us left. I don't know the fate of the rest. I was the only one who got out," she says.

In June, Svetlana decided to leave for Selidovo. She knew from experience when drones don't fly in, and at that time she crossed the open area, risking running into mines in the grass. Then she waited in the bushes.

Almost a day later, the pensioner reached Russian soldiers, who took her to a safe place.

***

Colonelcassad
Estonia supports providing Ukraine with protection guarantees similar to Article 5 of the NATO Charter.
This was stated by Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna.

Earlier, the country's Prime Minister said that Tallinn was ready to provide Kiev with a company of its soldiers.😀

"A firm signal to Putin" (c)

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator


******

Brief Frontline Report – August 25th, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 25, 2025

The Russian Ministry of Defense reports: "During decisive offensive actions by guardsmen of the 57th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade of the 5th Army of the "East" Group, the settlement of Zaporozhskoe in the Dnepropetrovsk Region has been liberated."

Image
ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 01.01.2025=Line of Combat Contact January 1st, 2025. ЛБС 01.02.2025=Line of Combat Contact February 1st, 2025. ЛБС 01.3.2025=Line of Combat Contact March 1st, 2025. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary. Граница областей=Oblast Border*.

The settlement of Zaporozhskoe (47°51'13"N 36°32'05"E) is a small village in Ukraine's Dnepropetrovsk Region. It was part of the AFU defensive area Berezovoe-Kalynovskoe-Novonikolaevka, which protects the radial route Novonikolaevka-Vishnevoe (Novonykolaevka-Vyshnevoe; you need to be looking at the second map for this section) that connects to the Yegorovka (Ehorovka)-Uspenovka supply route. This road network complex supports the left flank of the AFU's Gulyaipole (Hulyayipole on the map) defensive hub.

Image
ЛБС 31.5.2025=Line of Combat Contact May 31st, 2025. Участки Активности=Area of Activity.

Units of the Russian Armed Forces' "East" Group have begun the elimination of the AFU defensive area Berezovoe-Kalynovskoe-Novonikolaevka. These actions will allow for a deeper southern envelopment of the Kamyshevakha salient and, simultaneously, by advancing south, will secure advantageous positions on the watershed of the Voronaya and Yanchur rivers. This executes a northern envelopment of the AFU defensive area Obratnoe-Novoivanovka-Levadnoe and threatens the flank of the AFU's Gulyaipole defensive hub.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-25th

******

Desperate Euro-Elites Suggest Boots-on-Ground Even "Before Ceasefire"
Simplicius
Aug 25, 2025

The news surrounding the Ukrainian conflict has been slow owing to a kind of ‘planning’ doldrums phase where all sides have retreated to strategize on the next novel idea on how to politically out-maneuver the other. That is because the entire ‘ceasefire’ charade has in fact turned into nothing more than political posturing given that all the involved sides are much too far apart to tangibly come together in any significant way. So in absence of that, only the political side remains as potential harvest for some kind of advantageous position.

Europe has been again retreading the ‘security guarantees’ and ‘boots-on-ground’ red herrings, but this is old, beaten laundry with too much mileage on it to come to any real use anymore. That doesn’t stop them from trying, though—Le Monde, for instance, proposes a novel idea: that European troops should be injected into Ukraine before the signing of a ceasefire not after, in order to “pressure” Putin into that very truce:

[Image
https://archive.ph/ZuwO4

‘Research fellow’ at the French Institute of International Relations—an establishment cutout—Elie Tenenbaum makes the argument that talking about a potential European “peacekeeping force” has the effect of hardening Putin to continue the conflict, so as to not have NATO troops on his border—a reasonably competent assessment.

However, this prospect remains completely out of the question for the Kremlin, one of whose primary motivations was to prevent any Western troops from entering an area it considers its own. Worse still, the more the Europeans show their willingness to deploy forces after a ceasefire, the less Vladimir Putin will be inclined to sign it.

But then Mr. Tenenbaum jumps the shark. Rather than following the clear logic of his own novel inspiration, he reaches the conclusion that the only way to make this work is to then insert the troops right away, rather than waiting for Putin’s approval:

The solution to this problem is not technical, but logical, and again requires a reversal of the chronology: security forces must be deployed before, not after, a ceasefire. Forced to accept a European presence or pay the price of a costly and uncertain confrontation with the West, Russia will be more inclined to sign an agreement than it would be without such a demonstration.

So, Mr. Tenenbaum believes launching WWIII would be just the recipe for getting Putin into “negotiations”. He probably should have listened to Lukashenko’s recent interview before penning his dross; Lukashenko recounted how he warned Trump on the phone to not pressure Putin, precisely because Putin is not susceptible to making decisions under duress: (Video at link.)

It should also be noted that Tenenbaum’s article makes an interesting distinction—that as a generality, any force deployed to Ukraine would not be a “peacekeeping” force in the classical sense of troops who merely patrol a line of contact. Instead, it would be an offensive deterrence force capable of “advancing on a possible breach in the front line”:

This would not be a neutral peacekeeping and interposition force on the line of contact, but rather a reassurance and deterrence operation. Such a plan is ambitious, but far from beyond the reach of Europeans…

This coalition is based on four pillars…and a "land demonstration" involving a few mobile brigades capable of advancing on a possible breach in the front line, which is over 1,000 kilometers long and would remain held by the Ukrainian army, as is the case today.


As most know, “peacekeepers” are usually distinct from real offensive combat brigades and heavy armor units capable of waging real warfare. Peacekeepers by contrast are usually lightly armed and meant only to act as “security guards” and sentries. It’s clear that Russia and NATO disagree on what type of force would be appropriate for this occasion, particularly given that Russia has backed proposals for Chinese involvement in this regard.

Also interesting is his mention of critical “shipping lanes” and ports needing protection by this reassurance force, which clearly implies using NATO navies to protect Odessa. Western analysts are increasingly urgent about Odessa falling into Russian hands, given recent Russian breakthroughs on the battlefield.

A recent Telegraph piece highlighted this, marking Odessa as absolutely existential for Ukraine’s survival:

Image
https://archive.ph/rideZ


Getting back to the ‘maneuvering’ phase of the ‘negotiations’ games, Trump has now stated that after his new two-week deadline is up, he may impose sanctions, tariffs, or “do nothing at all”: (Video at link.)

The Europeans continue scrambling in circles like rousted chickens with no clear idea of a way forward. Many European elites are beginning to grasp the reality of the situation: the impotence of Europe, the stark delusions of grandeur that allowed European elites to think they could push around global giants.

In a speech at the annual Rimini meeting, ex-ECB honcho Mario Draghi raked the EU over the coals, declaring its delusions of geopolitical power as a dead dream born of the misguided idea that economic power can automatically grant you geopolitical power: (Video at link.)

“For years, the European Union believed that its economic size, with 450 million consumers, would bring with it geopolitical power and influence in international trade relations. This year will be remembered as the year in which this illusion evaporated.”

The more the Eurocrats screech and squawk in their aimless charade, the more powerless they look, and the more credibility they lose in the eyes of their own populace. Yet it is with their ‘iron assurance’ that Zelensky now continues to maintain his fanatically maximalist approach, bluffing his way toward catastrophe for Ukraine: in a new ‘Ukrainian Independence Day’ statement, Zelensky even promised to return both Crimea and Donbass to a “reunited” Ukraine. Europe is writing a check for Zelensky that it will not be able to cash.



Trump was also asked about the major Russian strikes that blew away the American factory in western Ukraine: (Video at link.)

Remember when there were claims Rheinmetall and other major Western arms manufacturers were going to create all kinds of advanced weapons factories in western Ukraine that Russia would “not dare touch”? How naive did one have to be to actually believe that?

Humorously enough, Lavrov was likewise grilled by NBC about this ‘provocative’ act: (Video at link.)



In other news, Ukrainian public figure and drone weapons expert Berlinska made huge waves with another grim deduction surrounding Russia’s now legendary Rubicon drone unit:

Image

Recall in a recent report we shared the prediction that Russian anti-drone tech would soon lead to the collapse of Ukrainian drone capabilities, if left unchecked. The latest stark reminder tells us that Rubicon’s expertise is being scaled throughout the army at large and will soon snowball disastrously for Ukraine if the prescribed emergency measures are not taken.

Another Ukrainian figure, a sniper from the 59th Separate Assault Brigade, lamented Russia’s recent ‘unexpected’ gains, likewise chalking them up to Rubicon’s success. Recall the discussion in a recent report here about Russia’s new strategy of disrupting Ukrainian reconnaissance capabilities, and the widespread cascading effect that has on the AFU—read the underlined below:

Image

Similarly, head of the Azov National Guard Bohdan Krotevych again gave a dour assessment of the situation: (Video at link.)

He states two important things: First, that Ukraine essentially doesn’t have real ‘reserves’ and all the recent reinforcements sent to put out fires were taken from other fronts.

And the much more important thing: he correctly states that manpower is not actually Ukraine’s main issue. If you gave Ukraine a magical 100,000 new men, he says that the situation would revert to the exact same precipice it’s now on within several weeks. Why? Because, he astutely points out, Ukraine already had such manpower before, and it lost it all for a reason. There’s much left unsaid, but of course most understand that the war began with a Ukrainian manpower advantage—why did it gradually slide to such a disadvantage? The answer is simple: Russian capabilities are simply greater, therefore no matter how much manpower Ukraine regenerates, it will continue to lose without something radical or drastic taking place.

On that note, a last interesting tidbit. In a new interview with RBC-Ukraine, Commander-in-Chief Syrsky said something quite amazing. After first claiming that in Bakhmut, Ukraine lost men at a favorable 1:7 ratio against Russia—i.e. 7 Wagner KIA per 1 Ukrainian KIA, he goes on to state that even in the Kursk offensive, Ukraine managed a 1:5 kill ratio against the Russian defenders:

Image

The reason this statement is so amazing is that it reveals from the lips of the highest military authority of Ukraine that a favorable KIA ratio on the offensive is quite possible. Most pro-UA commentators claim Russians are delusional for believing that Russia achieves a favorable ratio against Ukraine despite being on the offensive for the majority of the war. Yet here we have the war hero Syrsky himself admitting this is a normal thing for offensive operations. It puts pro-UA analysts in a bit of a bind, either Syrsky is lying, or Russian claims are not as “preposterous” as they’re made out to be.

Of course, this is rhetorical: the astute readers of this blog certainly know the real answer.



We’ll hold off the full front updates until next time, due to the fact that there is a particularly foggy information blackout at the moment about a few key positions due to both Ukraine and Russia utilizing ambiguous skeleton-crew tactics to capture advanced positions in each other’s “rears” which are not suitable for consolidation. We need a few more days for things to clear up and become validated.

Also, Ukraine has increasingly been using the tactic of “announcing” the capture or clearance of settlements that Russia had never actually even taken, in order to scribble in some phantom ‘victories’ for morale, which includes several settlements around the north-Pokrovsk salient.

But as a general comment, on the now critical Pokrovsk front, some reports state that Syrsky is urgently pulling more units from other sectors to put out fires here:

According to incoming information, the containment of the Russian strike north of Pokrovsk and the stabilization of the front are going so off plan that Syrsky is urgently withdrawing several more battalions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the Sumy direction.

Just yesterday, the following were removed from there: the 3rd battalion of the 156th mechanized brigade, the 1st and 3rd battalions of the 33rd separate mechanized brigade, as well as the 2nd battalion of the 425th separate assault battalion "Skala" along with support units.


Official state mapper of the AFU, Deepstate has made some elucidating general comments on the ongoing operations as well:

Deepstate
"The enemy continues to build on their success, taking advantage of earlier advances and problems that have arisen in this area. Mainly small infantry groups operate, infiltrating deep into the territory, constantly pressuring the positions of Ukrainian fighters and looking for any opportunity to consolidate. There are cases when the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine exist only in reports, and then the enemy suddenly appears in the rear — at the positions of drone operators or already electronic warfare units and other detachments."

The most difficult situation now is in the forest on the northern bank of the Seversky Donets River, where the Russians threaten to block the road near Dronovka, "which will create unfavorable consequences for the positions there."

"Therefore, there is hope that they will be withdrawn in time so they do not end up surrounded," writes pbalik.

The Russian Armed Forces are trying to completely push the Armed Forces of Ukraine out of the Serebryansky forestry and end the long-standing history of battles for it.

Our forces are also putting pressure in the direction of Yampol and have already appeared near the Yampol–Zarechnoye road.

"In Zarechnoye itself, the situation is also unfavorable for Ukrainian fighters, as the enemy is gradually moving into the settlement past the positions, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to drive them out."


A Rossiya-1 report on the successful Russian LPR 4th Brigade operations in Alexander-Shultino on the southeast Konstantinovka front: (Video at link.)

A Financial Times correspondent for Ukraine touches on something I myself have been noticing and writing about here—that recent Russian advances have come at fewer losses:

Image

How’s that for flying in the face of the common narrative?

The full report from the Ukrainian outlet quoted above is here.

Image
https://texty.org.ua/articles/115712/sy ... hy-vtraty/

Here’s the chart they compiled:

On the map below, we took data on the occupied territories from DeepState, and data on Russian losses from the daily reports of the Ukrainian General Staff. "Losses" refers to the dead and wounded.

Image

The reality is likely far worse for Ukraine, because the Russian “losses” figures above are taken from official AFU General Staff reports, with their wildly exaggerated claims of daily Russian casualties.

Another Ukrainian analysis came up with this, showing Russian troop losses on a downward trajectory starting from December or so of last year:

Image

If I’m understanding the above chart, it appears more accurate given that losses appear to be measured in intervals of about 11 days, which would put the given troop losses (numbers on left Y axis, vs. “equipment” losses on the right side) at about 1000 / 11, or 90 per day. The peak was claimed to have been nearly 1800, which would be 163 per day.

Leafing through the comments sections under these various posts, many Ukrainians appear in agreement that the reason for this has been a change in Russian tactics much discussed recently. This includes the accurate Russian hammering of Ukrainian positions with improved Fab glide bombs and skeleton-crew advancement of small units under drone cover to reduce losses, as well as successful motorcycle ‘seep’ tactics. And of course, the aforementioned improvement in Russian “area denial” via Ukrainian ISR shutdown seen in Rubicon’s targeting of Ukrainian radars, aerial repeater and recon assets, etc.

In short, this is the Russian military becoming a well-oiled machine and adapting to efficiently fight its enemy. But don’t confuse the word ‘efficient’ with ‘perfect’, because Russian losses are still high, all things considered. If you reduce your losses from 150 or 200 KIA per day to 100, that’s a great achievement, but it still means 3,000+ dead and perhaps another 3,000+ maimed per month, with a good chance the numbers are even higher than that. One supposes it still beats the 3,600 losses per day the US estimated it would suffer in a war with Russia:

Image

By the way, isn’t it interesting how the West appeared to tell the truth about Russian losses before the desperate need to cover for Ukraine’s collapse required the shaping of the narrative? Back in July 2022 the US estimated 15,000 Russian losses after exactly 5 months of war:

Image

This would put it at 3,000 per month, or exactly 100 per day. Now, to keep hope alive that Ukraine can somehow weather the storm, they needed to rig the narrative into a laughable 1,000 - 1,500 per day in order to make it seem like Russia is just on the brink of losing, and only a few more billions in aid, and a few more weapons packages for Ukraine will seal the deal.

(More at link.)

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/des ... gest-boots

******

Putin’s Conditions for Peace Deal: Ukraine Gives Up Donbas, No NATO, and No Western Troops
August 24, 2025



By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 8/22/25

Reuters reported on Thursday that Russia’s demands for a peace deal in Ukraine include Ukrainian forces withdrawing from the Donbas, a guarantee that Ukraine won’t join NATO, and for Ukraine to keep Western troops out of the country.

Russian sources told Reuters that Putin had compromised on his initial conditions, which included the Ukrainian withdrawal from the territory in the southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. Under the current offer, Russia is willing to freeze the lines there and also return small amounts of territory it controls in Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk.

For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly rejected the idea of ceding the territory Ukrainian forces still control in the Donbas, and European leaders appear to be backing his position.

When it comes to NATO, the Reuters report said that Moscow is seeking a legally binding pledge from the alliance that it wouldn’t move further eastwards. A guarantee that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO was one of Russia’s main demands to avoid the invasion, but the Biden administration refused to engage on the issue.

While the Trump administration has ruled out the idea of Ukraine joining NATO as part of a potential peace deal, the alliance’s leadership is still insisting on its “open door” policy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said this week that Ukraine is on an “irreversible path” to NATO membership.

Russia’s other condition is related to the security guarantees for Ukraine that are being discussed by the US and its European allies, who are insisting on some sort of arrangement where European troops are deployed to Ukraine and backed by US air power. But Russia has made clear repeatedly that the idea is completely unacceptable, and the insistence on it could tank the peace process.

Sources speaking to Reuters floated the idea of some kind of three way deal between the US, Russia, and Ukraine on security guarantees or revisiting an idea from short-lived peace talks in 2022 that would have involved the five permanent members of the UN Security Council providing the guarantees, which was also brought up by Russian Foreign Minsiter Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday.

While Russia continues to engage in negotiations, it has also made clear that it’s willing to continue the war if its conditions aren’t met. “There are two choices: war or peace, and if there is no peace, then there is more war,” one of the sources told Reuters.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

***

Hopes Fade on ‘Breakthrough’ in Ukraine Talks, Russia Keeps Gaining Land

Russia Matters, 8/22/25

Despite the past week’s initial hopes that Donald Trump’s subsequent meetings with Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders would advance talks on the Ukraine conflict toward a breakthrough, the negotiations on the subject remained riddled with contradictions and stalled outcomes as of Aug. 22. For instance, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Putin was amenable to “Article 5-like” guarantees for Kyiv, yet Russia’s top diplomat Sergei Lavrov insisted Moscow must hold veto power over any guarantees, suggesting that the P5 should provide them. Lavrov also discouraged Trump’s public hopes for quickly organizing a Zelenskyy-Putin summit, making clear Russia would presently agree to negotiate only at levels lower than heads of states. Meanwhile, European leaders flatly rejected giving Russia the veto on security guarantees, while Zelenskyy also ruled out China as a postwar security guarantor. It remains unclear whether and how these differences1 can be reconciled.

In the period of July 22–Aug. 19, Russian forces gained 237 square miles of Ukrainian territory, which marks a 2% decrease from the 241 square miles these forces gained in the period of July 15–Aug. 12, 2025, according to the latest issue of RM’s The Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. Comparing shorter periods, such as the past week to the preceding week, shows that in the period of Aug. 12–19, 2025, Russia gained 25 square miles of Ukrainian territory (roughly one Manhattan island), which marks a 67% decrease from the 76 square miles Russian forces gained in the period of Aug. 5–12, 2025. One of the reasons Russia has been able to make gains every week2 is that it has more personnel than Ukraine to employ in combat. “Today, Russia recruits about 1,000 soldiers a day,” which is “about twice as high as Ukraine’s” recruitment, according to The New York Times.*

A map that Trump showed to Zelenskyy during their Aug. 18 meeting indicates that Russian forces control 99% of the Luhansk region and 76% of the Donetsk region, which together constitute Donbass. U.S. intelligence estimates on whether and when Russia could take the rest of Donbass vary. “One assessment posits that Putin could seize all of Donetsk by October. Another predicts a far harder and inconclusive slog,“ according to Axios.

Russia has more than doubled the number of missiles and drones it has fired monthly into Ukraine since January, according to the Wall Street Journal. Most recently, the night of Aug. 20 to 21 saw Russia launch the third largest strike of the war, launching 574 drones and 40 missiles against 11 locations in Ukraine, according to ISW. The number of Russian long-distance strikes can be expected to increase further, and it is likely that more of them will reach targets in Ukraine as Russian drone and missile production increases (in fact, Russia may soon fire 2,000 drones a day), further attriting Ukraine’s already strained air defenses.3

India is under increasing pressure from the Trump administration over its continued purchases of Russian oil, with White House trade adviser Peter Navarro expecting punitive tariffs of 50% on imports from the South Asian nation to kick in next week. But is such pressure justified or are the Indian leaders right to complain about “double standards in Washington, which continues to buy Russian uranium hexafluoride, and in the EU, which remains a key buyer of Russian liquefied natural gas,” as the Wall Street Journal reported? Here are three facts which may help you decide if Indian leaders have a point: First, the U.S. continues to import enriched uranium from Russia. In fact, in 2024, the U.S. imported $624 million worth of Russian HEU, according to Comtrade’s international trade data. Second, the U.S. imported $1.3 billion of fertilizers from Russia, according to the New York Times. Third, Russia was the second largest source of gas imported by the European Union in 2024, with Russian supplies to the EU increasing by 18% that year. The EU also purchased $8.5 billion worth of LNG from Russia that year, according to CREA and The Economic Times.

***

US Approves European-Funded Long-Range Cruise Missile Deal for Ukraine

By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 8/25/25

The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that the US has approved a deal that will arm Ukraine with thousands of Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) air-launched missiles, which have a significantly further range than other missiles that the US has sent into the proxy war.

Two US officials told the Journal that the ERAMs can hit targets up to 280 miles away, nearly 100 miles further than the range of the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), munitions the US began providing Ukraine in 2023.

The deal will provide Ukraine with 3,350 ERAMs as part of an $850 million weapons package that will mostly be funded by European countries. This year, NATO began a new scheme to provide Ukraine with more US weapons in deals funded by other NATO allies, known as the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative.

The ERAMs are expected to arrive in Ukraine within six weeks, and the US officials said that the Ukrainian military will need Pentagon approval to use them.

The Journal report said that the Trump administration had been quietly blocking ATACMS strikes on Russian territory, which the Biden administration first greenlit toward the end of 2024. At the time, the US-backed ATACMS strikes marked a significant escalation of the proxy war, and Moscow responded by altering its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.

The Journal report said that the Trump administration hasn’t allowed any Ukrainian ATACMS strikes on Russian territory since late spring, but the ERAMs deal signals that the US may be prepared to support missile attacks inside Russia once again. The news comes as there has been little progress toward a peace deal following the summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2025/08/put ... rn-troops/

******

Ukraine - Zelenski Rejects Giving Land As Fascists Promise To Kill Him

The (former) President Zelenski of Ukraine is refusing any compromise in negotiations with Russia. He would be killed and replaced by a more right wing figure if he would consider otherwise.

In a speech on Sunday marking Ukraine's independence Zelenski insisted of recapturing all of Ukraine including Crimea.

As the Washington Post summarizes (archived):

In Kyiv on Sunday, Ukraine’s Independence Day, Zelensky addressed the nation and vowed to restore its territorial integrity.
“Ukraine will never again be forced in history to endure the shame that the Russians call a ‘compromise,’” he said. “We need a just peace.”

He listed some of the regions occupied by Russia — including Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea — and said “no temporary occupation” could change the fact that the land belongs to Ukraine.


Zelenski thus rejects calls by U.S. President Trump to give up Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace.

One reason why he does so may be the personal danger he is in. Any compromise about territory may well cost his life.

The London Times continues to make propaganda for Nazis. After a recent whitewashing interview with Azov Nazi leader Biletsky (archived) it yesterday published an interview with the former leader of the fascist Right Sector in Odessa Serhii Sterneneko.

‘Russia has repeatedly tried to kill me — I must be doing something right’ (archived)

Sterneneko had a leading role in the 2014 massacres in Maidan Square and at the Trade Union's House in Odessa. The Times is whitewashing his participation in those events. It does not mind to publish his threats against Zelenski:

[A]mong Ukraine’s younger generation of soldiers and civilians, Sternenko’s brand of truth to power has wide popularity. “I say what I think, and people like what I say.”
His views on President Putin’s demand for Ukraine to cede the territory it defends in the eastern Donbas region as a precondition for possible peace are typically direct. “If [President] Zelensky were to give any unconquered land away, he would be a corpse — politically, and then for real,” Sternenko said. “It would be a bomb under our sovereignty. People would never accept it.”


Sternenko, who himself has avoided the draft, wants the war to go on forever:

Indeed, as he discussed Russian intransigence and President Trump’s efforts to end the war, Sternenko’s thoughts on the possibility of peace appeared to be absent of any compromise over Ukrainian soil.
“At the end there will only be one victor, Russia or Ukraine,” he said. “If the Russian empire continues to exist in this present form then it will always want to expand. Compromise is impossible. The struggle will be eternal until the moment Russia leaves Ukrainian land.”


Other British media continue to promote the rise of Nazi affiliated figures in Ukraine. The Guardian adds by promoting the presidential campaign of the former Ukrainian general and now ambassador to the UK Valeri Zaluzhny:

In private conversations, Zaluzhnyi has not confirmed he plans to go into politics, but he has allowed himself to speculate on what kind of platform he could propose if he does make the decision. Those close to him say he sees Israel as a model, despite its current bloody actions in Gaza, viewing it as a small country surrounded by enemies and fully focused on defence.
He would style himself as a tough, wartime leader who would promise “blood, sweat and tears” to the Ukrainian people in return for saving the nation, channelling Winston Churchill. In one private conversation, he said: “I don’t know if the Ukrainian people will be ready for that, ready for these tough policies.”


A day before being fired as the commander of the Ukrainian army Zaluzhny took a selfie with the leader of the fascist Right Sector and commander of Right Sector brigade of Ukrainian military in front of a portrait of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and the fascist OUN flag.

Image

The picture was already part of his campaign to become the leader of a Bandera-ized Ukraine.

It seems that the British deep-state does its best to support him in that.

Posted by b on August 25, 2025 at 14:57 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/08/u ... .html#more

******

Do you really believe a Ukrainian on a yacht took out Nord Stream?

A man has been arrested in Italy and will stand trial in Germany, but the pipeline mystery remains unresolved

Image
Unused pipes intended for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Sassnitz, Germany, on July 6, 2023. © Stefan Sauer / picture alliance / Getty Images

The Nord Stream bombing is back in the news after the recent arrest of a Ukrainian national, identified as Sergey Kuznetsov, at a resort in Italy. Kuznetsov is set to be extradited to Germany, where he will stand trial accused of leading a six-man sabotage team that attempted to blowing up the pipelines.

It is the first arrest in a case which is widely viewed as the largest instance of industrial sabotage in Europe since World War II. Probes were launched by Denmark, Sweden and Germany, but the first two were ended with no suspects identified.

Russia owns 51% of Gazprom, which controls the majority share of Nord Stream One and all of Nord Stream Two, but was not allowed to participate in any of the official probes and has consistently been denied access to the evidence.

It remains to be seen what emerges from the trial of Kuznetsov, but one thing seems clear: many questions remain about an event which still has major repercussions today. RT looks at why doubts persist nearly three years on.

What is the latest version being touted?

German prosecutors claim Kuznetsov led a six-person team on a yacht called the ‘Andromeda’, rented in the city of Rostock with forged papers. The group then allegedly managed to avoid detection in the heavily monitored Baltic Sea in order to plant the explosives at a depth of 70-80 meters.

This version of events bears a close resemblance to an account published nearly exactly a year ago in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Mixing investigative journalism with cinematic flair, the WSJ wrote of a group of Ukrainians “buoyed by alcohol and patriotic fervor” who concocted a scheme to bring down the pipelines on a shoestring budget.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky supposedly initially approved the plan before changing his mind on advice from the CIA – but it was too late as the team had already gone incognito.

The report was, at the time, treated by many observers in the West as a definitive breakthrough in a case that had gone largely cold despite the efforts of investigators working on the official probes.

What has Russia said about the recent developments?

Russian officials have not publicly commented on the recent arrest of Kuznetsov, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously ridiculed the idea that such an act of sabotage could have been carried out by a small team lacking the extensive training and support that such a mission would require.

Commenting on the media reports about the Ukrainian group last September, Lavrov said: “Five people were sitting around drinking, having a laugh, and decided ‘Why don’t we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?’ They had diving skills, allegedly hired a little boat, sailed to the place where the Nord Streams were passing, went down, planted explosives and detonated them.”

“If someone can actually believe this version, then it’s only people who are afraid of the truth and are trying to protect the criminal Kiev regime in any way possible,” Russia’s foreign minister suggested.

What happened to the state actor theory?

Initial reactions by Western officials and commentators almost universally pointed to the likelihood of a state actor – with Russia generally assumed to be behind the sabotage.

Just days after the attack, the editorial board of the Washington Post published an opinion piece warning the West to “prepare for more attacks” and explaining that this is the “kind of capability usually wielded by a state actor,” adding that “everyone suspects unofficially” that the perpetrator was Russia.

Yet, as the narrative shifted away from Russian culpability, the state actor theory began being downplayed in the Western media. Nevertheless, recent reports indicate that German prosecutors believe the operation required “military-level planning.”

Could such a small boat accommodate such powerful explosives?

A number of experts have expressed skepticism that a vessel the size of the ‘Andromeda’ (15 meters) could facilitate an operation involving such high-energy (RDX-HMX) explosives – four bombs weighing up to 27kg each. It's not just a question of weight, but one of bulk and safety.

The limited space and lack of a cargo hold on such a yacht would have made transporting highly potent explosives impractical. Such material typically requires reinforced containers, lifting gear, and complex detonation systems – which would push the limits of what a small vessel could reasonably handle.

Many observers question whether the extensive diving gear, mixed-gas systems, and detonation and transport equipment – plus the explosives themselves – could have been carried and deployed all while maintaining cover as a casual sailing trip.

How practical is a 70-80 meter dive to plant explosives?

The logistics of such a deep technical dive have also elicited skepticism. Recreational scuba diving typically doesn’t go deeper than 40 meters.

This operation, entailing explosives placed on two pipelines 4km apart, is believed to have required four dives, each of which would have necessitated the boat being in place for roughly three hours, according to experts. Furthermore, such extended dives would have likely required a decompression chamber for the divers, which would be almost impossible to fit on a vessel the size of the ‘Andromeda’.

How could the Ukrainian team have managed to avoid detection?

Another one of the puzzles lingering around the sabotage is how an operation almost certainly requiring several days could be carried out in one of the most surveilled maritime regions in the world. This is particularly the case given that NATO naval and aerial patrols were heightened due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that even fishing boats are often tracked in the Baltic, NATO somehow failed to pick up on any unusual activity.

If a six-person team on a small yacht really pulled this off undetected, it would imply a catastrophic failure of NATO surveillance – something many experts find hard to accept.

In June 2022, NATO conducted its BALTOPS exercises involving underwater operations near the site of the explosions. Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has alleged that the exercise was used as a cover for planting remotely triggered explosives that were activated three months later.

https://www.rt.com/news/623482-nord-str ... -theories/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:33 am

The United States, the war in Ukraine, and European subordination
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/27/2025

Image

In line with the old logic of NATO during its Cold War military alliance and the main political instrument for subjugating Europe to American geopolitical interests, the United States seems to remain interested in the famous phrase "Russians out, Americans in, Germans down." The political logic of simpler times, with military threats still commanding respect, led the two great powers to engage in proxy wars in secondary theaters, but never in the main one: Europe, the only one where the War was always Cold. The disappearance of the Soviet Union, the only country that thwarted the United States' aspirations for hegemonic power, automatically changed the playing field, giving Washington more than a decade of absolute leadership, with the ability to remake the rules at will and impose a vision of the international order based on its rules and applied selectively, always to its advantage. The return of great power politics is due to the rise of emerging powers, especially China, and the attempt by some blocs of countries to decentralize power excessively concentrated in Washington and its closest allies, the victors of the Cold War, who refuse to accept that the unipolar era is over and that submission to Washington's rule is no longer as automatic as it once was. Although the war in Ukraine is not the only global conflict, nor is it the one that has caused the most displacement or the most dramatic situation for the civilian population, the interest and indirect participation of the West makes it a good example of the changes taking place.

In five years, we won't be able to sanction anyone, lamented Marco Rubio, the neocon hawk turned Secretary of State for the man aspiring to the Nobel Peace Prize, a few months ago. Rubio's sadness, who these days is putting aside his pacifist zeal in Europe in favor of his usual belligerent threatening Venezuela, was due to the relative loss of centrality of the dollar as a reserve currency, one of the bases by which Washington can afford to economically threaten almost any country. Avoiding this US temptation to economic coercion against its opponents or designated enemies, whether or not they pose a threat to anyone, has been, over the last decade, the logic with which Russia has sought to expand the BRICS by trying to turn this club into an economic alliance that trades in national currencies. This is also the objective of the B of BRICS, Brazil, which clashes with the interest of other countries, primarily India, in maintaining their position of closeness to the West. India, however, has been the first victim of this group of countries, punished by the United States for its position in the war in Ukraine, which has given it the opportunity to earn large revenues from the re-export of Russian crude oil. The US attempt to force New Delhi to give up this economic benefit has so far failed. India has not only rejected this obvious economic coercion but has also condemned as insulting the accusations of having blood on its hands by the main arms exporter in the war in Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza. In addition to the announcement of Modi's first visit to China in five years and Beijing's staunch defense of New Delhi, we must add the industrial and technological cooperation announced yesterday. There is nothing like being attacked by the same country, the United States, for two neighbors with common interests to be able to temporarily put aside their differences and cooperate for mutual benefit.

The Indian, Chinese, and even Brazilian stance—despite Lula da Silva having long ago renounced his offer of mediation between Russia and Ukraine to achieve a negotiated end to the war—contrasts with the absolute submission shown by European countries, which have chosen to accept each and every one of Donald Trump's demands to keep the United States on their side in the current flagship European project: maintaining the confrontation with Russia. Brussels has accepted the tariffs Trump proposed to achieve the trade agreement, has made investment commitments in the United States, promised to purchase billions of dollars in American energy products, has begun to pay for the weapons it will deliver to Ukraine, turning the war into a source of economic profit for Washington, and has even opened the European market to American agricultural products, until now restricted by contradictory regulations. Today, the European geopolitical project does not depend on its economic situation or its relationship with neighboring countries, which it aspires to absorb, as is the case in the Balkans and the Caucasus; subdue, as is the case with countries like Algeria; keep out, especially its population, as is the case with sub-Saharan Africa; or defeat militarily and politically, as it is trying to do with Russia. The rapid mobilization to save Private Zelensky in the White House and maintain some control over the war in Ukraine shows that political, economic, and military confrontation with Russia is the raison d'être of the European Union's foreign policy, a continental construction project in which the political establishment seeks to keep the Russians out and the Americans in, even at the cost of leaving the Germans down .

Berlin, the most important European customer of Russian energy products until the invasion of Ukraine, has been the main victim of European and US sanctions. Although it was always clear that any sanctions on Russian energy were in reality also a measure against Germany, a major rival to the United States in industrial matters, both the Social Democratic and current Christian Democratic governments have accepted without complaint the need to give up cheap Russian gas, thereby sacrificing part of the competitiveness of their industry, which is not only relocating to China but even to the United States, something absolutely unthinkable until now. This voluntary sacrifice, coupled with the sharp increase in military spending, reduces the possibilities for spending on other items, and suddenly, as Chancellor Merz announced last Monday, the welfare state is no longer sustainable and requires reforms —a common euphemism for announcing cuts that the right has always wanted to implement and that the current situation allows it to propose without major risks of protests. Politically, militarily, and economically, the war and armed peace that European countries desire for the day after the ceasefire are the priority for their governments, which, by presenting the conflict as existential for the European Union, have created the conditions to justify both the remilitarization of the continent and the subjugation of its interests to those of the United States.

Subordination and dependence go hand in hand and are demonstrated daily. The visit of Rutte, von der Leyen, Starmer, Macron, Meloni, Merz, and Stubb to Washington not only sought to protect Zelensky from himself and avoid a scene like the one last February, but also to obtain a series of concessions that European countries need to move forward with their Ukrainian project. The reality of the war has already made it abundantly clear that, under the current circumstances, kyiv will not be able to expel Russian troops from Ukrainian territories under Russian control since before 2022, or even return to the borders that existed at the time of the Russian invasion. In other words, the Ukrainian dream of recovering Crimea is nothing more than a pipe dream, and even regaining control of what was lost in Kherson and Zaporozhye would require a major shift in the dynamics of the front. Despite the timid statements about the increased strategic autonomy that the rearmament announced by von der Leyen this past March would entail, the way in which the increase in military spending is taking place—in the form of rising contributions to NATO and arms purchases from the United States—indicates the opposite effect: an increase in subordination to Washington, something Trump has perfectly understood by proclaiming himself "President of Europe." Any humiliation is preferable to the loss of control of the Ukrainian conflict or the disinterest of the indispensable country, the United States.

Yesterday, a Politico article delved into this issue. In addition to an increase in the flow of military aid, with increasingly heavy weapons and a growing presence of offensive weapons for use on Russian territory, Ukraine needs a sharp increase in sanctions pressure against Russia to balance the playing field ahead of negotiations, which it currently enters in a position of weakness. "The European Union is drafting new measures aimed at putting pressure on Russia's battered war economy. However, having already committed to phasing out oil and gas imports, the bloc is increasingly aware that Washington, not Brussels, is in the best position to tighten the screws," writes the outlet, which, despite attempting to present the EU as an actor capable of imposing its own measures, shows a reality in which 18 sets of sanctions have failed to achieve the goal of subduing Russia, and each subsequent attempt is a reminder of the failure and the lack of new ideas beyond continuing to repeat the same old practices. “According to four European diplomats, who have been granted anonymity to shed light on the closed-door discussions, the latest round of sanctions is not expected to include major new restrictions on energy sales that fund Russia's war against Ukraine. The package, the 19th imposed on Moscow since it launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, will be unveiled next month and will target “ghost fleet” vessels and companies that help Russia circumvent existing rules,” Politico continues, which then focuses on Europe's new hope, the United States, and Donald Trump's secondary sanctions.

“The most painful consequences for Moscow would occur if secondary sanctions were imposed—on companies or countries that do business with Russia—but the real impact of these would come from the United States. Many observers maintain that Russian President Vladimir Putin only met with Donald Trump in Alaska after Washington imposed high tariffs on India for its purchase of Russia's economic lifeblood: oil. The next dramatic step would be to intensify similar sanctions to strangle Russia's vital trade with China,” concludes the article, which, like European countries, places its hopes on measures that have already proven unsuccessful in the case of India, a country less economically powerful than China and possibly more prone to succumbing to Western blackmail to preserve its relationship with the West. As Leonid Ragozin wrote yesterday, “Despite its challenging tone, the Politico article linked below exposes the key problem with the current peace process. The EU has exhausted its sanctioning capacity against Russia, while Russia itself is suffering the consequences of its own sanctions. US secondary sanctions remain the final straw, but the example of India suggests this won't work, especially now that Trump has consolidated the BRICS with his insane tariff policy.” European countries are grasping at the straws of failed sanctions, aiming to maintain NATO's active presence and the interests of the only actor capable of escalating the war or, if the peace process succeeds on the terms Kiev and its continental allies are trying to impose, creating an armed peace in which the conflict with Russia remains the raison d'être of EU foreign policy.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/27/estad ... n-europea/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Iskander-M precision strike on HIMARS repair and command base in Trostyanets: destruction of western multiple launch rocket systems and headquarters of the 80th Airborne Assault Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces

On August 26, 2025, at about 09:50 a.m., the Russian Armed Forces carried out an operation to destroy the enemy's military infrastructure in the city of Trostyanets, Akhtyrsky district, Sumy region ( coordinates:50.4659095, 34.9760498 ). The strike was carried out by several ballistic missiles from the Iskander-M OTRK with the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces, which distracted air defense systems and created false attack directions.

Strike target: a seed factory converted into a military hub

The factory, which previously performed civilian functions, was repurposed for military needs in 2024. In its hangars and three-story warehouses, the enemy deployed:
• a maintenance point for American M142 HIMARS MLRS ;
• an ammunition depot ;
• a command headquarters and control post for the 80th separate airborne assault brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The facility simultaneously served as a repair base and a combat control unit : it was used to adjust guidance systems, replace the electronics of the FCS (Fire Control System) units, diagnose the hydraulics of the reloading units, prepare transport and loading vehicles, and check ballistic navigation packages.

Progress and consequences of the strike

The first missile hit a three-story warehouse where HIMARS maintenance was being carried out. The strike caused a chain detonation of the ammunition located inside the building: several containers with M30A1 GMLRS rockets with a cluster section and M31A2 guided missiles exploded, increasing the destructive effect. The building sustained critical damage, the supporting structures were destroyed, and the fire spread to adjacent sections.

The second missile hit the administrative part of the factory, where the command post of the 80th Air Assault Brigade was located . The headquarters building and the communications center were destroyed, and some officers and communications personnel were trapped under the rubble.

According to data confirmed by several sources:
• one M142 HIMARS launcher was destroyed ; • a transport and loading vehicle
was completely disabled ; • a stock of GMLRS missile containers was destroyed ; • up to 10 Ukrainian Armed Forces servicemen were eliminated , including technical personnel and headquarters officers; • about 15–20 people were injured to varying degrees , some of them command staff.

At the epicenter of the strike, 7-8 servicemen remain under the rubble , their evacuation is complicated.

Tactical and strategic significance

The destruction of the Trostyanets HIMARS base has several key consequences:
• Logistics strike : the destruction of the repair center complicates the possibility of prompt servicing of HIMARS in this direction. Now, in order to repair equipment, the installations will have to be transferred to other points, which increases the likelihood of their exposure to the enemy and reduces the rate of their use.
• Operational weakening : the headquarters of the 80th Air Assault Brigade is disabled, which disrupts the command and control system in the Sumy direction.
• Combat effect : the destruction of HIMARS and their ammunition reduces the ability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to strike at the rear of Russia. According to intelligence, it was this unit that previously attacked the infrastructure of the Druzhba oil pipeline. It is possible that the destroyed HIMARS installation is the same one that was used to shell the pipeline.

The strike on the Trostyanets seed factory is not a local event, but a systemic strike on the entire architecture of Western weapons use. The simultaneous destruction of the launcher, ammunition and command headquarters disables an entire unit, reduces the density of fire and undermines the stability of the logistics chain. From the point of view of military tactics, this is one of the most effective strikes in recent weeks in the northern direction.

@don_partizan

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

******

Ukraine

August 19, 2025 in Uncategorized by craig

This post initially included a corridor photo which was fake. My fault, but that made no difference at all to the argument.

It will definitely be good if the war in Ukraine draws to a close. Too many have died or been maimed, too many civilian assets have been destroyed. However the cynicism with which the conclusion of the war is being driven is quite extraordinary.

I am not sure there has been a sight in modern history equivalent to the way Europe’s “leaders” were pictured in the White House.

Image

This is not an accident. There really is a craft to diplomacy; many countries in the world have foreign services consisting largely of people who have a degree in it. I have personally organised two state visits for the former Queen as well as head of government visits.

These things follow a careful choreography and an absolutely key part of that is to present a picture of equal status between state parties. Who will enter first, whether there will be a handshake, the precise spot where the handshake will happen, the setting of the table they meet around, flags of equal size, all that is plotted in great detail. It is fundamental to the job.

If I had put Robin Cook, for example, in a position where he was seated on a chair in front of an interlocutor enthroned behind a desk, I would have received a very fierce bollocking indeed. Yet here we have European Heads of State and EU leaders seated before a desk in the Oval Office.

This is just unthinkable to anybody familiar with the craft of diplomacy. I realise you don’t have to be a diplomat to feel there is something wrong in this picture: but you are probably not quite as stunned as I am.

The unequal interpersonal relationships are just the immediate physical manifestation of Trump’s instinctive ability to maximise the brutality of realpolitik. The deal which is being put together to end the war in Ukraine is a remarkable testimony to Trump’s ability to seize economic advantage for the USA, or at least for the class of people in the USA he cares about.

Trump’s Presidency is marked by an undisguised willingness to leverage the massive economic advantages which come from possessing the world’s reserve currency, which means you can just invent money to purchase any good you want from another country, the economy of which becomes addicted to this “cash” flow.

Trump’s trade war has displayed an ability to force other states to make enormous concessions, including reinvesting hundreds of billions of dollars back into US industry, rather than face tariffs which would make it harder to give up their goods as tribute to the USA in return for token dollars.

The reserve currency is essentially a confidence trick. It always works, if and only if the world believes in it. The world was starting to lose its faith in the power of the dollar, and Trump was smart enough to know that the way to maintain a confidence trick is to double down and be still more assertive.

Trump has undoubtedly prolonged, at least a little, American economic supremacy.

The Ukraine deal is a related trick. Part of the “guarantee” of Ukraine’s security is that the Europeans will purchase US $100 billion worth of weapons from US arms manufacturers in order to give said weapons to Ukraine.

It is not planned that any European weapons will be in the deal or that the USA will finance any weapons. A senior FCDO source tells me that Keir Starmer is saying the UK will put “well over” £10 billion into the pot to buy US weapons for Ukraine.

The hope on the European side is that they will be able to pay for this merchant-of-death bonanza with stolen Russian money – assets seized under sanctions. There are two obstacles to this. The first is the international courts, which are most unlikely to agree. The second is Vladimir Putin.

I have never bought into the notion that Russia is militarily infallible and about to triumph quickly and simply. I have certainly never accepted the nonsensical propaganda that the initial disastrous Russian strike at Kiev was just a ruse or feint.

But Russia is indeed now winning and was always going ultimately to prevail on the battlefield. The delusional rhetoric of European leaders over the last few weeks, including from Keir Starmer, attempted to ignore this obvious reality.

Ukraine’s lines in Donetsk are now so untenable that Putin is able to attempt to insist on being given territory he has not conquered yet, because everybody knows that conquest is both unstoppable and imminent.

This is a realpolitik as hard as Trump’s.

The team Trump took to Alaska had substantially more officials connected with commercial policy than with military or foreign policy, and we should not underestimate the extent to which this attempt at agreement is cash driven.

Putin, who is winning the war, will insist on the lifting of economic sanctions and is simply not going to agree to US weapons being purchased for Ukraine by the Europeans with Russian money.

As support for the Ukrainian military is an essential part of the mooted “security guarantee” structure – as opposed to mutual defence commitment – funding will have to be found. This despite Rachel Reeves’s entire philosophy being to please the money markets by austerity.

My FCDO source tells me that plan B, for when the idea of paying with Russian money fails, is for the private financing of the UK’s purchase of US weapons for Ukraine. This has been an important point of preparation.

Just as with the aircraft flying out of Brize Norton, the idea is that a private equity consortium would finance the purchase of the weapons for Ukraine, with repayment by the UK over a twenty-year period.

This means that £10 billion of weaponry would eventually cost the UK about £38 billion. Yes, you read that right. BlackRock and Trump himself are among a variety of investors who would be brought into the scheme as financiers.

There is of course no industry like the weapons industry for corruption: backhanders, directorships, service contracts to front companies, post-retirement jobs. Politicians love the defence industry.

That US $100 billion for weapons will provide lots of lovely pork for absolutely everybody in the picture. Look at the wealth of Tony Blair. Come back to me in ten years’ time and discuss what personal wealth was eventually amassed by each of the people in this photo.

Zelensky is probably the biggest profiteer of all (though he also has bosses to pay off).

I explain in specific detail in both my memoirs – Murder in Samarkand and The Catholic Orangemen of Togo – that international affairs is always driven not only by control of natural resources, but by the corrupt interest of politicians in the companies that acquire them.

That I found first-hand to be true for oil and gas in Uzbekistan and for rutile and diamonds in Sierra Leone.

With Trump, these background motivations step out of the shadows and into the spotlight. So here we have a war which appears, thank goodness, to be drawing to a close, but on the basis of overtly commercial deals.

I expect those European leaders will cheer up. Cash can buy a lot of indignity.

As I have stated frequently, it was and is simply impossible for Ukraine to recover all of its territory of 1991, without a NATO-fuelled war being waged on a scale that would have been certain to escalate to nuclear conflagration.

There will now be border adjustments, be they de facto or also de jure, with the integration of some Russian-speaking areas of Eastern Ukraine into Russia, including Crimea and at least the large majority of the Donbass.

It is simply a statement of fact that there had never existed a Ukrainian state prior to 1991, and that there had never been any state with anything like the borders of 1991 Ukraine. I don’t know why people find incontrovertible historical truth so offensive.

We are going to have a modestly smaller, Western-aligned Ukraine. That seems to me something those Ukrainians who want to be Western-aligned ought to be celebrating. The percentage of the land area of Ukraine likely to be retained by Russia – something under 20% – is a fair approximation to the percentage of the Ukrainian population who would prefer to actually be Russian.

If the putative peace deal can be delivered, it will undoubtedly be better than continuing war. It will be slightly less advantageous to Ukrainian nationalists than the deal that was available in Turkey over two years ago, but which NATO vetoed.

Hopefully Ukrainians have noted that sacrificing an entire generation as cannon fodder for NATO is not a good policy.

European leaders are still attempting to strut their stuff by threatening Putin with further sanctions if a deal is not reached. This simply does not work; Moscow is fine. It in no way counters the military advantage now enjoyed by Putin.

I should like to believe that peace in Ukraine might lead to a reduction in Russophobic hysteria across Europe. But the truth is, that Cold War-style scaremongering is really all these failing European leaders have with which to terrify and control their disgruntled and impoverished populace at present.

They will, however, be ever less convincing.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... 8/ukraine/

******

What to Know About Security Guarantees Under Discussion for Ukraine?

Image
Russian FM Sergei Lavrov. Aug. 2025. X/ @Zlatti_71

August 25, 2025 Hour: 8:09 am

The security measures have emerged as part of renewed diplomatic efforts to end the Ukrainian conflict.
On Saturday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that new developments on security guarantees for the country would be ready “in the coming days.”

The security measures have emerged as part of renewed diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine crisis, and a key topic during the White House talks on Aug. 18 between U.S. President Donald Trump and Zelensky, along with seven European leaders.

WHO MIGHT PROVIDE GUARANTEES?

“At present, the teams of Ukraine, the United States, and European partners” are working on the architecture of the security guarantees, Zelensky said on the social platform X.

At a press conference with Zelensky on Friday, NATO Secretary Mark Rutte said that during their meeting with Trump, the U.S. president had made clear that Washington will be involved in providing security guarantees for Ukraine. “Robust security guarantees will be essential — and this is what we are now working to define,” Rutte added.

Despite a clear indication of U.S. involvement from Rutte, U.S. news outlet Politico reported Wednesday that Washington plans to play a minimal role in any Ukraine security guarantees, citing U.S. Defense Department Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby.


WHAT COULD THEY INCLUDE?

On Friday, Rutte visited Ukraine to lay out the framework of the security guarantees with Zelensky. The Ukrainian president called for “Article 5-like guarantees,” similar to the defense provision of NATO’s founding treaty. The article specifies that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on them all and requires a collective response.

He also aimed for an architecture specifying “which countries assist us on the ground, which are responsible for the security of our skies, which guarantee security at sea and support Ukraine.”

Funding for the Ukrainian army to boost the country’s defense should also be included, the president added. With discussions “now ongoing at many levels,” Rutte said that it is “too early to exactly say what will be the outcome.” But he said the guarantees should be “holding,” unlike previous arrangements.

Rutte outlined that the guarantees would rest on two layers. The first would be to make the Ukrainian Armed Forces “as strong as possible” to defend Ukraine after a peace deal or long-term ceasefire is reached, while the second layer “has to be the security guarantees provided by Europe and the U.S.”

Even before the renewed diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, some European countries had floated the idea of sending “peacekeepers” to Ukraine as part of a security pact.

During his visit to Kiev on Sunday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that Canada, a NATO member, is not excluding the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine as part of security guarantees.

Trump on Tuesday ruled out sending U.S. troops to Ukraine during an interview with Fox News, but suggested that he was open to providing air support there.

In an interview with NBC released on Sunday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the U.S. administration will not send troops to Ukraine, but at the same time, it will “continue to play an active role in trying to ensure that the Ukrainians have the security guarantees and the confidence they need to stop the war on their end.”

RUSSIA’S STANCE

After his talks with Trump on Aug. 15 in the U.S. state of Alaska, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he agreed with Trump that Ukraine’s security must be ensured by all means. “Of course, we are ready to work on this,” the Kremlin quoted Putin as saying.

Russia has repeatedly said it opposes any NATO forces in Ukraine and favors principles of “collective and indivisible security,” a phrase in Russian political jargon generally understood as meaning that a state’s security cannot be achieved at the expense of another’s.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an NBC interview released Sunday that Ukraine’s security guarantees “must be subject to consensus.” Earlier on Wednesday, he said discussing security guarantees for Ukraine without Russian involvement is “a road to nowhere.”

On Thursday, the foreign minister said the West is proposing the provision of security guarantees through foreign military intervention to some part of Ukraine, which will be “absolutely unacceptable” for Russia.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/what-to- ... r-ukraine/

*****

Zelensky wants EU to provide $1 billion monthly allowance to fuel war against Russia

President Trump is considering 'security guarantees' for Ukraine involving US air power and European troops

News Desk

AUG 25, 2025

Image
(Photo credit: Office of the President Of Ukraine)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on 25 August that Kiev plans to secure at least $1 billion monthly from European nations to purchase US weapons to continue his war against Russia.

Zelensky made the comment while speaking alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store during a press conference in Kiev on Monday.

US President Donald Trump is seeking to move away from providing weapons directly to Kiev. He instead wants European nations to purchase US weapons for the Ukrainian military to continue the war.

The Ukrainian president also said Norway could contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine with an emphasis on providing air defense and maritime security.

On 24 August, US Vice President JD Vance claimed Russia has been “flexible” and made “significant concessions” in some core demands as part of negotiations to end the war, including regarding US and European security guarantees.

“They've recognized that they're not going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kiev. That was, of course, a major demand at the beginning. And importantly, they've acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” Vance stated while speaking on NBC News' Meet the Press talk show on Sunday.

Last week, Axios reported that senior officials from the US, Ukraine, and several European countries were discussing a proposal for security guarantees for Ukraine, likely involving US air power.

In an interview with Fox News, President Trump stressed no US troops would be sent to Ukraine, but that he was open to providing air support to European ground forces should they be deployed to the country.

Trump also said he thought Russian President Vladimir Putin would be willing to accept such US and European security guarantees for Ukraine.

However, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said it “categorically” rejects the possibility of “a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries” inside Ukraine.

https://thecradle.co/articles/zelensky- ... nst-russia

*****

Drones: systems, chaos, terror, bikes
Strengths and weaknesses of Russia's Rubicon drone center. Ukr+ Ru perspectives. Statistics and videos.
Events in Ukraine
Aug 26, 2025
∙ Paid
Today’s 6,500 word article will be taking a closer look at Russia’s famed Rubicon drone group. Set up only one year ago, Ukrainian and western analysts have been writing more and more on its efficacy. According to top Ukrainian drone operator Kyryllo Veres, Russian drone operators are ahead of Ukraine in ‘probably everything’, singling out Rubicon.

Image
Rubicon drone operator

A few days ago, I covered detailed analysis of Rubicon from Ukrainian soldier and military analyst Oleksandr Karpyuk. According to him, the unit has ‘really changed the balance on the battlefield’. He credits their coordination with radar systems, electronic warfare and SIGINT. He focused in particular on Rubicon’s success in destroying Ukrainian drone operators. Karpyuk and many other Ukrainian military analysts blame Rubicon for Russia’s numerous military successes of late.

More and more information is emerging about this once secretive unit. Today, we will examine:

— Ukrainian praise for Rubicon. According to military fundraiser Maria Berlinska:

Without operators, drones are meaningless. And more and more of our operators are being taken out.

"Rubicon" has brilliant leadership, operates systematically, has the best personnel selection, training, and is fully provided with everything necessary.


Berlinska provides interesting information on the size of Rubicon and how it is transferring its experience to other Russian units.

She also compares its ‘systematic’ approach to the ‘chaos’ reigning in Ukraine’s army when it comes to the scaling up and integration of drone operation techniques.

— Russian criticism of Rubicon. The inscrutable Russian soul loves to complain. Today, we take a look at what the Russian military correspondents and military veterans Andrey Filatov and Svyatoslav Golykov have to say.

They claim that Rubicon is receiving too much government assistance, and isn’t focusing enough on attacking Ukrainian drone operators and radar/electronic warfare systems.

They also believe that Rubicon is insufficiently well-integrated with the rest of the Russian army.

Somewhat strange, given that the Ukrainians claim the exact opposite. Perhaps Filatov and Golykov are simply jealous of the attention.

Filatov and Golykov do at least base their complaints on exhaustive statistical analysis, comparing how the percentage of different targets (infantry, trenches, various types of UAVs, tanks, artillery etc) hit by Rubicon has changed over the course of the year.

The Russian analysis also involves detailed description of tactics used to combat Ukrainian drone teams, and how increased Ukrainian drone saturation has affected existing approaches. From machine guns to radio-electronic detection systems. Quite relevant to last week’s post on Ukrainian praise for Russian (Chinese) drone detection devices.

Overall, Golykov warns against over-reliance on drone attacks at a disconnect with infantry. In other words, the trap the Ukrainians have fallen into.

We also examine criticisms by other Russians levelled against Golykov’s analysis.

Finally, an interesting excerpt from a recent interview with Donetsk-based military expert Vladimir Noskov, concerning the weaknesses of Russia’s existing drone forces. Though he worries about uneven drone capabilities among Russian troops, he praises Rubicon’s increasing integration with more ordinary units.

I have also translated a detailed after action report by Golykov on how Russia’s failure to exploit the breakthrough around Dobropillia shows that there is still insufficient coordination between drones and other branches of the armed forces. However, he still believes that the breakthrough ‘though insufficiently wide, was not a gamble’. Read on to find out why.

—New tech.

Ukrainians complain of novel measures used by Rubicon drone teams against Ukrainian interceptor drones. The war of drones against drones reaches new heights.

New Russian carrier drone models. Larger drones transport smaller drones, increasing their strike distance capacity.

A remarkable video of a Russian motorcycle transporting 50 FPV drones

A terrifying clip showing how impossible it is to shoot down even relatively slow and nearby drones with machine guns.

For the appropriate atmosphere, here is a video put out today by Rubicon of interceptions of enemy drones. I prefer not to post videos of humans dying: (Video at link.)

(Paywall with free option.)

https://eventsinukraine.substack.com/p/ ... rror-bikes

******

"East" paves the way to the West
August 26, 2025
Rybar

Image

" Liberation of Zaporizhia and counterattacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces at Iskra "

On the northern flank of the Novoselovsky direction, there has been an increase in the number of counterattacks by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which in small groups are trying to “cut off” the penetration of the Russian Armed Forces into their positions near Zeleny Gai .

But on the southern flank, Russian units broke through the defenses of the Ukrainian formations and by August 26 liberated Novogeorgievka and Zaporizhzhya , starting battles for Voronoe .

How the fighting developed in the border area of ​​the Dnepropetrovsk region
At the beginning of the third ten-day period of August, the Ukrainian Armed Forces began trying to infiltrate the outskirts of Iskra and Tolstoy in small groups . Due to the low density of troops on both sides, individual enemy units managed to move along forest belts and penetrate deep into the defenses of the Russian Armed Forces in the Tolstoy area and film a video of the demonstration of the flag in the village.

However, they were not allowed to gain a foothold in the populated area - Russian UAV crews "pinned" the Ukrainian Armed Forces members who had broken through to the basements, after which they were destroyed by the approaching attack aircraft.

In the central sector, units of the 5th separate brigade of the Russian Armed Forces began fighting for Yanvarskoye and Voronoye by August 25. The assault on the villages was preceded by lengthy work by Russian drone operators to cut off the enemy's supply routes from Bolshemikhailovka .

This allowed the stormtroopers to quickly push the enemy back from the approaches to Voronoe and enter the village before the Ukrainian Armed Forces reinforcements were deployed. Ukrainian formations brought in the 225th assault regiment to stop the breakthrough; fierce fighting is currently underway in the area.

On the southern flank, the 57th separate motorized rifle brigade liberated Novogeorgievka by August 20, raising state flags over the village. And during the following week, the brigade's units, taking advantage of the gaps that had formed in the enemy's defenses, drove the Ukrainian Armed Forces out of neighboring Zaporizhzhya .

After the liberation of Novogeorgievka , Ukrainian units in the Kamyshevakha area found themselves trapped, and Russian troops are advancing on the settlement from several sides at once, trying to straighten the front line in the Yanvarskoye-Temirovka area .

This will allow the Russian Armed Forces to begin an offensive on Berezovo , in the area of ​​which the Ukrainian Armed Forces have established a defensive line on this section of the border of the Dnepropetrovsk region . Control over it will open the way for Russian troops to Bolshemykhaylovka .

https://rybar.ru/vostok-prokladyvaet-put-na-zapad/

Google Translator

******

French "volunteer"
August 27, 14:10

Image

One example of how the West "does not fight directly with Russia."

In the summer of 2024, active-duty Colonel of the French Land Forces (LF) François Gonen participated in planning military operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine against Russian troops. This follows from the officer's own article in the latest issue of the Revue militaire générale (RMG) magazine, which is at the disposal of TASS.

In the publication, entitled "Ukraine, Summer 2024: Tactics in the Age of Maximum Lethality," Gonen reports that for four months in 2024 he "carried out tasks" as part of the French military attaché in Kiev . The colonel's biography, provided with the article, states that the officer "was on a mission" in Ukraine.

According to the magazine, Gonen currently holds the position of head of the analysis and planning department in the operational planning department of the headquarters of the 1st Armored Division "Europe" of the French LF. Previously, he served in the Operational Headquarters of the French Army Ground Forces and Operations Command, the General Staff of the French Armed Forces and the Military Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of the Armed Forces of the Republic. Gonen specializes in planning combined arms operations.

The article itself describes in detail the tactical aspects of the invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into the Kursk region and the operations of the Russian Armed Forces in the Donetsk People's Republic in the summer of 2024. At the same time, the publication provides maps of military operations in the DPR for June-August last year, used by the French Ground Forces when planning military operations.

The annual RMG publication is published by the French Ground Forces Prospective Combat Operations Command. -


Image
Image
Image

https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/24880161 - zinc

A number of French military personnel acting as military advisers for the Ukrainian Armed Forces were destroyed by strikes by the Russian Armed Forces in the Kharkov and Odessa regions. Macron at one time was quite hysterical about these “killed volunteers”.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10035986.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Thu Aug 28, 2025 11:46 am

Security guarantees and Ukrainian demands
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/28/2025

Image

With his priorities clear—negotiating the terms of an armed peace following a possible ceasefire first with his allies and then, while limiting Russia's room for maneuver as much as possible, with the enemy—Volodymyr Zelensky continues to manage the day after the war as if talks with his partners were the main part of the peace process. “Ukraine's security,” Zelensky stated yesterday, “is based on strength, on its army.” “That means we need more funding and ammunition in the long term,” he added, in case there was any doubt that kyiv expects the flow of ammunition, weapons, and funding to the Ukrainian Armed Forces not to decrease, but rather to increase in the event of a ceasefire. But despite Zelensky's words, the strength kyiv seeks is not limited to its army, but to the boots of its allies on the ground.

Considering that the primary objective is to achieve a NATO presence on Ukrainian territory, something the current president already desired before the Russian invasion—an invitation to the United Kingdom that was also one of the causes of the war—the bulk of Zelensky's conversations concern military matters rather than political, territorial, or economic issues, essential aspects for making Ukraine viable in the future. Despite the rhetoric of a national liberation war and the propaganda insistence that Russia is trying to destroy the state by making it unviable, these are seemingly secondary issues at a time when war and the resulting military positioning are the only things that matter in kyiv. Hence, Zelensky's main meetings at this time focus on purely military matters. “We are in daily contact with our partners and allies, with whom we have meetings and conversations,” the Ukrainian president stated, adding that “it is important to be as practical as possible. It is important that everything be as practical as possible: what forces will be deployed on land, in the air, and at sea; everything must be clearly defined.” Zelensky's words clearly show what the priorities are and, therefore, who the priority interlocutors are.

In this context, the Ukrainian leader yesterday received Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of Staff of one of the two sponsors of the Coalition of the Willing, the United Kingdom, and his eventual successor, Sir Richard Knighton. The meeting is representative for both sides. Not only Ukraine considers war the raison d'être of the state, but also European countries, especially the United Kingdom, which is particularly interested in using war to weaken its historic enemy Russia as much as possible, have chosen to view the conflict as existential, at the center of European defense policy and international relations. Everything is currently viewed through the prism of war in London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, although this stance is even more pronounced in Kyiv, where political careers and, what is surely secondary to Zelensky and his circle, the quality of life of millions of people are at stake in the outcome of war and peace.

“We discussed further support for Ukraine: the situation on the front lines, the needs of our soldiers and the supply of necessary weapons, funding for the production of Ukrainian drones and joint projects. We also discussed diplomatic efforts to end the war and achieve a real and lasting peace,” Zelensky wrote, in a mention of diplomacy that is practically anecdotal given how quickly the Ukrainian president always returns to the military aspect. “We must intensify our work as much as possible and ensure clarity and transparency in everything related to security guarantees. Therefore, we also analyzed in detail the initiatives of the national security advisers regarding security guarantees for Ukraine and the progress made within the Coalition of the Willing,” he insisted. The apparent European prominence in the conversation about sending troops to Ukrainian territory in the event of a definitive ceasefire cannot hide the fact that everything depends on the outcome of these negotiations that Ukraine's partners are conducting, not with kyiv, but with the United States to prepare the ground for a military presence, the least important aspect of which is whether it can make political negotiations with Russia impossible. Imposing faits accomplis that Moscow cannot refuse has always been the goal, so it should come as no surprise that Sergey Lavrov repeatedly stated this week that security guarantees for Ukraine have not been discussed in Moscow's contacts. Avoiding these issues, especially if it is bilateral and direct between the United States and Russia, is something Ukraine and its European defenders must avoid. Everything else, including the political, economic, and humanitarian aspects of a possible peace process that has yet to begin, can wait.

Despite the media and political rhetoric—primarily European, but also Trump's—that makes it seem as though it is solely Russia delaying the possibility of a ceasefire or a political agreement to end the war, Ukraine is also in no hurry to meet with Vladimir Putin or begin negotiations that would spell out the terms of peacemaking. Donald Trump implicitly admitted this when asked if Russia refuses to meet with Zelensky, considering him illegitimate. "It doesn't matter what they say. They're all just putting on an act. It's all nonsense, okay? They're all putting on an act," the US president responded, suggesting that the statements currently being made by the parties should not be taken seriously. It's all part of the political theater of positioning, in which the goal is to extract maximum concessions from the enemy while always offering the minimum possible. In this game, with the full support of European countries, confidence in its communication skills, and an exaggerated sense of Zelensky's value as a political asset, Ukraine hopes to outdo Russia's diplomatic capabilities—no small feat, given that Moscow, seemingly isolated, has managed to have the red carpet rolled out for it on US soil—and impose its terms on the military issue.

“We are working very actively with the Americans. Following our meeting in Washington, we now have a new basis for our joint efforts. This is significant,” Zelensky stated in his regular daily address to the nation, published Tuesday evening. In the Financial Times, one of the media outlets with the best connections and the greatest ability to access important sources, Christopher Miller explained yesterday the latest developments in outlining a NATO armed presence that Ukraine considers sufficient as a security guarantee for accessing a political process that could lead to a ceasefire.

“Washington already supplies Ukraine with Patriot air defense missiles, but postwar aid would include US aviation, logistics, and ground-based radars to support and enable a European-implemented no-fly zone and air shield for the country,” Miller states, providing a much more detailed description than what the US has implied. Therefore, it is likely that the sources talking about a no-fly zone—which, as seen in Libya, is not only a defensive move but primarily an offensive one—are European and even Ukrainian. According to the outlet, last week, Donald Trump informed his European partners that the United States would participate in “coordinating security guarantees for postwar Ukraine.” Since then, “senior US officials have told their European counterparts in multiple conversations that Washington would be willing to contribute strategic enablers,” including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and air defense assets to enable any European-led deployment on the ground.” While this is the proposal Ukraine has been demanding from its main military supplier for months, everything depends on the presence of European troops on the ground (and, although the article doesn't dwell on them, on the ability of European countries to make an attractive economic offer to the United States). According to the outlet, European countries plan to deploy to provide rearguard security, while troops from "neutral" third countries are in charge of a so-called demilitarized zone. a reference to the Korean scenario, where the DMZ has become one of the most militarized areas on the planet. US troops would be even further from the danger of the front lines.

“The United States continues to oppose deploying its own troops in Ukraine,” the representatives added. “Other Trump administration officials, including Secretary Hegseth, are skeptical of any participation in post-war guarantees for fear that it would draw the United States into future conflicts,” the same article states. Too involved in the conflict with Russia to worry about a direct war, Europe is trying to prevent this position of the Pentagon leader, shaped by the opinion of his Undersecretary of Defense Policy, an anti-China hawk who advocates using all resources in the Asia-Pacific region, from becoming Donald Trump’s official position. However, the opinion of a segment of Trumpism is not the only one opposed to sending troops to Ukraine. As The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, despite the obvious desire of political leaders of several European powers to have a European contingent on Ukrainian territory, neither the French nor the German population supports it. Citing the relatively small majority of the German governing coalition in Parliament, which would have to approve the deployment, the American outlet recalls the fervently opposing position of "the far right and the far left"—thus equating AfD with Die Linke, which is hardly radical—and adds that, according to a recent survey, 56% of the German population opposes their country contributing to a possible military deployment in Ukraine. In France, the percentage rises to 67% in the event of a ceasefire and 68% if it occurs without a cessation of the war. The scant change in the ceasefire variable is particularly significant, which can possibly be understood as a symptom of little faith in the cessation of hostilities.

The opinions of European populations are irrelevant to Ukraine—and perhaps to those governments as well—which, in statements to the Financial Times, outlined what it expects from its continental allies. According to Andriy Ermak, each coalition country will contribute differently, "and in the end, the picture will be a mix of military, political, and economic support." Ukraine aspires to obtain four or five European brigades (between 12,000 and 25,000 troops) "plus US strategic facilitators," meaning thousands of NATO troops in addition to massive cover provided by the country, without which it is impossible for Ukraine to accept security guarantees.

kyiv is not content with the presence of thousands of troops from European NATO member countries on the ground, but is demanding a significant role from the United States, which, according to Andriy Ermak, "can provide the backbone of all the work on the security and deterrence architecture." Over the years, kyiv has made demands left and right: heavy weapons, aircraft, troops, a no-fly zone, missiles to attack Russia, and US involvement. Now, as part of a "peace" negotiation, it is demanding them all at once, regardless of the risk of derailing any possibility of an agreement or increasing the danger of direct confrontation between major powers.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/28/garan ... cranianas/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Forwarded from
Especially for RT
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia @medvedev_telegram

The countries of the Old World are intoxicated with militaristic frenzy. And, like enchanted moths, they flock to the destructive flame of the North Atlantic Alliance. Until recently, there were enough countries in Europe that understood that their security could be ensured without joining military blocs. Now reason is giving way to the herd instinct. Following Finland and Sweden, the Austrian establishment, incited by bloodthirsty Brussels, is heating up the public debate about abandoning the constitutionally enshrined neutral status for the sake of joining NATO . Austrian society is not delighted with the idea. The liberal party "New Austria" led by Foreign Minister B. Meinl-Reisinger, rushing into the embrace of the bloc, did not gain even 10% of the votes in the last elections. But the opposition Austrian Freedom Party, which is strongly against blindly copying the militaristic agenda of Brussels, was supported by 37% of citizens. But who in Europe today will the will of the people stop?

Local revisionists have been making efforts to erode Austria's neutrality for quite some time. Since the 1990s, they began to establish military ties under the guise of "participation in the EU's common security and defense policy." Until 2009, when the Lisbon Treaty came into force, everything was limited to general words about coordinating military construction by EU states, but without obligations. Afterwards, they insisted that the treaty did not specify either the scale or the time frame for the assistance that the states of "united Europe" are obliged to provide in the event of an attack. And in general, the EU was considered an economic union. They preferred to remain silent about the fact that most of its countries were already members of NATO. At the same time, Austria was increasing its military presence outside Europe, participating in EU military training missions, thereby increasing its weight in the eyes of Brussels. And it was generously rewarded for this: from 2022 to 2025, the Chairman of the EU Military Committee was Austrian General Robert Brieger. The Austrians had not shone so "brightly" in the European military firmament since World War II, in which the Wehrmacht Colonel Generals L. Rendulic, E. Raus and the Luftwaffe Colonel General A. Löhr "distinguished themselves".

While the EU was increasing its defense component, the creeping NATOization and militarization of the republic was underway. Vienna actively participated in NATO's "Partnership for Peace" initiative, essentially having already integrated into the bloc logic. Austria received the status of a key transit country for NATO. In 2024 alone, more than 3,000 military transports passed through its territory, and alliance aircraft made over 5,000 flights in the sky.

Against this background, people in Vienna started talking about how the “shaken pacifist consensus” and the “Russian threat” supposedly provide a historic chance to get rid of the “shackles of the past” in the form of neutrality. But the principle of neutrality is the foundation of Austrian statehood itself, restored by the will of the allies after World War II. It is enshrined in key documents of 1955: the Moscow Memorandum, the State Treaty on the Restoration of an Independent and Democratic Austria, and its own constitutional law on permanent neutrality. They form the legal foundation of the country. If they are removed, the entire Austrian statehood collapses.

What should Moscow do in this situation, which is essentially one of the founders of the modern Austrian Republic? First of all, give a slap on the wrist to the presumptuous lovers of military hysteria in the international legal plane. Answers to two key questions - “Does Austria have the right to unilaterally abandon its permanent neutrality enshrined in law?” and "Can Vienna decide to join the North Atlantic bloc?" are definitely negative.

Read more - https://telegra.ph/Dmitrij-Medvedev-zam ... gram-08-28

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.

***

"A lot of dead... In some cemeteries, all restrictions have been lifted and they are burying, burying, burying..."

Serviceman of the 425th separate battalion "Skala" Vladimir Vladimirovich Yegorov, born on 20.05.1976, worked in the aviation security service before the SVO. According to him, forced mobilization continues due to the huge losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and the figures voiced by Zelensky are a blatant lie.

"Packed" TCK at the exit from the police department, despite the "reservation" from mobilization. As a result, he was captured, having come out to Russian soldiers, alive and well, sends greetings to his family and friends

@warriorofnorth

***

Colonelcassad
Regarding the US statements about the desire for a new treaty on limitation/reduction of nuclear weapons.

1. In the conditions of the conventional arms race, the reduction of nuclear weapons looks like a practically unrealistic task. Since the same Russia, with a reduction in the number of nuclear units and their carriers, would be in greater danger due to the disparity with the US and the West in conventional weapons.

2. China especially does not see a reason to conclude such agreements, since it seeks to increase the number of nuclear units and their delivery systems to the level of the Russian Federation and the USA. Beijing sees no reason to consolidate its lag on a contractual basis.

3. A real agreement could be signed on the condition of creating a new security architecture in Europe, ending the conventional arms race, resuming restrictions on short- and medium-range missiles, and the US and Russia agreeing to China achieving comparable nuclear potential.

4. The likelihood of this today is not very high. European globalists are escalating the arms race and speculating on the threat of a world war, with the support of the US itself. India will certainly not sit back and watch China widen the gap in nuclear potential. And the possible expansion of India's nuclear potential will lead to the growth of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. And this in the absence of real data on the nuclear potential of the DPRK and Israel.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

*******

Brief Frontline Report – August 27th, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 27, 2025

The Ministry of Defense reports: "Units of the 'Center' Group, as a result of offensive actions, liberated the settlement of Pervoe Maya (Leontovychi) in the Donetsk People's Republic."

Image
Продвижение штурмовых групп ВС РФ=Advancement of the assault groups of the Russian Armed Forces

The settlement of Pervoe Maya (Leontovychi 48°15′29"N 37°07′58"E, about 700 residents) is located on the southwestern outskirts of the city of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk). In the area of the settlement, there was a network of Ukrainian Armed Forces strongholds based on a line of ponds and the old Kravchenko mine. Capturing this area of the Ukrainian defense allows our assault groups to begin active operations in the western districts of the city, cut the T-04-06 route (Krasnoarmeysk-Udachnoe; just follow the red arrow north from Pervoe Maya), and disrupt the coordination of defense sectors on the right flank of the defense node of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Pokrovsk.

To the east, Russian assault groups are conducting active operations in the Lazurny microdistrict.

Image
Operational-Tactical area of the Donetsk Direction

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-27th

*****

Russia Targets Ukraine’s Energy Infrastructure

Image
X/ @IuliiaMendel

August 27, 2025 Hour: 8:25 am

Gas transportation infrastructure in the Poltava region sustained significant damage.
Overnight on Wednesday, Russia launched drone attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including gas transit facilities, in six regions.

The strikes targeted the northern Chernihiv and Sumy regions, the eastern Kharkiv and Donetsk regions, the southern Zaporizhzhia region, and the central Poltava region.

Gas transportation infrastructure in the Poltava region sustained significant damage, the Ukrainian Energy Ministry said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Air Force said it intercepted 74 out of the 95 drones launched by Russia, while 21 drones hit nine locations.


Previously, on Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he is considering “very serious” economic sanctions against Russia if it rejects a ceasefire in the conflict in Ukraine.

“It’s very, very serious what I have in mind, if I have to do it, but I want to see it end. We have economic sanctions. I’m talking about economic because we’re not going to get into a world war,” Trump said in response to a reporter asking if Russian President Vladimir Putin would face consequences should he fail to agree to a ceasefire.

Trump has long threatened sanctions against Russia and is trying to mediate a one-to-one meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for which the Kremlin has said conditions have not been ready.

Last week Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that deploying foreign troops in Ukraine is unacceptable to Russia, as the U.S. and Europe work to provide security guarantees for Kiev.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/russia-t ... structure/

******

Lessons from the Americans
August 27, 2025
Rybar

"How to promise something that already exists"
An interesting article appeared
in the Financial Times : Washington allegedly expressed its readiness to provide the so-called Ukraine with strategic intelligence resources, air defense systems, as well as logistical and air support as part of a future plan to ensure the country's security after a possible peace agreement with Russia.

What are the US plans?
The issue is about including such key components as American aviation, intelligence and command systems in the European system. At the same time, the US still rules out the deployment of its troops on Ukrainian territory.

The initiative is being discussed within the framework of the "Coalition of the Willing." As European officials admit, full-fledged protection of Ukrainian territory is impossible without American participation, especially in the sphere of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and air support.

According to the FT, the plan involves deploying tens of thousands of European troops on the country's territory and creating a multi-layered defense system, with the US playing a key role in this scenario, providing command and intelligence infrastructure and air cover from the rear.

The publication's journalists are once again speculating on hackneyed topics, selling them as "sensational." For example, the same issue with peacekeepers has been discussed for over a year, but Western countries have not yet come close to a solution that would satisfy everyone.

What's even funnier is that the White House promised to provide intelligence to the so-called Ukraine. The FT writes as if this is something unthinkable, but the Americans have been transmitting information to the Ukrainian authorities since 2014, and with the start of the NWO, coordination has only intensified.

The RQ-4B drones flying near Crimea are not doing this for nothing. Archangel Spetsnaz writes about a complex reconnaissance operation, including by means of the E-3F AWACS aircraft of the French Aerospace Forces. And this is also in the interests of the enemy, in particular for drone strikes.

The Americans supplied the Ukrainian Armed Forces with intelligence, coordinated HIMARS strikes, and monitored F-16 flights throughout the conflict. And it is clear that they will continue to do so. There is no sensation in this, just another story blown out of proportion by the media.

https://rybar.ru/uroki-ot-amerikanczev/

Fighting on the flanks of Pokrovsk
August 27, 2025
Rybar

Image

In the Pokrovsk-Mirnograd direction, the situation on the north-eastern flank is gradually becoming clearer.

In the area of ​​Zolotoy Kolodez and Kucherov Yar, Russian assault groups are still operating, having penetrated the enemy's defenses, but there is no information yet about the formation of a stable front line. At the same time, to the south, the Russian Armed Forces are breaking through to the T-05-15 highway , leading to Belitskoye and Pokrovsk .

What is known at the moment?
To the north of Rodinskoye, Russian troops managed to liberate Suvorovo and expand the zone of control west of Sukhetskoye ; the enemy was driven out of its stronghold in the forest belts halfway to Belitskoye . Fighting continues for Rodinskoye itself.

In the area of ​​Mirnoye and Nikolayevka east of Kazeny Torets , Russian troops are searching for and destroying the remaining enemy groups. But the south of Novoekonomichesky remains in the "gray zone". At the same time, an increase in the number of strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces on Ukrainian Armed Forces positions in Mirnohrad is noted . On the southern flank, near another Nikolayevka, there are counter-clashes on the approaches to the city.

Fierce fighting continues on the approaches to Pokrovsk . Russian troops are advancing from Zverevo . Several strongholds have been cleared to the south and northwest of the village. The Russian Armed Forces are also advancing along the railway line near Chunishino . In Pokrovsk itself, Ukrainian formations fired at the positions of attack aircraft in the Lazurny microdistrict from a tank some time ago . Later, UAV operators caught the vehicle in the city center and destroyed it .

https://rybar.ru/boi-na-flangah-pokrovska/

Google Translator

******

Russian BEK sank "Simferopol"
August 28, 13:00

Image

Breaking news.
The Russian Defense Ministry reported that a Russian BEK sank the Ukrainian Navy's medium intelligence ship Simferopol in the mouth of the Danube

With the initiative. This is the first large ship sunk by a Russian BEK. The episode will go down in the history of the Russian fleet.

Image

The ship was new. It was built on the basis of a trawler and delivered to the Ukrainian Navy in 2019.
Displacement is about 1,300 tons.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10038066.html

Google Translator

*******

Here’s What the US’ Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Look Like
Andrew Korybko
Aug 28, 2025

Trump appears to be pushing his luck with Putin, who’s open to compromises, not concessions, let alone significant security ones. If this approach doesn’t change, then a serious escalation is expected.

Western security guarantees for Ukraine are one of the main issues delaying a political resolution to the conflict. Russia launched its special operation (SMO) primarily in response to NATO-emanating threats from Ukraine. It would therefore be a significant concession for Russia to agree to some level of those threats, perhaps even in some more intense forms than pre-SMO, remaining after the conflict ends. As it turns out, however, that’s precisely what Trump envisages per his own statements and recent reports:

* 18 August: “Ukraine offers Trump $100bn weapons deal to win security guarantees”

* 23 August: “Pentagon Has Quietly Blocked Ukraine’s Long-Range Missile Strikes on Russia”

* 25 August: “Trump says US has stopped bankrolling Ukraine”

* 25 August: “US won’t play key role in Ukraine’s security guarantees – Trump”

* 26 August: “US offers air and intelligence support to postwar force in Ukraine”

The corresponding takeaways are that: 1) Ukraine wants Trump to continue his new policy of indirectly arming it via new arms sales to NATO; 2) although Ukraine is no longer allowed by the US to strike universally recognized Russian territory, 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition air-launched missiles were just approved per the aforesaid policy; 3) such deals represent his new approach to the conflict; 4) he’s reluctant to get any more deeply involved; but 5) the US could still aid EU forces in Ukraine.

From Russia’s official perspective, which might speculatively not reflect its actual one behind closed doors: 1) the continued flow of any NATO arms into Ukraine is unacceptable; 2) it’s even worse if they’re modern offensive ones (the Javelins and Stingers from pre-SMO were already bad enough); 3) Trump’s pride in his new policy makes it unlikely that he’ll change course; 4) it’s praiseworthy though that he doesn’t want to get more deeply involved; but 5) any Western forces in Ukraine remain unacceptable.

Accordingly, the apples of discord are the continued flow of modern offensive arms to Ukraine and the US’ flirtation with backing EU troops there, which the earlier cited report claimed could deploy some distance from the front behind NATO-trained Ukrainian troops and neutral countries’ peacekeepers. US backing could reportedly take the form of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; command and control; more air defenses; and aircraft, logistics, and radar supporting an EU-enforced no-fly zone.

The abovementioned scenario would intensify NATO-emanating threats from Ukraine. It would be a more formidable adversary than in the pre-SMO era and this time have the direct backing of some NATO countries’ troops on its territory even if the US doesn’t officially provide Article 5 protection to them. The risk of a hot NATO-Russian war breaking out either by the bloc’s design or Ukraine manipulating them into it through future provocations would thus be unprecedentedly high and remain an enduring threat.

Russia is therefore unlikely to agree to this even if the West coerces Ukraine into ceding all of the disputed regions, which is unlikely in any case, since that would amount to the nature of NATO-emanating threats in Ukraine being much worse than pre-SMO. At most, Russia might agree to modern offensive arms flowing into Ukraine and maybe Western troops west of the Dnieper, but only if everything east of the river is demilitarized and the US significantly decreases its forces in Europe.

The demilitarization proposal was first put forth in January here and would also entail this “Trans-Dnieper” region (TDR) being controlled by non-Western peacekeepers with only a token Ukraine presence such as local police forces. This arrangement aligns with the spirit of what’s now being considered per the previously cited report with regard to neutral countries’ peacekeepers patrolling the front, NATO-trained Ukrainian troops behind them, and then Western ones some distance back.

The differences though are that the TDR wouldn’t be demilitarized due to the presence of NATO-trained Ukrainian troops there and the EU would enforce a no-fly zone, whether over all of Ukraine or just west of the TDR. Russia might accept NATO-trained Ukrainian troops in the TDR if Kiev cedes all of the disputed regions, but a no-fly zone over there would likely remain unacceptable. A significant decrease in US forces in Europe, however, might make one west of the Dnieper more palatable for Russia.

To summarize, Trump’s interest in continuing his new policy of indirectly arming Ukraine via NATO and even aiding some of the bloc’s forces there could in theory be approved by Russia as part of a political solution, but only under very specific conditions. These are territorial cessions and a demilitarized TDR controlled by non-Western peacekeepers, while an EU-enforced no-fly zone west of the river might – in the highly unlikely scenario that it’s agreed to – require a significant decrease in US forces in Europe.

The problem though is that Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against Russia after the recent White House Summit on security guarantees with Zelensky and a handful of European leaders. This includes counterfactually slamming Biden for not authorizing Ukrainian attacks inside of Russia’s universally recognized territory and threatening economic war with Russia if Putin doesn’t compromise. Trump might thus try to make Putin’s worst-case scenario a fait accompli as explained in this analytical series:

* 16 August: “What’s Standing In The Way Of A Grand Compromise On Ukraine?”

* 21 August: “Which Western Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Be Acceptable To Putin?”

* 22 August: “Direct NATO Intervention In Ukraine Might Soon Dangerously Turn Into A Fait Accompli”

The EU, Zelensky, and US warmongers like Lindsey Graham would prefer for Trump to either make unacceptable demands of Putin that sabotage the peace process, which can then be spun to justify Western escalation, or dangerously force him into this fait accompli. Judging from Trump’s words thus far and recent reports, he’s pushing his luck with Putin; who’s open to compromises, not concessions, let alone significant security ones. If this approach doesn’t change, then a serious escalation is expected.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/heres-wh ... guarantees
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14404
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Footnotes from the Ukrainian "Crisis"; New High-Points in Cynicism Part V

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 29, 2025 11:48 am

Attacks in kyiv
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 08/29/2025

Image

“Russia has launched a barrage of airstrikes on Ukrainian cities despite pressure from US President Donald Trump for a ceasefire and even as it stresses the importance of ending the war, sparked by its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The attack, one of the deadliest in Kyiv, tore a five-story crater in an apartment block, splitting the building in two. AFP reporters watched rescue teams carry victims away in body bags as they sifted through the smoldering rubble. Heavy construction equipment was deployed to remove piles of debris. Authorities warned that several people were still believed to be trapped beneath the collapsed building,” AFP wrote yesterday about the Russian bombardment of Kyiv, the heaviest in recent weeks.

“629 missiles and drones in a single night over Ukraine: this is Russia's idea of ​​peace. Terror and barbarism. More than a dozen dead, including children. Residential areas and civilian infrastructure were deliberately attacked. The offices of the European Union Delegation and the British Council were damaged. France condemns these cruel and senseless attacks in the strongest possible terms. All our support goes to the Ukrainian people and our deepest sympathy goes out to all the bereaved families,” wrote Emmanuel Macron. As on previous occasions, the bombing quickly gave rise to an exchange of justifications and condemnations, always without highlighting the most important aspect: the fact that, without genuine political negotiations based on realistic terms, such events will continue to occur periodically both in Ukraine and in the Ukrainian territories under Russian control and in the Russian Federation.

Despite Ukrainian and Western proclamations practically since the beginning of the Russian invasion about the shortage of missiles in the Russian arsenal, Moscow has demonstrated that its industry, stretched to the limit according to Patricia Marins, is still capable of supplying the material with which to attack regularly, although not in the daily manner with which the State of Israel acts against the territory of Gaza and its civilian population. According to the Russian side, yesterday's attack sought to destroy industrial production sites as well as military bases. Without any evidence to this effect—although it would not be the first time that a drone assembly workshop has been located in a residential neighborhood, as media outlets such as El País have openly admitted —Russia claimed yesterday that even in the most blatant case of a direct attack on a residential building, where the greatest number of casualties occurred, the target was the offices of the company UkrSpecSystems, dedicated to the production of drones. One of the impacts that Ukraine admits to having suffered was at one of the Bayraktar factories installed after the Russian invasion to increase military production. Russia, which insisted that its attack had been carried out with high-precision weapons, thus seeking to refute accusations of indiscriminate bombing, also reported having shot down around 100 Ukrainian drones on its territory.

Image

Despite the high death toll, including three minors, a significant portion of Western complaints were directed not so much at the demolished residential building but at the damage to the European Union headquarters. “I just spoke with my colleagues at the European Union Delegation to Ukraine in Kyiv after our building was damaged by a Russian attack. Their determination to continue supporting Ukraine strengthens us. No diplomatic mission should ever be a target. In response, we will summon the Russian envoy in Brussels,” wrote Kaja Kallas, referring to what the EU considers a deliberate attack by the Russian Federation against it, which caused no injuries. The broken glass, evidently due to the activity of the Ukrainian air defense, was one of the main topics of discussion at the Brussels Delegation in Kyiv yesterday morning for those who only condemn attacks on their own or their allies' diplomatic missions, but never those of their opponents. “The EU delegation in Kyiv was damaged by today's Russian attacks on civilian areas. I strongly condemn these brutal attacks, a clear sign that Russia rejects peace and chooses terrorism. Our full solidarity with the EU staff, their families, and all Ukrainians suffering from this aggression,” EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos had earlier written. “Last night, their offices became the target of yet another indiscriminate Russian attack during this senseless aggression,” added Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament, whose definition of “indiscriminate” depends on who the attacker is. All these speeches follow the same tone of exaggerating the damage and portraying a horror that the European institutions, like the member states, are using to once again demand more weapons for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, and increased pressure on Moscow.

A perfect example of European rhetoric is the message posted by Finland's Alexander Stubb, arguably the European leader with the best rapport with Donald Trump, who in a few words clearly presented the European cause. "The latest Russian attacks against civilian targets in Kyiv are another example of three simple facts: 1. Russia has no intention of ending this war. 2. Russia has not changed its primary strategic objective of destroying Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. 3. Russian attacks against civilian targets are a flagrant violation of international law. The only thing President Putin understands is power. The only thing that will bring him to the negotiating table is pressure. Finland will continue to support Ukraine with all necessary diplomatic, financial, and military efforts. As long as it takes," he wrote on social media, before, without much subtlety, returning to the demands for more sanctions and force against Russia. In the current discourse of peace through force , the European objective is the same as that of Ukraine: for the United States to increase the pressure of sanctions and for Kiev to have the necessary weapons to do in Russia what is criticized in Ukraine and what, even without permission to use Western missiles, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are already doing with their constant drone attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, especially oil pipelines and refineries. The air war has not stopped at any point and, despite the Western attempt to present it that way, it is not unilateral. This narrative is useful for European representatives, who have always been most reticent about diplomacy, to take advantage of the situation to try to squander any possibility of dialogue. Yesterday, Foreign Minister Merz assumed that due to the bombing of Kiev, the long-awaited meeting between Putin and Zelensky, which has not even been agreed upon yet, would not take place.

Combining peace talk with a preference for the use of force, the EU is once again returning to the demand for an unconditional ceasefire, in keeping with the European ultimatum of May 9, which has never been viable and was always proposed precisely because it wasn't. The proposal once again demonstrates the EU's commitment to making any attempt at diplomacy as difficult as possible. However, in this context, where words contradict political action, Kaja Kallas yesterday demanded that Russia "stop killing and negotiate."

As happened last June in the case of Iran, the generic word "negotiate" hides the tagline " under the conditions set by those ordering the negotiations" —in this case, Kiev and the European Union. Their interests are shared and involve imposing diplomacy from above, starting with a meeting of presidents, a ceasefire imposed on Russia, and subsequent future negotiations without any guarantee that an agreement will be reached. "While the world searches for a path to peace, Russia responds with missiles," condemned Kallas, the leading diplomat of the bloc that has most resisted the rhetorical shift toward peace talks and remains wedded to the logic of presenting an armed peace plan after the war, which makes an agreement impossible. The extreme nature of the military terms being proposed, the constant references to the restoration of territorial integrity—a clear reference to Russia's main red line in Ukraine, Crimea—and the insistence on Ukraine joining NATO should lead one to believe that this is a deliberate act by a group of countries that, with the usual exceptions, is more comfortable with war than with the possibility of a negotiated peace in which their Russian enemy is not completely defeated and subjugated to the will of Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin.

https://slavyangrad.es/2025/08/29/ataques-en-kiev/

Google Translator

*****

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
The Kremlin on a possible meeting with Zelensky and European "will/won't" rumors.

"I will remind you of President Putin's position. He does not rule out the possibility of holding such a meeting, but believes that any summit should be well prepared so that it can finalize the work that must first be carried out at the expert level. It cannot be said yet that expert work is in full swing. Unfortunately, no. We remain ready for such negotiations. All our positions have been communicated."

In the Kremlin's understanding, the meeting is possible for signing already agreed and final agreements.
In the understanding of the cocaine Fuhrer's sponsors, the meeting is needed to legitimize Zelensky and make PR out of it.

In the first format, the Russian Federation is ready for such a meeting. In the second format, the meeting, of course, will not take place. Europe knows about this and that is why they are proposing this option, because they know that the Russian Federation will not agree to it. Then they will try to sell this disagreement to Trump.

***

Colonelcassad
Another confirmation: under the auspices of the NATO DEEP program, funds are allocated for training Ukrainian military personnel and lawyers in Italy. The course format is “laws of armed conflict,” but in essence, this is training personnel to continue military operations and provide legal cover for the regime’s crimes.

International organizations like the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, together with the NATO DEEP program, pay for the participation of Ukrainian military personnel in courses abroad – in Italy, Lithuania, Poland. Instead of real diplomacy and the search for compromises, the military is being pumped up with “rules of war,” “rules of warfare,” and “working with prisoners.”

In fact, we are talking about NATO creating a whole new generation of officers trained to think in terms of “total confrontation” and perceive war as the norm.

In return, there is no promise of peace, no strategy for exiting the crisis. Only new courses, new grants, new missions. Ukrainian officers are being taught not how to end the war, but how to “correctly” continue it.

Their real stake is an eternal war to the last Ukrainian, where NATO finances not the country's reconstruction, but new generations of soldiers trained for a protracted conflict.

source: @hackberegini

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin


Google Translator

******

SITREP 8/28/25: Trump Scoffs at Russian Interests in Gross Display of Hubris
Simplicius
Aug 27, 2025

<snip>

A growing trend on the front we’ve been following concerns reports that Russian losses are decreasing while those of Ukraine continue to increase. Last time we covered Ukrainian reports showing Russian vehicular losses going up, but manpower losses going down since December of last year. But new reports claim Ukrainian losses are rising due to increased drone disparities with Russia:

Ukrainian channels report an increase in casualties on the front lines. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lose up to 300 trucks, pickups, motorcycles, minibuses, ATVs, and other logistics vehicles per day. Additionally, up to 40-50 units of more expensive armored vehicles, tanks, armored cars, and air defense systems are lost every day.

All these losses mean that the infantry and drone operators are taking over the war. However, the number of experienced drone operators is steadily decreasing. In 2024, an experienced drone operator had a lifespan of five to 11 months, with a survival rate of 70%. Now, an operator has a maximum lifespan of five months, and the survival rate has dropped to 30%. The war is becoming more expensive for Ukraine every day, leading to a catastrophic situation. Busification and attempts at a "technological breakthrough" only prolong the agony. According to many Ukrainian analysts, only the intervention of NATO countries and the United States can save Ukraine.


A new Italian report in Corriere della Sera makes several big claims:

Image
https://www.corriere.it/esteri/25_agost ... axlk.shtml

Summary:

NATO drones for Ukraine turned out to be "useless," — Corriere della Sera

▪️Ukrainian military admit that NATO equipment does not cope with the reality of the front.

▪️Russia has already surpassed Kyiv in production scale and technology: fiber-optic drones in Russia fly up to 25 km, while in Ukraine — only up to 15 km.

➖"For every one of our drones, the Russians launch ten; moreover, they have more people for patrolling," added the Ukrainian serviceman.

RVvoenkor


As stated above, firstly the article mentions that NATO increasingly provides “obsolete” drones to Ukraine, while Russia innovates with progressively modern and high-tech ones.

Then it corroborates that Russian drones far exceeds those of Ukraine:

“For every one of our drones, the Russians fire ten; they also have more men to send on patrol,” says the officer. For the past few days, both armies have been launching matka, “mother” drones that can fly up to 50 kilometers away and have two small kamikaze “children” attached to their wings. These are expensive objects: over €200,000 for a single matka. So far, they have been used sparingly.

In a new Politico piece, one of Ukraine’s top drone commanders, Yurih Fedorenko of the 429th Separate Regiment of Unmanned Systems, says multiple times that Ukraine is behind Russia in drone production:

This roughly matches the scale that Fedorenko defined as the bare minimum for Ukraine’s competitiveness. “In total, we’re talking about 350,000 drones per month,” he said. “Then, we will be able to objectively reach parity with the enemy, even outpace them in some areas, and maintain a sustained tempo of destroying their forces on the battlefield.”

Image
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... a-00514712

Interestingly, even after singing the praises of drone warfare for its entire length, the article concludes that artillery is still king:

But for now, the Ukrainian officer whose name is synonymous with drone warfare sounded a cautionary note about the transformation of the modern battlefield. The idea that unmanned systems could fully replace artillery or infantry is a misconception, said Fedorenko.

“In poor weather — heavy rain, strong wind, or snow — drones often cannot fly or gather clear imagery. “Who will kill the enemy? The artillery,” he said. “It fires in any weather. It will fulfill the task. No one will replace artillery in the next 50 years.” The same applies to infantry: It is still human beings who operate tanks and firearms, he said.


Yet they want us to believe that the country which rules in artillery warfare, and which—as admitted in the article—even produces the most drones, is somehow suffering ‘more casualties’ in the war. Who’s naive enough to fall for that?

If you want another humorous glimpse into how lost and out of touch the West is when it comes to warfare, here’s an MSM excerpt featuring leading think tank ‘expert’ on warfare, Rebecca Grant, giving her views on how a NATO force could easily “cream” Russian forces in Ukraine using the same ‘unprecedented’ airpower used against Iraq—not to mention “nuclear armed F-35s”: (Video at link.)



Getting back to the topic of slowing Russian losses, one of the seeming explanations for this is an increasing prioritization on safety and cautious assault approaches. Mind you, this is just a working theory as we’ll have to watch how offensives on the key semi-surrounded cities develop to truly gauge Russia’s evolving tactics. But for now, what we’ve seemingly been seeing is the refusal of Russian forces to attack major fortified cities “head on” in ways that could be described as ‘meat assaults’ as previously seen in places like Bakhmut, but more recently Avdeevka.

Recall the huge convoys of armored vehicles that rumbled out of Krasnogorovka through the fields north of the Slag Heap and Coke Plant. There has been nothing remotely approaching that despite several large cities now weakened and primed for such an assault, in particular Pokrovsk, Konstantinovka, and Kupyansk.

But it goes deeper than merely the lack of armored assault. It’s more about delaying of gratification—the lack of any main assault on the cities at all. As soon as the cities are reinforced, Russian forces now divert to capturing more of the flanks and outlying areas. In the case of Pokrovsk, now that Azov and many other ‘elite’ units like the 93rd have arrived, Russian forces have begun deflecting to areas past the infamous Dobropillya-direction breakthrough.

For instance, Rezident UA writes:

It is noted that the lack of use of armored vehicles was especially evident near Dobropol (north Pokrovsk front), although there were a lot of passenger vehicles there.

Previously, having achieved such a breakthrough, Russian troops would have immediately tried to introduce an armored reserve into battle to expand it. However, judging by visual evidence, Russian losses during the battles near Dobropolye barely reached a dozen armored vehicles —, which indicates low levels of its use.


With new statistics showing a sharp drop of Russian IFV, tank, and artillery losses:

Image
Image
Image

Doomers and concern-trolls will of course characterize this as a weakening of Russian resolve. They say it’s now been a record amount of time since a last “major city” like Avdeevka has fallen, and Russia’s piecemeal tactics are merely concealing weaknesses and the inability of the Russian Armed Forces to advance. While it’s true it has been a while since a major city has fallen, at the same time, Russia could make up for all that by capturing several large cities in tandem, given that it has never encircled so many of them at once before as is currently the case.

The pace before has been one major city per year, with Mariupol in 2022, Bakhmut in 2023, Avdeevka in 2024, and nothing as big yet in 2025—Chasov Yar and Ugledar probably being the largest. But if Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, Konstantinovka, and potentially even Seversk and Lyman all fall in the next six months, with Slavyansk and Kramatorsk soon after besieged, it would more than make up for the pace.



On that note, let’s take a look at current frontline developments.

In Pokrovsk, things remain murky as no one can seem to agree on where the line of contact is precisely drawn. Some maps have Russian forces inside a portion of the city like so, with a destroyed Leopard tank geolocated in the center below:

Image

Kotlyne and most or all of Udachne have been captured, however:

Image

Image

Bulking up the flanks is an obvious precursor toward continuing the envelopment of Shakhove, which could likely fall long before Pokrovsk.

Zooming out, we see this is part and parcel to the ‘deflection’ strategy outlined earlier, wherein Russian forces merely divert to a new path of least resistance to continue gobbling up territory.

Image

This may seem counterintuitive at first, but the accumulated ‘tactical’ gains eventually lead to operational troubles for the AFU, when key supply routes, heights, and other dominant positions are reached, which imperil the previously-diverted-from stronghold or population center.

You see in the map above, Pokrovsk was temporarily blocked, so instead of ramming against it head-on, Russian forces merely continued northward, encircling another decent-sized settlement in the process.

On the old Velyka Novosilka line southwest of Pokrovsk, Russian forces captured the settlement of Filiya, after earlier getting rebuffed from Zelenyi Hai—again diverting the flow to the opposite direction:

Image

This begins putting pressure on the larger settlement of Novopavlovka just north of there, which is now slowly becoming encircled. The wider map shows a series of developing encirclements of the largest settlements along the broadest of the Donbass frontlines:

Image

Apart from that, the past week has been relatively slow on the front, and some Ukrainian analysts ascribe this to a “strategic regrouping” of Russian forces, a kind of calm before another storm as Russia moves around more units into positions.

Top UA analyst Myroshnykov writes:

The enemy is currently continuing to conduct strategic regrouping.

A large number of units that were involved in the fighting in the north are being moved to Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia.

There are also some units being moved to the Kupiansk and Borova directions.

Our warriors are trying to improve positions where possible during this time.

In Sumy region, of course, there are successes on our side, and possibly more to come, because the enemy has withdrawn almost 70% of reserves and 20% of main forces.

Overall, the enemy is preparing for the autumn campaign, which may begin in a few weeks.

At the same time, they are not losing the current pace of offensive actions.

Obviously, the occupier's main focus will be concentrated on the Pokrovsk-Myronhrad agglomeration, Siversk, Lyman, Kupiansk, Konstiantynivka, and Orikhiv with Huliaipole.

And there, according to the "old scheme" — they will concentrate their main efforts where they can advance.

But the main direction will be Pokrovsk and Myronhrad. I think the battles for these cities are not as far off as we would like. Unfortunately.


Further north, Myroshnykov writes that the Serebriansky forest campaign is coming to an end, as Russians will soon capture the remainder of the forest:

The defense of the Serebryansky forestry, unfortunately, is coming to an end.

Along with this, the defense of the bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Zherebets River is also coming to an end.

This significantly worsens the positions for both key settlements east of the Kramatorsk-Sloviansk agglomeration - Siversk and Lyman.

Siversk is already practically half-surrounded (encircled from two sides), and if the enemy breaks out from the Serebryansky forest to Dronivka and captures it, then it will be surrounded from three sides.

Things there are, to put it mildly, not very good. If not to say, completely bad.


Lastly, some interesting things have happened in Kupyansk over the past few days. Not only have Russian forces captured the areas east of Petropavlovka as reported last time, but they have crept down the western side of Kupyansk, further encircling it and threatening the last main supply route out of the city:

Image

Where the green arrow lies, Russian forces even reportedly made a quick raid nearly into the city center, but were pushed back. This likely signals probing actions for the suitability of quickly cutting the city in half at the main bridge (the one slightly further south is a railway-only bridge):

Image



A couple last interesting related points. A new video reportedly shows forcibly mobilized Ukrainian recruits explaining that thirty out of the forty of them which were mobilized have escaped—a whole 75% which will not reach the front:

Out of forty mobilized soldiers being taken to the front, thirty escaped.

This is told by one of those who did not run away — according to him, during the time the bus was traveling from the training camp to the front line, at every stop the mobilized soldiers escaped.
- UARU (Video at link.)

This is particularly interesting given a new post by a Ukrainian lawyer which states in his mobilized platoon, 60% of recruits went AWOL (СЗЧ, or ‘unauthorized leaving of unit’):

Image

Presumably he’s also referring to stunts like this one seen last week: (Video at link.)

This comes amidst a new report from Ukrainian Pravda that up to 250,000 Ukrainians have gone AWOL since 2022, with official data reportedly from the Prosecutor General’s office:

Image

🇺🇦More than 250 thousand deserters and those who have unauthorizedly abandoned their units have been officially recorded in Ukraine.

As the publication "Ukrainian Truth" writes, citing a response from the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, from 2022 to July 2025, more than 200 thousand cases were opened for unauthorized abandonment of unit and more than 50 thousand cases for desertion.

It should be understood that not every case of unauthorized abandonment of unit results in an official criminal case with suspicion being handed over. Moreover, not every case of unauthorized abandonment is irreversible.


Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod claims this is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and that the real number approaches 400,000.

With such statistics and presumed casualty counts, one of the following four has to be true. Either:

Ukrainian ‘loss’ statistics are vastly exaggerated as maskirovka to fool Russia.

Ukrainian drone units are spectacularly better than given credit for, able to hold entire fronts by themselves with no other defenders present.

Ukraine is nearing total collapse.

Russian forces are in nearly as bad shape and unable to decisively ‘break through’.

POLL
What is most likely, given recent reports of AFU hardships?
UA losses vastly exaggerated.
7%
UA FPV units are impenetrable wall.
5%
UA nearing total collapse.
83%
RF in nearly as bad shape.
4%
1428 VOTES · 2 DAYS REMAINING
Interestingly, a recent Ukrainian report from one drone unit even bemoaned the increasing lack of drone pilots on some fronts.



A last item:

This week Germany announced what is essentially the closure of the Nord Stream case, as Die Zeit reports:

Image
https://www.zeit.de/2025/37/anschlag-no ... me-ukraine

The attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines have largely been solved, and the alleged perpetrators are known. The German government is facing uncomfortable questions.

The investigation into the largest terrorist attack in European history has effectively been concluded with the arrest of a Ukrainian ex-AFU officer in Italy. But the most remarkable part is just a day after this announcement, Chancellor Merz had the unimaginable gall to pen this hysterically hypocritical screed against Russia, accusing it of being the ‘greatest threat to Europe’ and conducting hybrid attacks and sabotage against the wannabe-continent:

Image

At this point, such insolence can only be explained as intentional provocation—these comprador elites are laughing at their own citizens, daring them to flag the unprecedented hypocrisy of accusing Russia of sabotage, while pumping weapons into Ukraine, a mere day after Ukraine was effectively confirmed as the perpetrator of the largest such sabotage attack on Europe in history; there’s simply no more words for it.

But alas, a clue to this paradox exists in the above article’s comments section, where a native German remarks that the Ukrainian man should be owed thanks for ridding Germany of Russian gas. Well—one supposes, then, that the Europeans are deserving of their lot, and their leadership. Of course, when nuclear holocaust comes home to roost on their soil, such perversions of logic will have been long forgotten.

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sit ... at-russian

Don't believe that Ukraine was capable of pulling off the Nord stream attack. The Ukes are nothing but scapegoats in this, the players know it but no one can admit that the US did it. I'm sure Russia knows and knows they would just be blown off if they said so.

******

Kyiv On Fire: The Night Russia Crippled Ukraine’s Rear

Image

On the night of August 27-28, 2025, the Russian Armed Forces launched one of the most extensive and sophisticated combined strikes of the summer campaign, delivering a crippling blow to Ukraine’s military logistics, energy infrastructure, and defense-industrial complex. LINK The operation, involving a meticulously coordinated barrage of more than 600 aerial weapons, demonstrated a shift from targeting isolated assets to systematically dismantling entire operational support systems deep within the Ukrainian rear.

The assault employed a multi-layered approach designed to overwhelm and penetrate Ukrainian air defenses and paralyze the entire chains of military complex. According to the Air Force of Ukraine, the attack package consisted of 598 Shahed-type attack drones and decoys launched from the Kursk, Bryansk, Millerovo, Oryol, Shatalovo, and Primorsko-Akhtarsk regions of Russia, as well as from the Crimean peninsula. This massive drone wave served as the first echelon, saturating air defense sectors and masking the approach of higher-value assets. Following them were two Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic missiles launched from airspace over the Lipetsk and Voronezh regions, nine Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles from the Bryansk and Voronezh regions, and twenty Kh-101 cruise missiles launched from strategic aviation over the Saratov region. While Ukrainian officials claimed an improbable number of interceptions, including a Kinzhal missile—a target beyond their stated technical capability to engage—the widespread destruction confirmed the limited effectiveness of their air defenses, which further compounded the damage by causing significant collateral damage in residential areas with their own falling interceptor missiles. Military reporter Donbass Partizan provided details about the targets.

The capital, Kyiv, was the epicenter of the strike, with several critical defense enterprises targeted with precision. Preliminary assessment of the damage confirmed tha the Kyiv Radio Plant, a cornerstone facility for producing phased array radar modules, guidance systems for electronic warfare (EW) suites, and components for air defense systems, was struck by a reported combination of two Iskander-M ballistic missiles and nine Geran-2 loitering munitions. The missiles achieved direct hits, resulting in the complete destruction of a primary production workshop spanning over 2,500 square meters. Adjacent warehouse facilities, containing stocks of imported microprocessors and power supply units for radar systems, sustained severe damage. A specialized laboratory for the calibration of antenna and communication systems was utterly destroyed, setting back maintenance and production capabilities for systems like the modernized NASAMS and IRIS-T surface-to-air missile systems supplied by the West.

Simultaneously, the Artem Plant, a key manufacturer of aviation munitions and components for R-73 air-to-air missiles and anti-tank systems, was reportedly hit by six Geran-2 drones and three Kh-101 cruise missiles. The strikes targeted the main assembly lines and storage areas, causing a major conflagration that spread to the administrative building. Critical damage was inflicted on a unique RFFM 330-138-300 rolling machine, essential for producing rocket body casings for the Ukrainian Olkha missile system. Workshops dedicated to refurbishing and adapting Western-supplied military components were also heavily damaged.

Further strikes successfully targeted UKRSPECSYSTEMS, a primary developer of PD-2 and Shar attack drones, the Spetsoboronmash rocket and space industry assembly plant, and the local production facilities of Samsung-Ukraine, indicating a broad campaign against Ukraine’s technological and industrial capacity.

Beyond the capital, the operation showcased a strategic masterstroke aimed at paralyzing Ukraine’s strategic mobility. A coordinated attack focused on the Vinnytsia region targeted a unified transport-and-energy nexus centered around the railway hub in Kozyatin. The assault precisely struck three interlinked facilities: the Kozyatin locomotive depot, the Signal electrical substation, and the Nepedovka traction substation.

The strike on the depot destroyed repair bays and administrative buildings, critically damaging at least three electric locomotives that were actively preparing military echelons carrying armored vehicles and personnel. The attack on the Signal substation damaged 110/330 kV distribution devices and power transformers, triggering a cascading blackout that halted all rail traffic through the hub. The final blow to the Nepedovka traction substation, which provides power to the overhead lines for electric trains, completely severed the main rail artery connecting Kyiv to Lviv and the Polish border. The destruction was compounded by the confirmed destruction of an express train and the disruption of military echelons carrying BTR armored vehicles and trucks, creating a massive bottleneck in the flow of Western aid and Ukrainian reserves.

Image

The campaign also extended to Ukraine’s tactical aviation capabilities. The airbases at Starokostiantyniv and Kolomyia, vital for the operations of the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, were heavily struck. Starokostiantyniv was reportedly hit by 130 drones and four Kh-101 missiles, which targeted recently delivered Western munitions, including JDAM-ER guidance kits and AGM-88 HARM components, stored in warehouses. Maintenance hangars were destroyed, and ground support equipment—such as power units, nitrogen-oxygen stations, and tow tractors—was wiped out, severely degrading the base’s ability to service Su-24 and Su-27 aircraft. The Kolomyia airfield, a reserve base also prepared for F-16 operations, was reportedly struck by 70 drones and a single Kinzhal missile. The hypersonic weapon precisely destroyed lightweight hangars and tender shelters housing the indispensable ground support equipment for the F-16 fleet, including mobile power units and specialized tooling.

Further illustrating the comprehensive nature of the night’s operations, Russian strikes successfully degraded Ukrainian energy infrastructure and decapitated a critical command node. In the Kharkiv region, a temporary gas preparation facility operated by Ukraine’s Naftogaz in Taranovka was struck. The facility, integral to the regional energy distribution network, was hit by seven Geran-2 UAVs which scored direct impacts. The strike is assessed to disrupt the flow of gas for military-industrial use, adding strain to Ukraine’s already beleaguered energy grid and complicating logistics for forces in the eastern sector.

Simultaneously, a precise and devastating strike was carried out against a high-value command and control target in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Nine Geran-2 drones delivered a concentrated attack on the territory of the Nibas agro-firm, which intelligence identified as a covertly repurposed headquarters for the 59th Separate Motorized Brigade’s command battalion. The strike resulted in the near-total destruction of the facility’s operational capacity. The command-and-staff segment was neutralized as two server rooms were completely incinerated, destroying critical computing infrastructure. The brigade’s communications and encryption capabilities were severely degraded with the elimination of a suite of advanced field radios.

The human cost for the Ukrainian side was substantial. Preliminary assessments estimate losses of up to 22 military personnel, with a minimum of six killed and between twelve and fourteen wounded. This successful strike effectively eliminated a key command and logistics hub, disrupting the 59th Brigade’s coordination and control capabilities for the foreseeable future and demonstrating the highly accurate targeting of concealed military assets.

This night of strikes transcended mere tactical gains; it represented a strategic-level operation designed to methodically dismantle Ukraine’s ability to conduct sustained warfare. By simultaneously striking defense production, dismantling railway energy infrastructure, and destroying aviation support hubs, Russian forces have demonstrated a decisive capability to degrade and paralyze the entire logistical ecosystem supporting the Ukrainian military, dealing a catastrophic blow to its combat potential.

https://southfront.press/kyiv-on-fire-t ... ines-rear/

(Numerous videos at link.)

*****

Tagesspiegel: Germany built railway lines to transport troops to Ukraine
Source: Eurasia Daily – August 28, 2025
Dr. Ignacy Nowopolski
Aug 29, 2025

Image

Germany has almost completed the construction of a railway network for military transport to NATO's eastern flank and Ukraine, reports German daily Der Tagesspiegel.

"According to the Federal Ministry of Transport, the construction of the basic military railway network in Germany is almost complete. The basic military road network already exists. It includes roads suitable for military transport," the article reads.

According to the publication, to aid Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, Germany and other Kyiv allies are transferring military equipment from Baltic ports to a logistics center south of Krakow, from where it is shipped to Lviv. In Ukraine itself, European-gauge railway lines have been extended to Lviv.

In early July, Bild, citing Brigadier General Bruno Most of the German Medical Service, reported that the Bundeswehr and Deutsche Bahn were in negotiations to convert old trains into ambulances for thousands of wounded in the event of an armed conflict on NATO's eastern flank.

The Bundeswehr also intends to deploy field hospitals along railway tracks in the event of war, to provide emergency assistance and prepare the wounded for further transport.

In April, the Handelsblatt newspaper, citing its own sources, reported that the Bundeswehr was negotiating with logistics and transport companies such as Lufthansa and Deutsche Bahn about the possibility of redeploying NATO troops to the east in the event of an armed conflict.

https://drignacynowopolski.substack.com ... oway-linie

Russia attacked Turkish drone factory in Ukraine

Kilometer-high columns of smoke. Erdogan's urgent call to Zelensky.
Dr. Ignacy Nowopolski
Aug 29, 2025
Vice-President Zinkevich: Russian armed forces attacked the Turkish Bayraktar drone factory in Kyiv.

Kyiv reports: The Russian army has attacked a factory producing Turkey's famous Bayraktar drones. According to Lviv City Council member Igor Zinkevich, two hits were made in total. This was enough to seriously damage the factory.

Footage posted on the SHOT Telegram channel shows plumes of smoke billowing from the plant. The company hasn't reopened yet, but since its workshops have received the necessary equipment and workers have been trained, the strike's losses are estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Image

Given that this is a Turkish factory, Recep Erdogan himself was attacked and had already called Volodymyr Zelensky. However, the press release does not indicate they discussed the attack on the unmanned aerial vehicle factory. According to the official version, Erdogan and Zelensky discussed bilateral relations and the peace process between Russia and Ukraine.

Türkiye is ready to do everything in its power to facilitate high-level contacts that will pave the way for peace,

- Erdogan's office concluded.

Erdogan's duplicity and betrayal of all his "partners" are becoming legendary. No one in the world trusts him or his "Ottoman empire."

Meanwhile, panic continues to reign in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are also concerned, anticipating problems with a drone shortage.

https://drignacynowopolski.substack.com ... ka-fabryke

Google Translator

******

Brief Frontline Report – August 28th, 2025

Report by Marat Khairullin and Mikhail Popov.
Zinderneuf
Aug 28, 2025

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reports: "As a result of decisive actions by the units of the "South" Group, the settlement of Nelepovka in the Donetsk People's Republic has been liberated."

Image
ЛБС 09.4.2025=Line of Combat Contact April 9th, 2025. Зона Активности=Zone of Activity.

The small settlement of Nelepovka, in the Kramatorsk district of the DPR (48°27′05"N 37°47′15"E, about 40 residents), is located on the right bank of the Krivoy Torets River, opposite the village of Pleshcheevka (located on the opposite bank) and provides the forward defense lines of the large defense area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Ivanopolye (Yvanopole on the map). This is part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' defense node in the forefield of the Konstantinovka fortified area.

Image
The Oskovo nature reserve, next to the Yelenovksy forest (circled in purple).

The Russian Armed Forces are confidently and inevitably dismantling the "matryoshka" of Ukrainian Armed Forces' defensive positions on the southeastern face of the Ukrainian defense in the Konstantinovka direction. Ahead lies the group of defensive positions at Pleshcheevka. By destroying these positions and covering their left flank, the Russian Armed Forces gain the opportunity, via the Alexandrо-Shultino to Predtechino direction, to trap or deeply envelop the Ukrainian Armed Forces units located in the Oskovo tract salient, east of the city of Konstantinovka.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... ugust-28th
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply