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

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 19, 2024 12:41 pm

Towards the abyss
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/19/2024

Image

“Supporting Ukraine right now is not just a moral obligation. It is also a strategic imperative. The world is watching. Our friends – and even more so our enemies – will be watching closely to see how we maintain our support for Ukraine. It has to be unwavering,” Ursula von der Leyen wrote on Wednesday. The President of the European Commission, one of the faces of the political faction that seeks to continue the war until the final defeat of the Russian Federation, was referring in that tweet to the speech given before the European Parliament. December is a month of summaries of the year and of evaluation of the last twelve months and, on this occasion, the countries and institutions of the European Union have even more concerns than a year ago. Increasing funding in view of the possibility of a decrease in the American contribution is the main task, so, as can be seen daily from the headlines and official statements, it is necessary to raise the level of alert of a major war or the danger of a possible Ukrainian defeat to justify the status quo .

The EU is also facing the fatigue of a war that even Ukraine admits cannot be won by military means today - Kiev does not lose hope of achieving a sufficiently striking success against Russia for its allies to believe in an impossible victory again - and which affects both the populations of the member countries and the Ukrainian population. For the first time, polls show a majority in favour of stopping the war even if the agreement implies territorial concessions. This is a return to the situation before the Russian invasion, when the majority of the Ukrainian population was in favour of complying with the Minsk agreements for the reintegration of Donbass in exchange for the political and economic guarantees implied by the roadmap agreed in the Belarusian capital in February 2015. This was one of the reasons for Volodymyr Zelensky's overwhelming electoral victory in the 2019 presidential elections when, promising dialogue and compromise, he countered Petro Poroshenko's bellicose speech. At that time, as during the seven long years of negotiations linked to the Minsk roadmap, there was no support or pressure from the European Union to advance the peace process. Once its main driving force, Angela Merkel, left her post as Chancellor in Germany, there was absolute disinterest in the only peace agreement ever signed in this war. Only on the eve of the Russian intervention, when it was already too late, did Olaf Scholz resort to the peace agreement again to try to achieve a last-minute agreement to avoid the Russo-Ukrainian war: compliance with the Minsk agreements and security guarantees despite maintaining neutrality to prevent invasion.

Then, as now, the aim was not to prevent the spread of the war or to close the frozen, ignored and forgotten conflict in Donbass, where the European Union had seen no problem with the non-payment of pensions to the most vulnerable population, but to weaken, wear down or even defeat a historical opponent. kyiv, Washington, London and most of the capitals of the European Union agreed on this, with the obvious exception of Germany, which had part of its economy at stake. As he would later do, Chancellor Scholz had warned that the already completed Nord Stream-2 would not come into operation in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. In these almost three years, the voluntary rejection of cheap Russian energy - ties described by its allies as a burden, but which have been one of the bases of the competitiveness of German industry - has made it possible to see that the sanctions on the Russian energy sector were also directed against Germany. Compromises and political considerations prevailed over economic interests, and despite initial doubts and certain traces of his pacifist past, Olaf Scholz succumbed to pressure and made Germany Ukraine's second largest military supplier, only to resist pressure on the issue of Taurus missiles. Berlin would not send missiles capable of reaching Moscow, the chancellor promised, a promise he has kept despite the demands of Ukraine, his allies and opponents, who circulated images of the days of long hair and bell-bottoms when the current chancellor crossed the iron curtain to participate in meetings - perfectly public and well-known - in the GDR. The campaign did not work as a measure of discredit and was completely unnecessary considering that the economic conditions were serious and explicit enough to blow up the government coalition and sink the three ruling parties in the polls, awaiting the victory of the CDU in the early elections in February.

The German case is paradigmatic. Unlike Macron, who held a six-hour meeting with Vladimir Putin, Olaf Scholz made a stop in Moscow to cover up the case and be able to claim that he had tried to convince the Russian president, but his most serious call was to Ukraine, not Russia. Zelensky rejected his offer and Berlin aligned itself with the rest of the European and Atlantic countries to prevent the fall of kyiv, did not support the Istanbul process that could have stopped the Russian-Ukrainian war in its initial phase and did not even protest when it became clear that it was not one of its enemies but one of its allies who had blown up the Nord Stream. Germany has also adapted to other types of changes, such as the shift of power in the European Union towards the Baltic countries and Poland, ideologically closer to London and Washington than to Brussels. The state that until recently was the economic engine of the European Union and its main continental power has been treated as the weakest link, the state to be reproached for its common (economic) past with the Russian Federation, to be constantly demanded for more military supplies and to be condemned for its recent – ​​and more than timid – diplomatic opening. Olaf Scholz said, after being publicly censured by Volodymyr Zelensky and all kinds of insults, that he would try to contact Moscow again to push for a resolution of the war favourable to Ukraine. However, such contact has not taken place and is unlikely to take place before the chancellor leaves office. Scholz no longer has the time, and possibly the will, to use an attempt at peace as an electoral calling card. The continuation of the war is too important to be jeopardised for electoral reasons.

In these three years of war, Ukraine and its European and North American allies have demonised from the start China's negotiation proposals, Lula da Silva's initiative and the attempt at diplomatic opening by several African countries led by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Until Viktor Orbán's trip to Moscow in 2024 on a personal and propagandistic initiative that was not even accompanied by a concrete political proposal, all diplomatic openings to try to achieve a negotiation have come from the global south. The Brazilian president's political gamble of negotiation was rejected in a particularly humiliating way, including a stand-off at the G7, and no progressive leader has dared to follow his path. This has left open for the populist right, mainly Orbán and Trump, the monopoly on the language of diplomacy.

The European Union faces Trump's arrival with a composition that has shifted to the right and towards the most belligerent countries on the continent, with an overrepresentation of the Baltic countries that translates into control of diplomacy and defence policy. In 2022, Brussels chose subordination to the United States as a way of guaranteeing its security. It then shared with the White House the same objectives in Ukraine and also the way to achieve them. Now, with Donald Trump as the person with the greatest interest in achieving a ceasefire and willingness to cross the only red line in this war, diplomacy, Brussels is trying to adapt at forced marches to the fact that Europe is not in the interest of the future president of the United States. It is not pacifism that moves Trump and his team, made up of hawks and ex-military, but the need to focus on the political and economic scenario of the president, which is no longer Europe, but Asia-Pacific. Trump's first term in office demanded that European countries comply with the NATO-mandated investment of 2% of GDP in defence, and there is now talk of 3-4% on a voluntary basis. The need to maintain the favour of Washington's ally forces Brussels to adapt to Trump's methods, which are not particularly diplomatic and which denote the loss of power of the former European powers, a secondary theatre in a cold war in which they are no longer protagonists.

With no interest in the future of Ukraine or Zelensky and with much to gain from achieving peace – his rival Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump is likely to aspire to – Donald Trump and his team have made it clear that achieving a ceasefire is one of their priorities. It is not about abandoning Ukraine, but about achieving the best possible conditions, even if kyiv has to accept a compromise. The plan does not exist and it will not be until January when Keith Kellogg, the general in charge of managing the conflict for the White House, makes an “exploratory mission” trip to kyiv and, perhaps, since the general has shown himself “open to the possibility”, also to Moscow. Obviously, the timing makes it impossible for a negotiation to take place even before Trump’s inauguration, as the then candidate commented. However, the constant references to ceasefire, negotiation and peace, which have become a daily routine, are an important element of pressure on European countries, which are looking for ways to increase their contribution in order to prevent a possible reduction in US military funding from forcing Ukraine to violate its most sacred rule: to negotiate without being in a position to dictate the terms. Hence the need for Europe to raise its rhetoric and to once again insist on linking its own security with the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Continuing the war to weaken and try to defeat Russia is the priority, but it cannot come at the cost of causing acrimony in the most important relationship, that between Brussels and the White House, even if it is run by someone like Donald Trump. In an appearance on CBS ’s Sunday political show Face the Nation , the future US national security adviser seemed overwhelmed by the expressions of appreciation and phone calls from political leaders that the president-elect is receiving. European countries received an express mention in that interview, with Mike Waltz stating that “the Secretary General of NATO came here to Mar-a-Lago and is talking about Europeans taking a bigger role, whether on the ground or otherwise, after this conflict is over, and that is exactly what President Trump has been asking for.” In addition to increasing annual military spending far beyond what Trump demanded, European countries are offering the United States a significant increase in their military assistance to Ukraine to reduce the burden borne by Washington and are also offering to pay for, equip and manage the day after the conflict. As has already been published in all major media, it would be an armed peacekeeping mission that European countries want to send to Ukraine and that would mean sending troops from NATO countries to a de facto border with Russia, a mission that the United States could support from a distance, but in which it would not participate. In other words, the conflict would be in the hands of a European Union heading towards the abyss led by the most belligerent sectors that have not hesitated to use the war to recover their obsessions, hatreds and revenges of the past. A militarized Europe, in need of military equipment to be purchased from the world's main market, the United States, is in the interest of Washington, which has always tried to keep the continent divided, making it impossible to create the feared Berlin-Moscow axis as a first step towards extending to Beijing.

Donald Trump hasn't even begun to pressure his allies yet, but he's already getting exactly what he wants from them.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/19/hacia-el-abismo/

Google Translator

*****

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
"Peacekeepers? Without Russia's consent? No. Participants in the conflict? Welcome to Hell" (c)

Actually, Putin's comment on the proposals to introduce NATO "peacekeepers" to Ukraine after the end of hostilities. This is unacceptable for Russia.

Regarding the negotiations.

1. Russia is ready to negotiate on Ukraine without preconditions.
2. The negotiations must be based on the Istanbul Agreements.
3. They must a priori take into account the realities on the ground (i.e. minus 4 regions, in addition to Crimea).
4. Russia will talk to Zelensky only if he goes to the elections and gains legitimacy.
5. Russia will negotiate only with the legitimate leadership of Ukraine.

***

Colonelcassad
⚡️Summary of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (as of 19 December 2024)

— Units of the North force group in the Kharkov direction defeated the armed formations of the mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the territorial defence brigade in the areas of the settlements of Zolochiv and Volchansk in the Kharkov region. The enemy lost more than 100 servicemen, five armoured combat vehicles, 13 cars and two 122-mm howitzers D-30.

— Units of the West force group improved the tactical situation, defeated the manpower and equipment of the mechanized, ranger, assault brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the territorial defence brigade in the areas of the settlements of Monachinovka, Kutkovka, Dvurechnaya, Lozovaya in the Kharkov region, Novoegorovka in the Luhansk People's Republic and Terny in the Donetsk People's Republic. Repulsed two counterattacks of the enemy assault units.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 460 servicemen, six pickups, a 155-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Bogdana", a 122-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Gvozdika" and two 122-mm howitzers D-30. An ammunition depot was destroyed.

- Units of the "Southern" group of forces took up more advantageous positions, defeated the formations of two mechanized, airmobile, mountain assault brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Chasov Yar, Reznikovka, Zvanovka, Seversk and Fedorovka of the Donetsk People's Republic.

The enemy's losses amounted to 315 servicemen, two armored personnel carriers, including an M113 armored personnel carrier made in the USA, an armored combat vehicle, two cars, a 155-mm American M777 howitzer, a 122-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Gvozdika" and a 122-mm howitzer D-30. Two field ammunition depots were destroyed.

- Units of the "Center" group of forces continued to advance deep into the enemy's defense, defeated the manpower and equipment of three mechanized brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of DZERZHINSK, PESCHANOYE, ZARYA, SHCHERBINOVKA and KATERINOVKA of the Donetsk People's Republic. Repulsed 12 counterattacks of the armed formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The enemy lost up to 520 servicemen, a Cossack combat armored vehicle, seven cars, a 152 mm Msta-B howitzer, a 152 mm D-20 gun, and two 122 mm D-30 howitzers.

— Units of the Vostok group of forces, as a result of successful offensive actions, liberated the settlements of Zelenovka and Novy Komar of the Donetsk People's Republic. Formations of the mountain assault brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the territorial defense brigade, and the national guard brigade were defeated in the areas of the settlements of Bogatyr, Velyka Novosyolka, Zelenoe Pole, and Vremevka of the Donetsk People's Republic. The enemy counterattack was repelled.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 175 servicemen, an infantry fighting vehicle, three cars, a Polish-made 155-mm self-propelled artillery mount "Krab", two 152-mm self-propelled artillery mounts "Akatsiya" and a 122-mm howitzer D-30. An electronic warfare station was destroyed.

— Units of the "Dnepr" force grouping inflicted losses on the manpower and equipment of the mechanized, mountain assault brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the territorial defense brigade in the areas of the populated areas of Kamenskoye, Nesteryanka in the Zaporizhia region, Antonovka and Sadovoe in the Kherson region. They repelled a counterattack by the enemy assault group.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 60 servicemen, a car, two 152-mm D-20 guns and a launcher of the US-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket system. An electronic warfare station was destroyed.

In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed: 650 aircraft, 283 helicopters, 38,064 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 anti-aircraft missile systems, 19,844 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,502 multiple launch rocket system combat vehicles, 19,822 field artillery guns and mortars, and 29,326 units of special military vehicles.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

*****

Brief report from the front on December 17, 2024

Uspenovka in semi-envelopment, while the expansion into Pokrovsk from the south continues! Report by Marat Khairullin with illustrations by Mikhail Popov.

Zinderneuf
Dec 18, 2024

In the Velikaya Novosyolka (Velyka Novosilka) area, Russian forces continue to encircle the Vremevka (Vremivka) salient. Attacks are underway on Ukrainian Armed Forces facilities in Neskuchnoe, Vremevka, and, of course, in Velikaya Novosyolka, where our units have already entered its eastern and southern outskirts. At the same time, the Russian Armed Forces began to cut through this salient in the Storozhevoe area, where, from the recently captured section of the road between Makarovka and Storozhevoe, after forcing the river, they began to move in the direction of the dominant height 178.3, Mogila Storozhevaya (now it is called Babya Gora) (Могила Сторожевая on the map, see note at the end of the article), from the southeast. Earlier, our forces had already reached the heights located west of the Mokrye Yaly River, north of this hill. These advances by our units formed a kind of pocket with a rather narrow exit from it for the Ukrainian Armed Forces located in the Makarovka and Storozhevoe area. And north of Storozhevoe, the distance between our forward positions is just over two kilometers, which allows us to keep the enemy forces here under fire control.

Image
(Map key: ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 30.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 30th, 2024)

In the Kurakhovsky pocket area, the Russian Armed Forces continue to worsen the enemy's position in the course of developing offensive actions, creating threats to the most important nodes of its defense in this area.

The Russian Defense Ministry officially announced the liberation of another settlement - Annovka (Hannivka).

In the Zelenovka area, Russian units have expanded control both in the settlement itself and are consolidating along the river bank to the north. Establishing full control in this area will make it possible to attack in the direction of the settlements of Ulakly and Razliv, the loss of which would be catastrophic for the enemy. In the settlement of Konstantinopolskoye (Kostyantynopolske), the Russian army took control of all residential buildings and reached the farms located north of the settlement and the machine yard and agricultural enterprise in the west of the village.

In the Uspenovka area, our soldiers are finishing clearing a large stronghold located at the entrance on the southern bank of the Sukhie Yaly River. Of the entire "Uspenovka pocket," only a small area remains in the area of ​​Trudovoe, but it is also gradually shrinking. Russian troops have occupied an enemy stronghold northwest of Trudovoe, and to the east of it, they have consolidated their positions in the forest belt in front of the village, increasing pressure on the Ukrainian Armed Forces units in the northern part of Trudovoe itself.

At the same time, Uspenovka itself has already been half-encircled: to the west of it, our troops practically control Konstantinopolskoye and have flattened the lines of combat engagement between it and Uspenovka, and to the northwest, they are advancing west of Dalnee (Dalnje) and south of it, squeezing enemy fortifications built along the river between Uspenovka and Yantarne (just north of Konstantinopolskoye, not labeled on the map) from both sides.

North of the Kurakhovskoe Reservoir, intense fighting continues in the area of ​​the settlements of Petrovpavlovka and Shevchenko.

Image
(Map key: ЛБС 12.9.2024=Line of Combat Contact September 12th, 2024. ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. ЛБС 01.12.2024=Line of Combat Contact December 1st, 2024)

Near Pokrovsk, despite repeated enemy counterattacks, the Russian Armed Forces have improved their positions south of Lysovka. Attacks are being undertaken both in its direction and in attempts to reach the eastern part of Dachenskoe, in the south of which our forces have already consolidated their positions.

Attacks are underway in the direction of Zelenoe. Russian forces are making efforts to align the Lysovka-Shevchenko line. The enemy does not abandon attempts to counterattack our fighters in Shevchenko in order to drive them out of the settlement.

Having repelled these counterattacks, the Russian Armed Forces expanded control in Shevchenko itself, consolidating their positions on its northern outskirts (fights continue for the very northeast of the settlement), and to the west of it. In addition, as a result of a successful attack, they reached the headquarters southwest of the settlement of Peschanoe and consolidated their positions there. From the area of ​​the settlement of Novotroitskoye, pressure continues in the direction of the settlements of Solenoe and Novovasilevka. The encirclement of Pokrovsk from the south continues.

Translation Note (1): Ukrainian names in parenthesis *

Translation Note (2): Могила Сторожевая (Watchtower Tomb): When Russian is written by hand, the "г" (when typed) looks like a backwards "S," and the "и" looks like our "u." Also, the typed Russian "т" looks like a western "m" when it is written by hand.

Image

Additionally, it was mentioned to me that this name is taken from old maps from the General Staff (Mikhail found it).

Here, there is a is a "курган," which is a mound that was built over the grave of someone quite noble in the old days.

The territory of these lands is extremely interesting.

The burial mounds (основном курганы) are mostly grave sites of nomadic tribes. And in those territories, settled life began only under Catherine the Second, after victories over the Ottomans, who patronized the Crimean Tatars. It was not safe to live there. The nomads raided and took people into slavery. All these lands were called the "Wild Field" (Дикое поле).

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... cember-64f

******

Kiev regime assassins Russian General to hide the truth about bioweapons

Lucas Leiroz

December 18, 2024

Kirillov’s death, caused by a Ukrainian terrorist attack, represents a turning point in the realm of modern geopolitics.

In a bold and lethal move, a terrorist attack carried out by Ukrainian intelligence operatives in Moscow killed Igor Kirillov, head of the Russian Federation’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense Forces, along with his main advisor. Kirillov, one of the most important figures in Russian national security, became a strategic target due to his investigations revealing the complex and shadowy ties between the West, Ukraine, and the bioweapons research laboratories. His death is not only a blow against Russia but also a critical turning point in international relations, involving the controversy surrounding biological laboratories, the pharmaceutical industry lobby, and, inevitably, Kiev’s connections to U.S. politics.

Kirillov’s investigation into biological laboratories

Since the beginning of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine in 2022, Igor Kirillov had been denouncing the existence of bioweapons research laboratories in Ukrainian territory. These laboratories, operating under the guise of “scientific research” and funded by global actors such as the Soros Foundation, Big Pharma companies, and even influential members of the Biden family, have been accused of developing biological weapons aimed at Russia.

In public statements, Kirillov warned of the growing risk posed by these biolaboratories, pointing out that their goal was to create a “universal package” of genetically modified biological pathogens to target Russian people, cattle, and crops simultaneously. The development of such weapons could potentially cause a catastrophe of epic proportions, destroying Russian food production and decimating the population. Once Russia became aware of these activities, it had no choice but to launch a military operation to dismantle these dangerous research centers.

Moscow also raised suspicions that, without early intervention, Ukraine, with U.S. support, could have launched a large-scale biological attack against Russia. This attack would target Russian public health by releasing multiple lethal viruses and bacteria simultaneously, with the aim of creating catastrophic chaos.

The truth obscured by a media blockade

The greatest obstacle Russia faced in exposing these threats was the absolute silence of the Western media. In the European Union, the United States, and even the Global South, an iron curtain was raised on the subject, with most media outlets ignoring or discrediting Kirillov’s revelations. However, Russia believed that without its military operation and the dismantling of bioweapons laboratories in the early days of the conflict, the country would have been vulnerable to a biological attack of catastrophic magnitude.

Furthermore, during the eight years following the Euromaidan coup, citizens of Russian-majority regions in Ukraine were subjected to a series of biological experiments. These included tests of new chemical and biological substances, some of which were administered under the guise of “voluntary treatments” or even by force, as in the case of prisoners or ethnic Russian low-ranking soldiers. The ultimate goal of these experiments was to understand the genetic characteristics of Russians in order to develop even more lethal and ethnically targeted pathogens, thus creating ethnically directed mass destruction biological weapons.

Big Pharma’s involvement and Hunter Biden

In addition to the evidence of involvement by organizations such as the Soros Foundation, another crucial point in Kirillov’s reports was the connection with Big Pharma companies. He spared no effort in revealing the role of pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer and Moderna in financing bioweapons research in Ukraine. The claim that these corporations were associated with the development of biological weapons was not merely speculative, having several captured documents proved the whole truth. In the same vein, the involvement of influential members of the U.S. government and their families, including Hunter Biden, in contracts and initiatives related to Ukrainian biolabs was a central issue in his revelations. The U.S. president’s son was of the main financial supporters of the biolabs, which were part of his corruption schemes in Ukraine.

Kirillov’s death, therefore, is not only a significant loss for Russia but also a grim reflection of global corporate interests and the biological risks the Western powers were willing to take in their reckless pursuit of hegemony. The pharmaceutical lobby, with its vast networks of influence, found itself in an uncomfortable position after 2022, when several countries began questioning the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as dismantling the mandatory vaccination campaigns that had been previously fervently promoted.

Kirillov’s sacrifice and the future of the conflict

The death of Igor Kirillov represents a tragic chapter in the global confrontation currently taking place on Ukrainian soil, but it also serves as a dramatic allegory of the hidden tensions between the great powers. While Russia continues to expose the West’s involvement in creating biological threats, the global mainstream media watches in silence, more interested in preserving its narratives than facing the truth about a global power struggle involving the use of biotechnology as weapons.

By revealing these threats, Kirillov had become one of the greatest obstacles to Western hidden interests. His death, caused by a Ukrainian terrorist attack, represents not only a loss for Russia’s national security but also a turning point in the realm of modern geopolitics.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... ioweapons/

******

Russia Won’t Let The World Forget About The WMD Threat Posed By Ukraine

Andrew Korybko
Dec 18, 2024

Image

The SBU’s cowardly assassination of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov won’t stop his agency’s work.

Reuters cited a source in Ukraine’s SBU on Tuesday to report that they were responsible for assassinating Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces (RChBZ). RT reminded their audience that he was instrumental in informing the world about the WMD threat posed by Ukraine. This includes its American-backed bioweapons experiments, dirty bomb plans, and the use of chemical weapons against Russian servicemen in the special operation zone.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova posted on Telegram that Kirillov “has been systematically exposing the crimes of the Anglo-Saxons for many years, with facts in hand: NATO provocations with chemical weapons in Syria, Britain's manipulations with prohibited chemical substances and provocations in Salisbury and Amesbury, the deadly activities of American biolabs in Ukraine and much more. He worked fearlessly. He did not hide behind people's backs.”

Her country is correspondingly expected to continue raising maximum global awareness of these issues. They’d somewhat faded out of the media limelight over the past year as attention shifted to the scenario of conventional Western escalations in Ukraine such as the decision to authorize Kiev to use the ATACMS for carrying out strikes deep inside of Russia and the possibility of deploying troops there under the cover of peacekeepers. All the while, however, Ukraine’s WMD threats never fully went away.

A lasting peace is therefore only possible if the solution includes mechanisms for dismantling this clandestine infrastructure and monitoring compliance afterwards. Trump would have to be on board for that to happen, but since some of his surrogates have talked about this issue before, it can’t be ruled out that he’d agree to this proposal if they convince him that the problem veritably exists. He also has an axe to grind with Hunter Biden, some of whose companies have been implicated in these schemes.

His father Joe just pardoned him for all crimes that he might have committed in the decade between 1 December 2014 and 1 December 2024, which was arguably done in part to complicate any potential investigation into Hunter’s ties with Ukraine, both financial and in connection with WMDs like biolabs. Trump and his MAGA allies in Congress would thus do well to look into all these leads for the sake of historical truth even if justice is now legally impossible.

If they do so, then they’ll discover that Russia has legitimate security interests in ensuring that such clandestine infrastructure in Ukraine is dismantled and never reestablished, which could make them more amenable to whatever proposals Russia puts forth in this regard as part of a peace deal. To be sure, the US will continue conducting WMD experiments abroad, but it’s important that this no longer occurs in Ukraine otherwise Russia might not agree to end the conflict until this threat is neutralized.

All told, Kirillov’s legacy is one for the ages since he played the most prominent role in exposing the WMD threat posed by Ukraine and its Western patrons, particularly the Anglo-American Axis. The world is now much more aware of this issue and Russia won’t let them forget about it. The SBU’s cowardly assassination of this multipolar hero won’t stop his agency’s work. They’re now more determined than ever to ensure that his memory is eternal and makes a meaningful difference in international security.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/russia-w ... rld-forget
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 20, 2024 12:57 pm

"We don't need a ceasefire, we need peace with security guarantees"
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/20/2024

Image

The whirlwind of the enormous work that officials of the European Union, NATO and their member countries seem to have to prepare for the feared arrival of Donald Trump to the White House continues to be reflected in daily meetings, alarming statements, media leaks and tweets warning of the worrying moment in which we live, a danger that demands ever more military investment and a commitment to continue arming and financing Ukraine. “2025 will be a crucial year for Ukraine and its partners,” wrote Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday about her meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, who was traveling to Brussels to continue negotiating the way in which Kiev and its allies try to maintain the status quo . It is hardly necessary to read between the lines to understand that, without the possibility of complete military victory, the plan of Ukraine and the European capitals is to maintain the war in its current conditions until achieving a position of strength in which Kiev can dictate the terms of the negotiation to Russia.

As the President of the European Commission announced yesterday, the EU will support “the economic stability of Ukraine with more than 30 billion euros” in 2025. This is the assistance with which Brussels artificially supports the Ukrainian state so that all its own income, in addition to the military contributions of the EU as a whole and of the member countries individually, can be used for the war. To these amounts must be added the British contribution and, above all, the American one, the only one that is currently in doubt. Acting as a pressure group again, as he did with Joe Biden in search of the lifting of the veto on the use of Western missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation according to its internationally recognized borders, these days Keir Starmer has made an attempt to approach Donald Trump in search precisely of maintaining the current levels of support. All of Ukraine's European allies are aware that this will determine whether Kiev is able to contain the Russian advance, whether it can continue to attack targets in Russia's border regions - as happened again on Wednesday with an attack using ATACMS and Storm Shadow against a major military facility in the Rostov region, where Russia claims to have shot down or diverted most of the missiles - and whether it can continue to dream of bold actions such as invading Kursk.

Ukraine's hope of remaining at the centre of European foreign policy and a matter of special interest to the United States lies precisely in the promise of results. However, the needs are very different between the allies on both sides of the Atlantic. The Europeans seek to militarily and politically defeat a continental power against which they want to create their security structure, an objective they share with the Biden administration, but not with the future Trump administration, eager to focus on its rivalry with China and for which the war in Ukraine is only of interest as a way of weakening a strategic ally of Beijing. The effective and lasting separation that has been created thanks to the Ukrainian conflict, added to the sanctions and the economic isolation of Russia from the West, are sufficient arguments for Washington to understand that it has already achieved that objective. NATO guarantees that there will be no disengagement of European countries from the foreign policy orthodoxy set by Washington, so the European theatre is not of particular interest to Trump's entourage, who wants to achieve a ceasefire and leave the management of the war in the hands of European countries so that those resources can be invested in containing China.

“We will defend Ukraine’s right to fight for its freedom and to choose its own destiny,” von der Leyen insisted yesterday, perfectly understanding Zelensky’s speech, which confuses peace with victory, negotiation with imposition and which expects freedom only on the terms of the part of the population it considers loyal, forgetting that on the other side of the front, the Ukrainian population has also been fighting for a decade against the State that sent armoured vehicles, artillery and even aircraft to quell its protests. With the war out of control, the road of no return having long since been crossed and totally opposite conditions required for starting negotiations, the only thing that matters now is the ability to impose the terms.

Ukraine is aware that it cannot achieve any of its objectives, including NATO accession, if it does not meet certain expectations of its allies. Containing Russia and thus justifying the continuation of multi-billion dollar military supplies is only possible by ensuring some kind of victory beyond sporadic missile attacks, which, as can be seen, are not slowing down the Russian ground war. Russia has already captured a large part of the town of Kurajovo and has pushed Ukrainian troops back to the thermal power plant, where they are trying to offer resistance. Further south, the capture of Uspenovka has been completed, bringing the entire salient under Russian control. The advances in two directions have put Ukrainian troops in a critical situation in the important town of Velyka Novosyolka, key to the defense of the southern and eastern fronts, forcing Ukraine to respond through information, boasting of the hundreds of North Koreans killed in the Kursk region, whether real or imaginary, as Russia also advances in the oblast partially occupied by Kiev troops.

“I urge you to continue to support us and to help the White House strengthen its commitment to improving Ukraine’s air defence. Thank you to all who are helping to restore Ukraine’s energy and resilience. This, together with air defence, is the best response to Russia’s massive missile attacks,” he demanded, aware that neither the military industry nor European budgets can cope with the enormous amounts of funding required to continue the war on its current parameters until such time as peace can be desired. The image of the country that his president presents with these kinds of statements is one of a state subsidised to ensure its maintenance and armed forces supplied and equipped from abroad.

However, triumphalism has not disappeared. “Let’s face it: only the Ukrainian Armed Forces are capable of countering aggression: they are experienced, battle-hardened with Russian troops, and innovative in the use of drones on land, at sea, and in the air. However, the absolutely promising plan to turn the Armed Forces into the basis of Europe’s common defense can work on one condition: the Ukrainian army must emerge from the war in good condition, well equipped, and retaining its best men. To do this, European states must significantly increase their support for the Ukrainian army and, in the long term, even surpass American aid. To gain a capable ally in the future, the European Union must become a reliable rear guard for Ukraine today. This is already an axiom,” Mikhail Podolyak wrote this week as his president pleaded for more weapons and funding and the Ukrainian Armed Forces continued to lose ground on the main front of the ground war. Yet the demand for efficiency is the one chosen to appeal to Donald Trump and, above all, to the neocon part of his entourage, which continues to perceive Russia as its Soviet enemy from the Cold War.

“We do not need a ceasefire, we need peace with security guarantees,” Vladimir Putin said on Thursday during his annual pre-Christmas marathon press conference in a statement that could also have been made by Volodymyr Zelensky. The two countries agree on the need not to close the conflict in a false way and on their rejection of an agreement similar to that of Minsk. The problem when it comes to resorting to negotiations remains the same: the contradictory definition of peace by the parties in conflict.

“There is no point in putting pressure on Zelensky to talk when Putin does not want to. We cannot talk about peacekeepers when there is no peace. And why is there no peace? Because Russia does not want peace,” said Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, yesterday, adding to the Financial Times that “supporting Ukraine now is much cheaper than supporting war later. Russia has not changed its objectives.” Kallas’s last statement was confirmed by Vladimir Putin, who yesterday insisted on the need to dialogue on the basis of what was negotiated in Istanbul. The Russian president repeated, as Sergey Narishkin did a few days ago, that Russia is close to achieving its objectives. Considering the positions on the front, it is clear that Moscow is far from being able to conquer Kiev or capture all of Ukrainian territory or even beyond, as officials such as Kaja Kallas continue to claim was always the Russian objective. Russia's willingness to negotiate based on what was agreed in Turkey during the first months of the war, the only moment in this conflict in which it was possible to sign a treaty that would put an end to the dispute between the two countries, shows Russia's true objectives, at least on the territorial issue. In his speech, Vladimir Putin once again insisted on the importance of Donbass, making it clear that there are no ambitions beyond what has already been captured and that this is the territory that Moscow is not willing to sacrifice. This is not about moderation, nor about a change, but about maintaining the position of March and April 2022.

As before, even though Russia has recognized four Ukrainian regions as its own, which it does not fully control, the territorial question is not the main obstacle to determining what constitutes a just peace. Over the past few weeks, during which he has had to adapt to Trump's discourse, which considers stopping the war to be a priority, the Ukrainian president has made it clear that Ukraine's priority is not the territorial aspect, but security guarantees. This is where the definition of terms becomes incompatible. For Ukraine, security is NATO membership, while for Russia, that is the definition of insecurity.

The countries that actively participated in the breakup of Yugoslavia consider it imperialist for Russia to claim the territory of Donbass as its own, the reintegration of which into Ukraine via the Minsk compromise was rejected by Kiev, which preferred to continue by military means until achieving its objective without having to give up political rights. Western representatives now consider Russia's demand to determine the borders - which would always be de facto , since Russia is aware that Ukraine will not sign a treaty in which it stops claiming these territories as its own - according to the situation at the front to be maximalist. These same countries consider, however, that Moscow should accept without complaint the presence of the peacekeeping contingent that is being prepared for the day after, a peacekeeping force that, according to Reuters , would be made up of between 40,000 and 100,000 soldiers from European countries that are members of NATO.

The idea, increasingly present in the media, would be a way of turning Ukraine into the new Estonia, an outpost from which to pressure and provoke the Russian enemy, thus justifying constant increases in military investment at the expense of social spending, which is secondary when it is necessary to defend our way of life by military means. A more populated state in which the conflict has created even more hatred, a more powerful army with more foreign presence and conditions of armed peace or cold war always in danger of heating up would offer the most exalted hawks of the Western establishment the perfect springboard to continue waging their eternal war against Moscow's enemy. But none of this will be possible if Ukraine fails to contain Russia and maintain its stability as a state. Hence the nervousness about the current situation and the need to obtain the necessary financing to strengthen Ukraine and manage to direct the negotiations towards a more coercive and favourable diplomacy to the West than the current balance of forces on the front would offer.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/20/no-ne ... seguridad/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
⚡️Summary of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (from December 14 to 20, 2024)

From December 14 to 20, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carried out 24 group strikes with high-precision weapons and attack unmanned aerial vehicles, hitting energy facilities, military airfield infrastructure, drone assembly and storage sites, a troop train at an unloading station and temporary deployment points of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries.

— In the area of ​​responsibility of the North group of forces, the enemy's losses amounted to over 2,675 servicemen, nine tanks, 73 combat armoured vehicles, including a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and a US-made Stryker armoured personnel carrier, 68 cars, two RAK-SA-12 multiple launch rocket systems and 26 field artillery guns.

— Units of the West group of forces improved the situation along the forward edge, defeated the manpower and equipment of five mechanized, infantry, ranger, assault, airmobile and airborne brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, three territorial defense brigades and a national guard brigade, repelling 18 counterattacks of assault groups. The enemy lost more than 3,610 servicemen, two tanks, two infantry fighting vehicles, six armored personnel carriers, including the US-made M113 and Polish-made Rosomak, four other combat armored vehicles, 34 cars and 57 field artillery guns, including eight 155-mm caliber Western-made. Four electronic and counter-battery warfare stations and six ammunition depots were destroyed.

— As a result of the actions of the units of the "Southern" group of forces, the settlements of Annovka, Vesely Gai, Elizavetovka, Trudovoye and Uspenovka of the Donetsk People's Republic were liberated. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost over 2,365 servicemen, a tank, five armored personnel carriers, including three M113 made in the USA, 12 other armored combat vehicles, 20 cars, 17 field artillery guns, four electronic and counter-battery warfare stations and five ammunition depots.

— Units of the "Center" group of forces liberated the settlements of Novopustynka, Pushkino and Starye Terny of the Donetsk People's Republic. The enemy lost over 2,945 servicemen, two tanks, 15 armored combat vehicles, including three Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, 23 cars and 43 field artillery guns.

— Units of the "East" group of forces liberated the settlements of Zelenovka and Novy Komar of the Donetsk People's Republic. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 1,215 servicemen, two tanks, including a German-made "Leopard", two infantry fighting vehicles, 11 other armored combat vehicles, 22 cars and 20 field artillery pieces, including six self-propelled artillery units and 155-mm howitzers of Western manufacture.

— Units of the Dnepr group of forces defeated the manpower and equipment of the heavy mechanized, two mechanized, infantry, airborne assault and mountain assault brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, three territorial defense brigades and a National Guard brigade. The enemy lost up to 440 servicemen, 20 vehicles and 16 field artillery pieces, including three US-made 155-mm M777 howitzers. A HIMARS multiple launch rocket system combat vehicle, four US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile launchers, five electronic warfare stations and six field ammunition depots were destroyed.

The air defense systems shot down a MiG-29 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force, six US-made ATACMS operational-tactical missiles, three UK-made Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles, a Neptune long-range guided missile, four French-made Hammer guided aerial bombs, 18 HIMARS multiple launch rockets and 519 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles.

***

Colonelcassad

Combined strike on the territory of the so-called Ukraine - where were the Russian Armed Forces aiming?

Russian troops carried out a combined attack on the territory of the so-called Ukraine at night. Preliminary, hypersonic missiles and drones were launched at targets in several regions.

The attacks were recorded in Kiev , where several large fires broke out, including in the Goloseevsky and Solomensky districts . Buildings and gas pipes were damaged there, and cars burned out en masse on the streets. Some Ukrainian citizens on the Internet claim that the street fires are the result of the work of Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems covering the city.

However, one can only guess about the specific targets that were hit. For example, the Zhulyany airfield and the Antonov plant are located in the Solomensky district . Military-industrial complex enterprises such as Kommash are located in Goloseevsky . Both Zhulyany and Antonov are used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military purposes.

In the Kiev region, a 15,000 m² warehouse in Boryspil is on fire as a result of a drone strike . Judging by the photographs, this building belongs to the Kostal Ukraine enterprise , which produces parts for equipment.

There is also information about the defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces airfield near the city of Vasylkiv . Before the SVO, this military base was used to accommodate a tactical aviation brigade, and in recent years it has been modernized to accommodate F-16 fighters.

In the south of the country, numerous explosions were heard in Kherson , where power outages are observed. In the Ukrainian segment of the Internet, there were reports that the ongoing attack is a cover for the beginning of the assault by Russian troops on enemy positions in the area of ​​the Antonovsky Bridge .

In addition, in Poltava , Sumy , Dnipropetrovsk and other regions, there were attacks on energy infrastructure facilities.

***

Colonelcassad
"In response to the actions of the Kyiv regime, supported by Western curators, a group strike with long-range precision weapons was carried out in the morning on the SBU command post, the Kyiv design bureau "Luch", which designs and manufactures the "Neptune" missile systems, ground-based cruise missiles MLRS "Olkha", as well as the positions of the "Patriot" air defense missile system" (c) Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Glenn Diesen: How the Strategy of Fighting to the Last Ukrainian Was Sold to the Public as Morally Righteous
December 19, 2024 natyliesb Leave a comment
By Prof. Glenn Diesen, Substack, 11/26/24

For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contacts with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men have died on the battlefield. The decision by diplomats to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant as diplomacy could have reduced the excess of violence, prevented escalation, and even resulted in a path to peace. However, the political-media elites skilfully sold the rejection of diplomacy to the public as evidence of their moral righteousness.

This article will first outline how NATO planned for a long war to exhaust Russia and knock it out from the ranks of great powers. Second, this article will demonstrate how the political-media elites communicated that diplomacy is treasonous and war is virtuous.

NATO’s Long War

To exhaust Russia in a long war, the goal was to ensure that the Russians and Ukrainians kill each other for as long as possible. The US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin outlined the US objective in the Ukraine War as weakening its strategic adversary: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”.[1] In late March 2022, Zelensky revealed in an interview with the Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[2]

The Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that Russia and Ukraine agreed to the terms of a peaceful settlement in Istanbul, in which Russia would withdraw its forces and Ukraine would restore its neutrality. However, why would the US and its allies accept that Ukraine return to neutrality, when the alternative was to use the powerful proxy army they had built in Ukraine to bleed and weaken Russia?[3]

The Turkish Foreign Minister acknowledged that there are “NATO member states that want the war to continue—let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine”.[4] The former Israeli Prime Minister also confirmed that the US and UK “blocked” the peace agreement as there was a “decision by the West to keep striking Putin” to destroy a strategic rival.[5] The retired German General, Harald Kujat, a former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, also argued that this was a war deliberately provoked by NATO, while the US and UK sabotaged all paths to peace “to weaken Russia politically, economically and militarily”.[6] Interviews with American and British leaders in March 2022, revealed that a decision had been made for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[7]

Chas Freeman, the former US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs and Director for Chinese Affairs at the US State Department criticised Washington for the objective to prolong the fighting to “fight to the last Ukrainian”.[8] Republican Senator Lindsey Graham argued that the US was in a favourable position as it could fight Russia to the last Ukrainian: “I like the structural path we’re on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person”.[9] Republican leader Mitch McConnell was similarly explicit:

“the most basic reasons for continuing to help Ukraine degrade and defeat the Russian invaders are cold, hard, practical American interests. Helping equip our friends in Eastern Europe to win this war is also a direct investment in reducing Vladimir Putin’s future capabilities to menace America, threaten our allies, and contest our core interests”.[10]

Senator Mitt Romney argued that financing the war was “the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done” as “We’re diminishing and devastating the Russian military for a very small amount of money” and “we’re losing no lives in Ukraine”. US Congressman Dan Crenshaw also celebrated the proxy war as “investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea”.[11]

Retired US General Keith Kellogg similarly called for extending the war in Ukraine as knocking out Russia would allow the US to focus on China: “if you can defeat a strategic adversary not using any US troops, you are at the acme of professionalism”. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg shared this logic as he argued defeating Russia on the battlefield will make it easier for the US to focus on China. Stoltenberg also noted that “if Ukraine wins, then you will have the second biggest army in Europe, the Ukrainian army, battle-hardened, on our side, and we’ll have a weakened Russian army”.[12]

Diplomacy as Treason and War as Virtue

When the decision had been made for a long war, the politicians and media began to construct narratives and a moral case for a long war, which would convince the public that diplomacy is treasonous, and war is virtuous.

Presenting the world as a struggle of good versus evil lays the foundation for effective war propaganda, as perpetual peace can be achieved by defeating the evil opponent while negotiations entail sacrificing indispensable values and principles. To this end, the Hitler analogy is very effective as diplomacy becomes dangerous appeasement while peace requires military victory. Reminiscent of George Orwell’s “war is peace”, Stoltenberg argues that weapons are the path to peace.

The Western public was reassured that fuelling the war was required to push Putin to the negotiation table, however, during almost three years of war the West never proposed negotiations. Reading the Western media, one gets the impression that Russia would not negotiate. However, Russia never opposed diplomacy or negotiations, it was the West that shut the door. So-called “peace summits” were held to give the public the impression that governments pursued peace, although Russia was not invited and the stated purpose was to mobilise public opinion and resources against Russia.

In November 2022, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley argued for starting negotiations with Russia. Ukraine had just captured large swaths of territory in Kherson and Kharkov, and General Milley argued Ukraine would not be in a better position to negotiate a peace deal. General Milley was correct in this assessment, yet he neglected that the principal objective of the war was to keep it going to bleed Russia. General Milley had to walk back his statements that threatened to end the war.[13]

The EU almost always advocates for immediate diplomacy and negotiations in conflicts around the world. In Ukraine, the EU’s foreign policy chief at the beginning of the war, Josep Borrell, argued that the war would be won on the battlefield.[14] The incoming foreign policy chief of the EU, Kaja Kallas, rejected any need for diplomacy during the war: “Why talk to him [Putin], he is a war criminal”.[15] Diplomacy now entails sitting in a room with people who agree with you, and pat each other on the shoulder for having isolated the adversary. The EU has completed its transition from a peace project to a geopolitical project.

Anyone suggesting to restore diplomacy or start negotiations is immediately smeared as a far-left or far-right pro-Russian stooge. It is hardly original to present the opposition to war as taking the side of the adversary, yet the accusation of treason is a powerful instrument to crush dissent. The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban travelled to Ukraine, Russia, China, and the US (to meet with Trump) to explore the possibility of charting a path to peace. The EU responded by punishing Hungary and the political-media elites sought to delegitimise him as a puppet of Putin. The same script is applied to anyone suggesting to end the war.

Arguing against the dangerous precedent of “rewarding” Putin’s aggression with territory has been another seemingly moral argument against peace negotiations. However, this argument is based on the false premise that the war began as a territorial dispute. As we learned from the Istanbul peace agreement, Russia agreed to pull back its troops in return for Ukraine restoring its neutrality. Furthermore, the proxy war has been lost and Ukraine will only lose more men and territory with each passing day.

NATO’s continued insistence that Ukraine will become a member state after the war is presented to the public as a moral sign of support for Ukraine, although in reality, it has the effect of obstructing a political settlement. Ending NATO expansionism must be the cornerstone of any lasting peace agreement as this was the source of the war.

The Coming Backlash

As the Ukrainian frontlines collapse and their causalities subsequently intensify, the Americans are pushing Ukraine to lower its conscription age as sacrificing the youth could keep the war going for a bit longer. The Ukrainian public no longer wants to fight, desertions increase drastically, and “recruitment” consists of grabbing civilians off the streets and throwing them into vans that take them almost directly to the front lines. A recent Gallup poll found that there is not a single oblast in Ukraine where the majority support continuing the war.[16]

Oleksyi Arestovych, the former advisor to President Zelensky, predicted in 2019 that the threat of NATO expansion would “provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine”. NATO would then use the Ukrainian army to defeat Russia: “In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West—with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone etc. We won’t lose, and that’s good’.[17]

The war did not go as planned and Ukraine is being destroyed, and Arestovych recognises the folly of continuing the war. There is a growing realisation in Ukrainian society that NATO sabotaged the peace to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Ukrainians will resent Russia for decades to come, although there will also be hatred against the West. The war propagandists in the Western media will then surely act bewildered and blame Russian propaganda.

[1] G. Carbonaro, ‘U.S. Wants Russia ‘Weakened’ So It Can Never Invade Again’, Newsweek, 25 April 2022.

[2] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.

[3] The Minsk Peace Agreement was never intended to be implemented but used as an opportunity to build a large Ukrainian military, which both German and France have admitted.

[4] R. Semonsen, ‘Former Israeli PM: West Blocked Russo-Ukraine Peace Deal’, The European Conservative, 7 February 2023.

[5] N. Bennett, ‘Bennett speaks out’, YouTube Channel of Naftali Bennett, 4 February 2023.

[6] Emma, ‘Russland will verhandeln!’ [Russia wants to negotiate!], Emma, 4 March 2023.

[7] N. Ferguson, ‘Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.’, Bloomberg, 22 March 2022.

[8] A. Maté, ‘US fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’: veteran US diplomat’, The Grayzone, 24 March 2022.

[9] A. Maté, ‘US, UK sabotaged peace deal because they ‘don’t care about Ukraine’: fmr. NATO adviser’, The Grayzone, 27 September 2022.

[10] M. McConnell, ‘McConnell on Zelenskyy Visit: Helping Ukraine Directly Serves Core American Interests’, Mitch McConnell official website, 21 December 2022.

[11] L. Lonas, ‘Crenshaw, Greene clash on Twitter: ‘Still going after that slot on Russia Today’’, The Hill, 11 May 2022.

[12] T. O’Conner, ‘So, if the United States is concerned about China and wants to pivot towards Asia, then you have to ensure that Putin doesn’t win in in Ukraine’, Newsweek, 21 September 2023.

[13] K. Demirjian, Milley tries to clarify his case for a negotiated end to Ukraine war, The Washington Post, 16 November 2022.

[14] Foreign Affairs Council: Remarks by High Representative Josep Borrell upon arrival | EEAS, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/foreign ... rival-1_en

[15] “Why talk to Putin? He’s a war criminal” Estonian PM Kaja Kallas,

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ ... blejsapi=0

[16] B. Vigers, Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War, Gallup, 19 November 2024, Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War

[17] A. Arestovich, ‘Voennoe Obozrenie’ [Military Review], Apostrof TV, 18 February 2019.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/12/gle ... righteous/

******

Surrender Pokrovsk, but launch a new "counteroffensive" — Kiev is ready to kill 18 thousand people
December 18th, 2024
17:42

Image
APU losses. Photo: Felipe Dana / AP Photo

Kiev is preparing the city of Pokrovsk for surrender. American equipment and British Challenger 2 tanks are being withdrawn from the settlement. The city is already within striking distance of Russian barrel artillery, writes Pravda.Ru .

A number of foreign experts believe that Ukraine has missed the opportunity to leave Kurakhov without huge losses. Today, Russian soldiers are separated from the complete capture of the city and suburbs by three kilometers. Up to three battalions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are concentrated inside.

One battalion is sealed on the western flank of Kurakhov, the second to the south in the area of Constantinople. But if from the west the Russian army can cut off the APU from the highway through Dachnoye, where the only road goes, then the entire grouping will be sealed. They may try to unblock it, but this event will be very risky.

In the South Donets direction The Russian Armed Forces continue to cut off the Vremevsky ledge, threatening the Ukrainians with encirclement. The Deep State portal, working for the GUR, writes about the deteriorating situation for the Ukrainian Armed Forces behind the Coal Mine. And in the evening, information came that the Russian army was able to force the Mokry Yaly River and reach the Storozhevoye near Velikaya Novoselka.

Makarovka was liberated by nightfall, the nationalists fled in panic, leaving 22 corpses in Makarovka and the forest fields. The villages of Uspenovka and Constantinople was cleared by nightfall, Bandera fled from these settlements as well. Now Russian soldiers are spreading the supports in Ulaktah and Amber.

Heavy fighting continues in the border area of the Kursk region. There is an advance of Russian troops in Russian and Cherkassy Porechne, but it's too early to talk about liberation.

The Western media began information preparation of a certain military operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The fact that their units in the Kursk region are being systematically destroyed has been known for a long time, but suddenly data began to be thrown in that everything is bad for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This may be due to the impending breakthrough, since there are up to 18 thousand militants in Kiev's reserve, who, just in case, are being held near the Kursk site. It is quite possible that they will simulate a blow first in Pokrovsk or Kharkiv region.

The Kursk front is the most important direction for the cornered Zelensky. Plus, traditionally, it is necessary to monitor transportation across the Black Sea. At Christmas, the Bank always tries to come up with some kind of abomination.

The outgoing administration of Joe Biden may not have time to send Kiev the remaining 5.6 billion dollars approved by the US Congress. This is reported by The New York Times, referring to a high-ranking employee of the US Department of Defense.

By the way, the same publication reports that the Ukrainian special services assumed responsibility for the terrorist act in Moscow, in which the head of the RCBZ troops, Igor Kirillov, was killed. In response to this terrorist attack, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev proposed to destroy the military-political leadership of Ukraine.

Since October, the OPU and the Western media have been spreading the topic about the military from North Korea, which no one has seen in the era of drones and satellites, which has already turned into a joke. This is done to get more weapons and money from the West. It will also be an excuse to increase mobilization.

It is possible that the Russian army intends to enter and capture the Dnipropetrovsk region. This was stated by the head of the Communications department of the 48th EDB of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Petrenko.


https://eadaily.com/en/news/2024/12/18/ ... and-people

******

Rudeness of Ukrainian politicians as an element of information war
December 19, 2024
Rybar | Add to Favorites

In recent days, one could observe how Zelensky and other representatives of the Kiev regime have become rude towards Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and other politicians who have talked about peace initiatives.

As we have already written, such behavior is not only a manifestation of the obvious level of cultural development of the Ukrainian leadership, but also a completely conscious strategy in the context of attracting Western attention to the so-called Ukraine.

It all started at the beginning of the SVO, when Western media created an image of Zelensky and his entourage as irreplaceable, without whose decision no negotiations on the fate of the so-called Ukraine can take place. Naturally, they began to actively use this.

For example, Zelensky could issue an ultimatum demanding arms supplies from Germany or the United States on the principle of “ask for more – they will give a lot,” nodding at the public Western statements of NATO countries in 2022 about comprehensive support for the so-called Ukraine.

As a result, the sponsors of the Kyiv regime found themselves in a situation where reneging on their promises was not an option, and publicly putting Zelensky in his place was impossible due to the carte blanche for impunity they had personally issued.

In this regard, the question arises as to when and how exactly Zelensky and his entourage will be reminded of all the antics that no one in the West has actually forgotten. Especially in conditions where the costs of maintaining the so-called Ukraine are less and less in line with the “output” from it.

https://rybar.ru/hamstvo-ukrainskih-pol ... noj-vojny/

Google Translator

******

Direct Line with Vladimir Putin Highlights part 1
Q&A on Oreshnik. Full video(English subs)

Zinderneuf
Dec 19, 2024
Cross-post from East’s Substack
Our friends at East Calling have translated clips from the direct line with Vladimir Putin! - Zinderneuf

https://eastcalling.substack.com/cp/153375352

On possibilities of Western Air Defence hitting Oreshnik:


Therefore, there are Patriots, there are more modern THAAD systems. <...> If the Patriot can be compared to the S -300 of the Russian system, then the THAAD is something like the S-400. Its characteristics are a little weaker, but it is the S-400 in general. <...>
But there are other means of defeat. These are anti-missile defense systems, about which we have talked a lot, there were a lot of discussions, We have been asking the Americans not to deploy this system so that we do not have to create a system of overcoming. In the end, we have done it. Remember, the Avant-garde has appeared. <...>

We have done a lot to overcome the PRO [Anti-missile defense]. And in general, from the point of view of the interests of American taxpayers, this whole story is a costly thing, contributing only a little to the security of their country.


<...>

Well, if those Western experts, about whom you said, think so, [that Oreshnik can be hit] let them offer us, and let them offer those in the West and in the USA, who pay them for their analysis, to carry out some kind of technological experiment. Well, let's say, such a high-tech duel of the 21st century. Let them determine some kind of object for defeat, let's say, in Kiev. Concentrate there all their air-defense and anti-missile forces. And we will strike there with the Oreshnik. And we'll see what happens.

Highly recommended to watch in full. Very simple and clear explanation.

https://eastcalling.substack.com/cp/153375352

******

British media gloating betrays masterminds behind Kirillov’s killing

Finian Cunningham

December 19, 2024

The reveling by the British news media over the assassination of a top Russian general in Moscow is revealing in several ways.

First of all, it is a sickening display of wretched so-called journalism. The celebratory tone in British media outlets at the sight of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov’s bloodied corpse lying in the snow speaks volumes of a despicable lack of respect. It says something about the depraved depth of British culture.

By comparison, the reporting of the assassination by American media outlets was relatively mundane and matter-of-fact.

Not so in Britain. The British media were almost euphoric in their reaction.

The Pentagon’s response was significant. Spokesman Patrick Ryder denied any U.S. involvement in the killing. He said the Americans were not forewarned about the assassination and he added that the United States did not support such action.

Of course, such denials should always be treated with skepticism.

However, while the Americans had the decency to remain reserved, the British were giddy in their ghoulishness.

The London Times editorial board declared that Lt Gen. Kirillov was a “legitimate target” for assassination.

The Daily Telegraph ran an oped piece by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon with the headline: “Putin’s chemical weapons henchman Kirillov was a truly evil man. He deserved to die.”

Meanwhile, the BBC blithely used the Foreign Office’s description of Kirillov as a “notorious mouthpiece for Kremlin disinformation” to convey an implicit justification for murder.

Over at the Guardian, their Russophobic reporter, Luke Harding, abandoned all pretense of journalistic standards by glorifying Ukraine’s military intelligence service (SBU) for its “success,” adding: “The agency has cemented its reputation as an outfit that administers its own form of brutal extrajudicial justice. It is an abrupt and swift form of vengeance, delivered as if from the heavens.”

The Ukrainian secret services were no doubt involved. The SBU is claiming responsibility and distributing a video to Western outlets of the bombing outside the Moscow apartment block, which killed Kirillov and his assistant as they walked out of the building on Tuesday morning.

Russian security services (FSB) have reportedly arrested a 29-year-old Uzbek national who says Ukrainian agents recruited him to plant the explosive-laden scooter at the street-side doorway of Kirillov’s apartment block. The suspect says he was promised payment of $100,000 and a European passport.

That all points to the higher involvement of NATO military intelligence services in the assassination. The American CIA and Britain’s MI6 are the two principal players behind Ukraine’s military intelligence.

But the circumstances indicate that the British are the primary culprits.

In October, Britain put sanctions on Kirillov after London accused him of overseeing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine, a charge that Moscow vehemently denied. The British provided no credible evidence – only hackneyed claims – and, besides, the allegation does not make sense, given that Russia is decisively winning the conflict. Why would it need to resort to using chemical weapons?

Lt Gen. Kirillov was chief of the Russian army’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces. His investigators had uncovered what they claimed to be a secret and illegal network of Pentagon-run biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine. The investigations provided substantive evidence that the bioweapons labs were authorized at U.S. presidential level and involved major American pharmaceutical companies. Typically, the West rubbished the claims as “Kremlin disinformation” without considering the information.

In other words, Kirillov’s work was mainly focused on interdicting NATO-run weapons of mass destruction, not on overseeing their use, as the British claimed.

Kirillov was the most senior Russian military commander to have been killed since the conflict in Ukraine erupted three years ago.

The British objective was to demonize Kirillov as a “chemical weapons henchman” and “an evil man.” That move was then followed by the Ukrainian secret services accusing the Russian general of being a “war criminal”. This week, on the day before his assassination, the Ukrainian published a death notice.

One could argue that the Americans had more motive to eliminate Kirillov than the British, given his potentially incriminating investigations into the bioweapons and the way it implicated President Biden.

But, arguably, that was not the motive behind his assassination. He was merely a high-profile target for a psychological operation.

Ukrainian opposition political figure Viktor Medvedchuk makes the important observation that Britain has taken over from the United States as the main intelligence player behind the Kiev regime. He says that the British are using the Ukrainian puppet president Vladimir Zelensky and his cronies to launder much of the U.S. and European money sent to Ukraine to end up in London’s banks.

With the incoming U.S. President Donald Trump expressing concern about winding down the Ukraine conflict and cutting off the financing of the Kiev junta, Britain wants to sabotage any such initiative. It wants to prolong the conflict and the money racket.

Assassinating a senior Russian commander in Moscow is aimed at humiliating the Kremlin and provoking an escalation of the conflict in a way that scuppers any possible peace negotiations with Trump, who takes up office in four weeks.

The British media’s gloating about the murder of Igor Kirillov and his assistant Ilya Polikarpov reveals Britain’s nefarious hand.

Not only was the victim vilified and condemned, the killing was glorified. The BBC, in particular, showed a keen interest in reporting on the “deep shock” felt by Muscovites in the immediate aftermath of the deadly explosion.

The state-owned outlet opined: “People living in the area told the BBC of their deep sense of shock. Even after nearly three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, for many Muscovites, the war is something that is happening a long way away – something they only see on TV or on their phones. The killing of a Russian general in Moscow is a sign that this war is very real and very close to home.”

Russia has vowed to retaliate for the murder of Igor Kirillov. Zelensky and his cronies in Kiev are no doubt bracing themselves. The British werewolves of London might want to re-check their security arrangements, too.

Questions have to be asked about how Russian security services. How could they be so easily penetrated only a few kilometers from the Kremlin – and not for the first time? Only last week, a senior missile scientist, Mikhail Shatsky, was shot dead in Moscow in an attack ascribed to Ukrainian secret services.

But also it should be questioned if Russia is being too soft in exacting revenge. Should the masterminds of terrorist operations beyond the puppets in Kiev not also be “legitimate targets,” as the British are so fond of saying?

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... v-killing/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 21, 2024 12:44 pm

Foreign troops and peace
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/21/2024

Image

“The National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine supported the decision to appeal to the United Nations and the European Union on the “deployment of a peacekeeping and security mission in Ukraine.” This is not news from today, when the composition and size of a possible peacekeeping mission of European countries is being discussed after the possible ceasefire, but from February 18, 2015. Days earlier, in the Belarusian capital, after negotiations involving Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin, the only peace agreement of this war had been signed and a ceasefire was to begin, which was to be routinely violated, and the political process that would return Donbass to Ukraine under very specific conditions and with certain linguistic, cultural, political and economic rights that kyiv always considered unacceptable and never had the slightest intention of fulfilling. Ukraine, which had suffered the second major defeat in the Donbass war at Debaltsevo after Ilovaisk in September 2014, was at its lowest point, its army was at risk of being overwhelmed and it needed to stop the war in order to recover and become stronger while waiting for the next phase of a war that all parties were aware was not over.

“The Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine noted that peacekeeping forces should be placed along the line of contact and in the uncontrolled sector of the Russian-Ukrainian border. He said that this would allow “to fix and isolate violations and also to take real steps to stop aggression,” continued the statement of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, justifying the need to send foreign troops to prevent a Russian or republican attack across the line of separation, which did not occur during the seven years that the Minsk process lasted. Faced with the accusations of Oleksandr Turchinov, then Secretary of the Council, Russia’s interest at that time was to force Ukraine to comply with the signed agreements and not to resume the war that it had just helped to stop. Just as six months earlier, Russia had not only not resisted negotiations, but made the agreement possible by negotiating it directly with Ukraine without the presence of the People’s Republics, whose leaders were in the building simply to stage the signing. As in September of last year, Russia agreed to dialogue, an agreement and to halt the offensive of the side in the war that it supported at a time when it was on the attack, putting the weakened Ukrainian army in check.

The fear of collapse or of Russia exploiting Ukraine's obvious military weakness to advance to the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions worried Kiev, which reacted by appealing to the United Nations, an unfeasible appeal, since the Security Council could not approve a peacekeeping mission without a Russian vote. Ukraine did not need a peacekeeping mission then, but rather to launch the recently relaunched Minsk process, capable of resolving the war in Donbass if Kiev began to take steps in that direction. Dialogue, not arms, or a peacekeeping mission that would have frozen the front by consolidating the de facto border and, therefore, the effective separation between Ukraine and Donbass, should have brought about the end of the conflict. The fact that during the following seven years belligerence was chosen instead of diplomacy is one of the causes of the current situation.

Turchynov's appeal from his post at the head of the National Security and Defence Council was not the first time that Ukraine had tried to involve foreign troops in its war. Almost a year earlier, in April 2014, Turchynov himself, then acting president after the victory at Maidan, which had overthrown Yanukovych, had asked the organisation for a peacekeeping mission in a conversation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Barely 24 hours had passed since the signing of the decree launching the anti-terrorist operation , the first euphemism of this ten-year conflict, which began the war in Donbass. “Turchynov explained to Ban that the presence of UN peacekeepers in Ukraine would allow the international community to confirm the legitimacy and legality of the anti-terrorist operation launched by Kiev in response to secessionist challenges. He stressed that the objective of the anti-terrorist operation launched by the authorities in the eastern regions, where pro-Russian rebels have taken over several government buildings, is to protect the civilian population," wrote the EFE agency at the time .

Ukraine was about to send the first armoured vehicles to Slavyansk, to begin the deployment of its army and of volunteer groups such as Azov or Praviy Sektor, to carry out the first artillery bombardments and later to start using even the air force, which on 2 June caused the first massacre in the centre of Lugansk, where a dozen people bled to death in the street without the aid being able to do anything for their lives. Ukraine, which continued to insist that its job was to protect the population, claimed, despite the existence of images of the aircraft dropping the bomb on the city (possibly by mistake, since a battle for the border post was taking place a few kilometres away), that the explosion had been caused by a malfunctioning air conditioning unit. The situation had already turned into a war that would cause thousands of deaths and an extreme humanitarian situation with a summer without running water in cities like Lugansk and the interruption of the payment of public salaries, social benefits and pensions in Donbass, which, despite the Minsk agreements demanding it, Ukraine never agreed to resume. This was the anti-terrorist operation that Turchinov wanted to legitimize based on the presence of UN troops.

The current situation is more similar to that of 2015 than to that at the start of the conflict. The intensity of the war, with the use of missiles by both sides and two heavily armed and trench-hardened armies, is not comparable to what could be seen in the first year of the hot phase of the Donbass war. Neither is the level of destruction or the number of casualties, which, although still uncertain and protected by the military censorship of Russia and Ukraine, is alarmingly high. However, the solutions remain similar.

A few days ago, Volodymyr Zelensky said that he would begin to consider Emmanuel Macron's proposal to send a peacekeeping mission from European Union countries once Ukraine has received a formal invitation to join NATO. Unlike nine years ago, it is not kyiv that is demanding peacekeeping troops, but the countries that would form them that are offering them. However, the objective is the same: to prevent Russia from taking advantage of the weakness of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, burdened by a lack of replacements, difficulties in recruiting and fatigue from three years of practically total war.

“President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday that he had discussed with European leaders the possibility of sending European peacekeepers to Ukraine as part of a cease-fire or peace deal, as the country’s allies consider options for how to help Kiev end its clashes with Russia on favorable terms,” The New York Times wrote this week , making it clear that the Ukrainian president is negotiating that possibility even though his demands have not been – and will not be – met. But Zelensky insists that “deploying peacekeepers will not be enough to ensure the country’s security in the long term and that only NATO membership could secure Ukraine against future attacks.” “As long as Ukraine is not in NATO, this aspect can be considered,” Zelensky said in reference to the European peacekeeping mission after his visit to Brussels on Thursday. The change in rhetoric is clear and indicates that Ukraine’s needs are more important than its demands.

“Zelensky on Thursday suggested a path to resolving the conflict in which Ukraine would discuss sending peacekeepers with its European partners, while continuing to press its allies, especially the United States, to be allowed into NATO. ‘Such security guarantees can be discussed separately with the United States and Europe,’ he said,” adds The New York Times, which admits that, with the exception of countries such as Italy or Sweden, which have shown a willingness to send troops, the idea is met with skepticism in European capitals.

Like almost all articles discussing the possibility of NATO countries sending troops to Ukraine in conditions of precarious peace, uncertain ceasefire or seemingly frozen conflict, The New York Times does not even mention the elephant in the room , the Russian position. The Alliance countries continue to insist on the need to avoid a direct NATO-Russia confrontation and the proposed peacekeeping mission would only be carried out after a ceasefire agreement, that is, with Moscow’s acceptance, either by specifying it in the terms of the agreement or implicitly. After describing the idea of ​​peacekeeping forces as a “peculiar episode of political theatre,” Russian opposition journalist Leonid Ragozin wrote that “everyone knows that this is not going to happen. Why would Putin accept something whose prospects prompted him to start the war?” Ragozin then wonders why this seemingly unfeasible idea is being persisted with. “One possible reason is that it is necessary to give the audience something to chew on while the discourse moves from denial to negotiation and acceptance. The other reason is simpler: prolong the war, perhaps even persuade Trump to increase aid and escalate it to appease Putin, and hope that something magical happens.”

Whatever happens with the idea of ​​sending in European troops, it is not a peacekeeping mission that will save Ukraine from danger, but an agreement that will end the conflict. This requires good faith negotiations, something that the West has been trying to avoid since the Geneva talks in spring 2014, when Russia was promised an inclusive dialogue between kyiv and the country's regions. Instead of bringing together the factions that had not accepted the February coup, the Ukrainian government staged a dialogue between the pro-Maidan factions on a tour of several Ukrainian cities.

In this struggle to prolong the war until the final objective is achieved, the main consequence is the intensification of mutual attacks. “Russian bombings target Kiev after Ukraine fired US-made missiles across the border,” wrote AP yesterday , referring to the latest Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital, in which eight missiles were fired, causing damage in the airport area, where a weapons depot was hit. Several civilian buildings in the city centre were damaged by the debris of downed missiles or drones accompanying these attacks. Ukraine reported the death of one person. “The only thing Russia knows how to do is war against civilians,” wrote Andriy Ermak, accompanying a photograph of two firefighters rescuing two dogs.

Shortly afterwards, a major attack was announced in the town of Rilsk in Kursk Oblast . Despite initial reports, it was not an attack by Storm Shadow missiles, but by American HIMARS missiles, which caused serious damage to a district of the town and, according to the governor, six deaths.

Less media-friendly despite being the capital of the region where the war began ten years ago, the bombing of Donetsk also caused damage in the city. The territorial losses suffered by Ukraine in recent months have pushed the front further away from Kurajovo, so Donetsk is no longer within range of 155-millimeter artillery. To bomb the city, Ukraine now has to use Western shells, which are much more expensive than traditional artillery. The bombings have decreased and are no longer daily, as they were from May 2022 until just a few weeks ago, but as the images from the Kalinin district showed yesterday, they have not disappeared completely. They will only do so at the moment when true diplomacy returns and the parties negotiate on the basis of real issues and not their wishes.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/21/las-t ... -y-la-paz/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (as of December 21, 2024 ) Main points :

- The Russian Armed Forces damaged energy facilities that support the operation of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex and the infrastructure of military airfields;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost 110 servicemen in the area of ​​responsibility of the North and Dnipro groups in one day;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 440 fighters and an ammunition depot due to the actions of the West group of forces;

- Fighters of the Center group continued to advance deep into the enemy's defenses, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 580 servicemen and a Leopard tank;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost over 160 fighters due to the actions of the East group;

- The Russian Air Defense Forces destroyed 8 HIMARS shells and 89 Ukrainian UAVs in one day.

▫️Units of the "East" group of forces improved the situation along the front line, defeated the formations of two mechanized brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and a territorial defense brigade in the areas of the settlements of Razliv, Velyka Novosyolka, Konstantinopol and Storozhevoe of the Donetsk People's Republic. The enemy's losses amounted to over 160 servicemen, six vehicles, two 155-mm M198 howitzers made in the USA and a 152-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Akatsiya" .



▫️Units of the Dnepr group of forces inflicted losses on the manpower and equipment of the airborne assault , mountain assault brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Antonovka, Kamyshany in the Kherson region and Stepnogorsk in the Zaporizhia region. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 70 servicemen, two vehicles, a 152-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Akatsiya" , three 152-mm D-20 guns and an electronic warfare station.



▫️ Operational-tactical aviation , strike unmanned aerial vehicles , missile forces and artillery of the Russian Armed Forces groups have damaged energy facilities that support the operation of enterprises of the military-industrial complex of Ukraine, the infrastructure of military airfields, the storage site of strike unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as concentrations of manpower and military equipment of the Ukrainian armed formations in 147 districts.

▫️ Air defense systems shot down eight projectiles from the US-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket system and 89 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles.

▫️ In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed: 650 aircraft, 283 helicopters, 38,241 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 anti-aircraft missile systems, 19,947 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,504 multiple launch rocket system combat vehicles, 19,902 field artillery pieces and mortars, and 29,402 units of special military vehicles.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin


Google Translator

*****

U.S. Corporate Land Grab in Ukraine Underlies War With Russia
By Jeremy Kuzmarov - December 19, 2024 5

Image
[Source: ilovethaki.gr]

Heralded as a hero in Western media, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has allowed foreign private interests to steal his country’s best land
In early November, Barbara Bonte, a Belgian member of the European Union (EU) parliament, raised concern about the sell-off of Ukrainian land on a massive scale to U.S. private equity firms along with some Saudi agro-industrial and investment businesses.

Bonte wrote to the EU parliament that, “according to several disquieting reports, mainly U.S. but also Saudi agro-industrial and investment businesses are purchasing Ukrainian farmland on a massive scale. Cargill, ADM, BlackRock, Oaktree Capital Management and Bunge Limited, for instance, have reportedly gained control over much of Ukraine’s farmland.”

Image
Barbara Bonte [Source: en.wikipedia.org]

Bonte then posed two questions to the EU parliament as follows:

“1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the impact of this sell-off of European farmland to multinationals serving only U.S. interests on EU strategic food-supply dependence? How does the Commission intend to address that impact?”

“2. This strongly suggests that the United States is seeking to recoup its military support for Ukraine, and ensure a geopolitical presence there in a post-war scenario through control over Ukrainian farmland and the profits it generates. How does the Commission intend to prevent the United States from cherry-picking in Ukraine and Europe from being left to deal with just the handicaps?”

Bonte’s questions are significant ones that point to a hidden, underlying motive to the war in Ukraine and U.S. and European support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The bonanza offered to foreign investors resembles past wars where young people were sacrificed on the altar of corporate profits.

War and Theft
A detailed analysis of the land grab in Ukraine by Western corporations was provided in a 2023 report by the Oakland Institute[1] entitled “War and Theft: The Takeover of Ukraine’s Agricultural Land.”

Written by Frédéric Mousseau, a food security consultant, and Eve Devillers, a Ph.D. candidate at Cornell University, the report starts by emphasizing Ukraine’s function as a “breadbasket of Europe” with its 33 million acres of arable land and “large swaths of the most fertile farmland in the world.”

In 2021, Zelensky initiated a land reform program as part of the structural adjustment program begun under the auspices of Western financial institutions that enabled U.S.-based corporations to take over Ukraine’s land.[2]

The structural adjustment program had been opposed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was overthrown in the 2014 U.S.-backed Maidan coup.

Image
Eve Devillers [Source: cais.cornell.edu]

Image
Frédéric Mousseau [Source: oaklandinstitute.org]

Image
Viktor Yanukovych [Source: wikiwand.com]

After Zelensky’s “land reform” was initiated, about five million hectares—the size of two Crimeas—were outright “stolen” by private interests.

The thieves included Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street investment firm well represented in the Biden administration, which in April 2022 bought NN Investment Partners Holding N.V., a Netherlands-based company that is a major shareholder in Ukraine’s biggest landowner, Kernel Holding S.A, and in Astarta, another large landowner in Ukraine.[3]

Image
[Source: labourheartlands.com]

Vanguard Group Inc., which gave $45,473 to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and $98,551 to Joe Biden in 2020, was another Wall Street firm that bought up Ukrainian land cheaply.[4]

Image
[Source: newsmax.com]
Some large U.S. pension funds, foundations and university endowments are invested in Ukrainian land through NCH Capital—a U.S.-based private equity fund headquartered at Rockefeller Plaza in New York, which is the fifth largest landholder in Ukraine with its possession of 290,749 hectares.[5]

NCH Capital currently faces accusations of unlawful land acquisition, tax evasion, and illicit financial activity. In 2015, its founder and CEO, George Rohr, was part of the high-level meetings involving Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko and U.S. Commerce secretary Penny Pritzker that led Ukraine to agree to the structural adjustment program of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a condition for two $1 billion loan guarantees from the Obama administration.[6]

Image
George Rohr [Source: nchcapital.com]

Investors in NCH Capital include Dow Chemical, notorious manufacturer of napalm and Agent Orange, as well as other war profiteers like Honeywell and Lockheed Martin, along with Harvard University, the University of Michigan and Wellesley College endowments.

Open Secrets.com reports that NCH Capital has given the most money to Democratic Party candidates who have been fervent champions of U.S. intervention in Ukraine and billion-dollar military and financial aid packages there.

In 2024, NCH Capital gave $5,000 to Jimmy Panetta, a Democratic representative from California’s 19th congressional district encompassing Santa Cruz, Monterey and San José, who is a former U.S. Navy intelligence officer and the son of former CIA Director Leon Panetta (who delivered a keynote address at this year’s Democratic Party Convention in Chicago).[7]

Not surprisingly, Jimmy Panetta has been a champion of “robust aid to Ukraine in Congress,” as a profile in The San Luis Obispo Tribune put it, helping to pass a national security package that included $61 billion in security aid for Ukraine and support for the sale of seized Russian assets.[8]

In August 2024, Panetta traveled to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky. He subsequently issued a statement praising him and claiming that it was “heartening to see and hear firsthand how American support, especially our work in Congress to pass legislation for supplemental funding, is properly being used on the battlefield.”

Image
Congressman Jimmy Panetta, right, shaking hands with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in August 2024. [Source: sanluisobispo.com]
A person in a military uniform talking to another person

Image
Congressman Jimmy Panetta, right, meeting with Ukrainian soldier in August 2024. [Source: sanluisobispo.com]
NCH and other firms investing in Ukrainian agriculture are indebted to Western financial institutions, in particular the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC)—the private sector arm of the World Bank.

The Oakland Institute report compares the generous financing of multinational corporations and local oligarchs with the inability of Ukrainian small farmers to access loans and their being displaced from their land and plunged into poverty. Some have migrated to the U.S. to seek farm work in the U.S. Midwest, sending remittances back home.[9]

Mousseau and Devillers wrote that “the Partial Credit Guarantee Fund established by the World Bank to support small farmers is only US$5.4 million, a negligible amount compared to the billions channeled to large agribusinesses.”

Mousseau and Devillers further emphasized that the billions in Western aid provided to Ukraine have been “conditioned to a drastic structural adjustment program, which includes austerity measures, cuts in social safety nets, and the privatization of key sectors of the economy.”[10]

A central condition [of Western aid] was “the creation of a land market, put into law in 2020 under President Zelensky, despite opposition from a majority of Ukrainians fearing that it will exacerbate corruption in the agricultural sector and reinforce its control by powerful interests”—which indeed it has.[11]

Image
Ukrainian farmers protest privatization laws imposed by Volodymyr Zelensky at the behest of the IMF. [Source: euromaidanpress.com]

Mousseau and Devillers suggest that international financial institutions, by supporting large agribusinesses, are “in effect subsidizing [with the concentration of land] an industrial model of agriculture based on the intensive use of synthetic inputs, fossil fuels, and large-scale monocropping—long shown to be environmentally and socially destructive.

By contrast, small-scale farmers in Ukraine being driven off their land, “demonstrate resilience and a great potential for leading the expansion of a different production model based on agro-ecology, environmental sustainability, and the production of healthy food.”

At the end, “War and Theft” makes clear there are post-reconstruction plans for further land privatization that will benefit the same corporate investors who are already making a huge profit in Ukraine.

This is happening as an overwhelming number of Ukrainians want to suspend the land privatization laws enforced by the Zelensky government, whose image in the West is a phony one.


1.The Oakland Institute is an independent policy think tank based in Oakland, California. ↑

2.“War and Theft” emphasizes that misguided privatization and corrupt governance since the early 1990s in Ukraine led to the concentration of land in the hands of a new oligarchic class and a variety of foreign interests, including U.S.-based private equity funds and the sovereign fund of Saudi Arabia which registered in tax havens such as Cyprus and Luxembourg. ↑

3.Then-Vice President Joe Biden blackmailed Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko by threatening to withhold the $1 billion IMF loans if he did not fire a prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, a natural gas company that appointed Joe’s son Hunter to its Board even though he had no experience working in the oil and gas industry. A firm based in Tampa, Florida, with $4.97 billion in U.S. assets, Kopernik Global Investors, LLC also owns shares in Kernel and Astarta. ↑

4.In the 2020 election cycle, Vanguard gave $13,573 to Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who has been supportive of Ukraine’s position in the conflict with Russia. In 2022, it gave $11,370 to Senator Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat who is another Ukraine war hawk, and $8,149 to John Fetterman (D-PA) who supported Ukraine aid packages. When Russia began its special military operation in February 2022, Vanguard issued a public statement denouncing Putin and conveying its solidarity with Ukraine. ↑

5.According to “War and Theft,” NCH operates in Ukraine through the company AgroProsperis. ↑

6.NCH Capital was founded in 1993 by George Rohr and Moris Tabacinic, two U.S. businessmen heavily involved in the privatization frenzy that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. They established a series of funds to lease or buy farms in the region at a low price, with the aim to aggregate them into large-scale grain and soybean farms—successfully amassing a land bank of 700,000 hectares in Ukraine and Russia. After securing investments from prominent Western financial institutions, NCH Capital channeled these funds through offshore companies located in tax havens like Cyprus and the Cayman Islands and into joint ventures with local firms to take over the land. ↑

7.The main Republican to which NCH Capital gave substantial money in the 2024 election cycle was Roger Wicker (R-MS), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who promoted the surging of faster military aid to Ukraine and advocated for a nuclear weapon strike on Russia. NCH Capital gave $1,000 to Ritchie Torres (D-NY), a House member from the Bronx who voted in favor of three supplemental military aid packages to Ukraine. He said: “The U.S. has a singular obligation to help freedom fighters fight for their freedom, and nowhere more so than in Ukraine, whose self-defense against Putin’s aggression must prevail.” NCH Capital gave $500 to Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), a Clinton protégé who was another supporter of military funding to Ukraine. ↑

8.Panetta also authored and introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Ukraine Human Rights Policy Act to hold Russia accountable for its human rights abuses, and co-sponsored the NO LIMITS Act, which would hold Chinese Communist Party military firms providing assistance to Russia’s war efforts accountable, and he continues to fight for a resolution that strongly condemns the forced adoption of Ukrainian children by the Russian Federation and calls for the return of Ukrainian children to their home country and families. ↑

9.Goldman Sachs officials from London, with investments in Ukraine’s agriculture, have meanwhile been seen sporting cowboy boots and hats visiting their holdings. ↑

10.The austerity measures included slashing public pensions and wages, reforming the public provision of water and energy, and the privatization of banks and other facets of Ukraine’s economy. These policies have resulted in Ukraine assuming a crippling debt burden. ↑

11.The report notes that, in 2019 and 2020, large protests and rallies erupted against changes to laws governing the sale of farmland. ↑

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/1 ... th-russia/

******

Russia Launches Strike in Response to Ukrainian Attack on Chemical Plant

Image
Firefighters try to extinguish the fire in the control room of Ukraine’s Secret Service, Dec. 20, 2024. X/ @SMO_VZ

December 20, 2024 Hour: 9:11 am

On Wednesday, Ukraine attacked Rostov with ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles.

On Friday morning, Russia launched a group strike with long-range precision weapons in retaliation for Ukrainian attacks on its chemical plant with Western-made missiles.

The strike targeted the Ukrainian Security Service command post, the state-run Kiev design bureau “Luch,” and positions of the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The raid was in response to Ukraine’s Wednesday attack on a Russian chemical plant in the Rostov region with six U.S.-made ATACMS tactical missiles and four Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles.

Ukraine’s General Staff of the Armed Forces said that five Russian missiles targeted Kiev but were shot down by Ukrainian air defense at around 7 a.m. The fragments of downed missiles resulted in deaths and injuries as well as damage in five districts of Kiev.

In November, in a major shift of policy on the Ukraine crisis, the United States authorized Ukraine to use U.S. long-range missiles to strike targets in Russia, triggering an escalation of tension around the conflict.


On Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry also reported that its forces continue their unstoppable advance in the south and center of the Donetsk region, where they have liberated ten towns in the last week.

Assault units from the South, Center and East military formations participated in these operations. Five of the towns are located south of the strategic stronghold of Kurakhov, which is about to be liberated. The rest of the towns are in the vicinity of the Kurakhov and Velika Novosilka squares, a few kilometers from Pokrovsk, the main objective of the current Russian operations in the Donbas.

Military experts believe that Moscow will take Kurakhov before the end of the year and will try to do the same with Velika Novosilka, thus taking control of the entire south of Donbas and reaching the administrative border with Zaporizhia.

The Russian General Staff has estimated that 4,500 square kilometres of territory have been liberated by its troops this year. Russia still needs to liberate approximately 8,000 square kilometres to control the entire Donetsk region.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/russia-l ... cal-plant/

******

Medley Report: Europe's Descent, Oreshnik, and More

Image

Simplicius
Dec 19, 2024

<snip>

Onto the last topic, an intrepid analyst has reportedly ordered up his own batch of satellite photos of the Oreshnik attack on Dnipro’s Yuzhmash plant. We now have high quality satellite photos for the first time, which Western analysts were so loath to order up for some reason:


Amerikanets
Yuzhmash and Oreshnik Demystified
Read more
a day ago · 38 likes · 15 comments · Amerikanets


It’s a bit inconclusive due to the fact that some have pointed out a few of the holes are from previous strikes in both 2022 and 2023, but it does show a few major collapses of buildings which are actually huge. If you study the size of that plant and compare to some of the large apartment blocks on and around its property, you note the factory workshops are massive in scale—as Amerikanets notes:

Also important to note is that the buildings at Yuzhmash are big. Really big. Many are taller than three stories with over 500,000 square feet per floor. Others are over ten stories tall. Keep that in mind when viewing the images. This kind of analysis has a learning curve.

Just by virtue of coincidence, Ukrainian pundits published satellite photos of yesterday’s alleged strike on Russia’s Rostov Kamensk-Shakhtinsky plant:

Image

In case you missed it in the above, here’s the damage to one building from an alleged Storm Shadow or ATACMS. The building in question is at 48.29657145504684, 40.18249951977653 and measures precisely 158ft across:

Image

Note the paltry holes above, measuring about 15ft in diameter each.

Some of the Oreshnik hits on the other hand appear to have totally demolished buildings or building sections of approximately equal length, ~150ft:

Image
Image
The above “1” is matched precisely to the “1” building of the first image.

This one had a 183ft span of destruction:
Image

Image
From an outside source for comparison.

Recall that this was a single missile with multiple warheads, and Reuters reported from their Western intel sources they were inert kinetic ‘test’ versions at that, with their explosive warheads removed.

Image
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ne ... 024-11-26/

That being said, I’m not convinced that Oreshkin is economically viable as a regular use type of weapon, given that ICBM style weapons typically cost tens of millions of dollars each. Or do they? One source claims in the early 2000s, Russian Topol-M single-missile cost was supposed to be 18 million rubles, which at that time’s exchange rate should be something like $700k if my math is correct.

Now after Putin’s announcement of Oreshnik going into mass production claims vary as to how many Oreshniks Russia can manufacture:

Image
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... shnik-year

Following Russia’s first combat use of the Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile on November 21, the M[i[ain Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry publicised an intelligence assessment on Russian industry’s production capacity for the new weapons system. Russia is estimated to be able to produce up to 25 Oreshnik missiles monthly, which equates to production of 300 missiles per year.

The above claims GUR’s numbers of 25 a month, but I have not been able to verify that anywhere, which suggests it’s phony. In fact, Ukraine refuted it and in this case I agree with them. 25 per month is a huge number even for Kalibr or Kh-101 style missiles, for Oreshnik this is absolutely impossible. More realistic is maybe a couple a month to a few dozen per year at most, at least for now.

That said, what do you think of Putin’s new ‘technological challenge’? (Videoat link.)

It should be noted that immediately after Oreshnik’s debut, perhaps struggling to catch up and save face, the US launched into a test of its own Dark Eagle or LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon):

Image
https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-n ... vancements

[i[The test demonstrated the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB), achieving hypersonic speeds exceeding Mach 5. With a reported operational range of over 2,775 kilometers (1,724 miles), the "Dark Eagle" missile offers the longest reach of any land-based strike system currently in the U.S. inventory. The weapon’s warhead is engineered to deliver immense destructive power, capable of neutralizing heavily fortified military installations, command centers, and critical infrastructure with pinpoint precision. This makes the missile a decisive asset in scenarios requiring rapid engagement of high-value, time-critical targets.[/i]

It was the first ever live fire of the full system from erector TEL. With claimed speeds of “Mach 5”—compared to Oreshnik’s Mach 10+—and a range of 2700km—compared to Oreshnik’s 5000-7000km—it’s not exactly groundbreaking.

(Much more at link.)

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/med ... t-oreshnik

******

Didn't Help Much.

Tony Blinken is a typical product of Ivy League degree mill. He thinks that US Dollar numbers in war matter--they don't, when you are dealing with the country with comparable industrial (real economy that is) output.

Washington has provided around $100 billion in financial aid and military assistance to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said. The bulk of the money was spent inside the US on defense manufacturing, he told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday. This comes amid recent efforts by the outgoing administration of US President Joe Biden to spend every dollar allocated by Congress before leaving office in January. “We’ve spent a lot of money on Ukraine and defending Ukraine, about $100 billion. Our allies and partners, they’ve spent about $150 billion doing it,” the secretary of state said. Financial assistance to Kiev, according to Blinken, represents “the best example of burden sharing” between NATO members.

It is akin to feeding a proxy with 9 mm bullets against the enemy which operates long-range artillery. But you cannot explain these realities to any high positioned bureaucrat in Washington across the board: economic, political, intel or military. This result of the US losing any remnants of cognitive faculties was long in the making. I want to stress again--some people in the US military understood that:

Image

But the time has been lost and purely political class in the West needs only credentials. Real knowledge and serious skills--come on, who needs them in the West. Vladimir Putin is semi-joking when inviting NATO to a duel with Oreshnik today. Those few in NATO who have a serious intel and military-technological background know they are defenseless. I talk about this in my today's video.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2024/12 ... -much.html

******

What Happens When Trump’s “Negotiations” Over Ukraine Quickly Hit the Wall?
Posted on December 19, 2024 by Yves Smith

Oddly, even Russia-sympathetic commentators seem loath to take Putin and other top Russia officials at their word with respect to Ukraine. Russia’s demand for no NATO, no way, no how, ever in Ukraine means a very fast impasse for any Trump negotiation attempts. As we will explain, Trump can’t deliver NATO nor can he deliver Ukraine. Having Ukraine renounce NATO is one of Putin’s preconditions to negotiations and a pause in hostilities. The “nyet means nyet” of now CIA Director Bill Burns famed 2008 memo on Russian opposition to Ukraine in NATO is as firm as ever. Yet it has still not been accepted by Team West.

Russia nevertheless has incentives to some negotiation-like activities. Putin has repeatedly maintained he is willing to negotiate, and it would behoove the Russian side to go though the motions a bit, even if that means broken-recording what they have already said, if nothing else to keep the good will of key economic partners like China and India. They are not comfortable with Russia slowly gobbling up a neighbor, even with Putin’s repeated explanations as to why the West has turned Ukraine into an existential threat to Russia. The Western media may give Russia an unexpected helping hand. Since most mainstream media outlets are predisposed to treat willingness to discuss positions as an admission of Russian weakness, the press is likely to hype any exchanges as amounting to more than they really do.

So expect a bit of talking theater to try to minimize embarrassment for the Trump side. As Alexander Mercouris has pointed out, for US officials to exit the Biden cone of silence with respect to Russia would be a marked step forward.

But even before getting to the elephant in the room, that Putin has set what for Ukraine, the US and NATO is an impossibly high bar for commencing “talks”: that Ukraine formally drop its plans for joining NATO and withdraw all its troops from the four oblasts that Russia has designated as part of Russia. That means their original administrative boundaries, which was beyond what Russia then and even now occupies. Only then would Russia halt combat operations.1</sup

And in the context of that June 14 speech,2 “talks” means negotiations, as in horse trading over bargaining positions with the objective of coming to a resolution. It is hardly uncommon for two parties to have no overlap in what they deem acceptable, as attested by the number of divorces and commercial disputes that wind up in court. So there is no reason, as many observers weirdly seem to assume that there is any deal to be had, now or any time soon.

But not all talks are created equal. For broader political purposes, Russia can be expected to indulge in some sessions of Trump officials and Russian officials “talking” past each other to get through to the Trump team that Putin really means what he has repeatedly said.

Putin is unusually transparent for a world leader in setting forth his positions and explaining why Russia regards them as necessary.

Remember that early in the Special Military Operation, Putin had also warned that the longer the war went on, “the more difficult it will be for them to negotiate with us.” This pointed to the reality that as Russia made progress on the battlefield, it would increase its demands in light of its improved bargaining position. Putin and others in top roles have reiterated this notion in a coded manner, that any negotiations must reflect realities on the ground,

So what does Trump do when he can no longer hide the fact that his repeated and loud pledges that he could quickly and easily end the war in Ukraine have all come to naught? Will he go the Richard Nixon “peace with honor” route, and try to spin abandonment of Ukraine as a win for the US? That might be colorable in light of Ukraine intransigence, as in blame can be shifted to them for the negotiation failure.

But Trump is a lot like Biden in that he often lashes out at and tries to punish opponents. Will he realize that Russia, ex nukes, is an immovable object? Will he go all in for the Russian frozen asset heist? Will he not oppose the expected move of the probable replacement for German’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Friedrich Merz, of launching German Taurus missiles into Russia? Recall the Taurus has a longer range than the US ATACMS.

Why Trump Cannot Deliver a Settlement

Trump has two insurmountable problems: Ukraine and NATO.

With Ukraine, Zelensky is ferociously opposed to negotiations. He has rejected ideas from the Trump side that fall well short of what Russia deems to be its bare minimum. He lambasted the idea of a freeze on the current line of conflict, which throws cold water on the latest Trump scheme.3

In a further intended poke in the eye to Russia, Zelensky today said he would not agree to limit Ukraine’s armaments even if Ukraine were invited to join NATO. In fact, any NATO future for Ukraine is a non-starter for Russia, so Zelensky is just over-egging the pudding. But here, he is going out of his way to repudiate the preliminary Istanbul peace terms of March-April 2022. Ukraine had inked an outline that committed Ukraine to staying out of NATO. As Victoria Nuland later whinged, it also contained a big annex over Ukraine’s arms limits. There was a big bid-asked spread between what Ukraine and Russia wanted, but they apparently had gotten as far as listing weapons categories and putting numbers to each.

And even though Zelensky is refusing to budge long after his term has expired, it’s not as if a replacement would be any more willing to negotiate. The Banderites are still the power behind the throne. They are as motivated as the US neocons and their EU/NATO allies to fight to the last Ukrainian. Russia has promised war crimes trials. There seem to be more than enough snuff videos Ukrainians happily took of Russian soldiers’ deliberately brutal killings to make charges stick.

Remember, Trump has no negotiating leverage here. He played the money card prematurely by saying no more serious funding of Ukraine. Even if Trump were to attempt a flip-flop, Republicans in Congress, who recognize Ukraine has become a losing cause in their districts, are not certain to follow. If anyone in Ukraine is in contact with reality, they also know US weapons stocks are low and the US has competing priorities in terms of what theater to supply.

So nothing will change with Ukraine until there is a Russian-forced regime change, say by military/political collapse that leads to a puppet-like government or Russia imposing terms (we previously pointed to the Allies’ post-WWII control of German territory and its lengthy return to sovereignity as a possible model).

But the NATO and EU are just as intractable. EU leaders (save the renegade and marginalized Viktor Orban of Hungary and his new confrere, Robert Fico of Slovakia, and interestingly, just recently, Georgia Meloni of Italy4) top to bottom have loathed and vilified Trump starting with his first term. Recall how they would childishly diss him at gatherings by refusing to talk to him. The antipathy has been mutual and has only gotten worse as Trump threatened to cut NATO funding and looks set to deliver.

The EU has been putting uber-Russia-hawks into key positions. Ursula von der Leyen has managed to maneuver her way into asserting more authority as president of the European Commission than she has on paper and continues to try to do everything she can to punish Russia, even though her sanctions package and fierce speeches lack any punch. Mark Rutte as new NATO chief, has managed to outdo his predecessor Jens Stoltenberg in anti-Russia choler. Kaja Kallas, who has has taken Josep Borrell’s post as the EU’s foreign minister equivalent, has taken to egging Zelensky on in his opposition to Trump. From an interview today in the Financial Times, Stop pushing Zelenskyy into peace talks, warns EU’s top diplomat:

Western capitals should stop suggesting peace talks to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and instead ensure their promises of security guarantees to Kyiv are not “empty”, the EU’s chief diplomat has warned….

The former Estonian prime minister spoke to the Financial Times ahead of an EU leaders’ summit on Thursday set to discuss how Europe can adapt its support to Kyiv after Donald Trump returns to the White House….

On Wednesday evening Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte hosted talks with Zelenskyy and a small group of senior EU leaders including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to discuss potential options for the future of European support to Ukraine.

Speaking ahead of that meeting, Rutte said talk of a peace deal only helped Putin. “If we now start to discuss amongst ourselves what a peace deal could look like, we make it so easy for the Russians,” he said.

“I think we would be very wise to put some lid on this and focus on the business at hand . . . to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to prevent Putin from winning.”


If you have been following the various “security guarantees” formulas the Europeans have been discussing among themselves, they are all 100% not acceptable to Russia, like deferred entry into NATO or a 100,000 ish “ceasefire” force from various NATO states, which Russia correctly regards as no different than moving NATO into Ukraine.

Anti-Spiegel (hat tip Micael T) makes it even more clear that Rutte is trying to put the kibosh on even airing the possibility of peace discussions. The article’s sub-head, via machine translation:

NATO Secretary General Rutte has said that public discussions about a possible peace solution must be brought “under control” and that the focus must instead be on how to supply Ukraine with more weapons in order to “secure Ukraine’s victory”.

As for Rutte, he is resorting to the tired, empty ruse of pretending that somehow Ukraine can improve its position even as Ukraine is losing more ground, literally and figuratively, every day. Putin has already won. The only question is by how much. Having the West be the difficult party and extend the conflict is only to Russia’s advantage.

As for NATO, Trump could not deliver NATO even if most of its leaders stopped hating him, say by virtue of getting lobotomies. We’ve pointed out how weak NATO’s governance is. For instance, it’s vaunted Article 5 commitments amount to almost nothing. They translate as, “If a NATO member is in trouble, we will formally consider whether to do anything.” Aurelien, in a piece I have referred to several times, NATO’s Phantom Armies, gave a worked example of how hard it would be to get NATO to Do Something.

It turns out NATO governance is even worse than I imagined. From the NATO website:

A decision reached by consensus is an agreement reached by common consent.

When a “NATO decision” is announced, it is therefore the expression of the collective will of all the sovereign states that are members of the Alliance.

This principle of consensus is applied at every committee level, which means that all NATO decisions are collective decisions made by its member countries.

Consensus decision-making is a fundamental principle. It has been accepted as the sole basis for decision-making in NATO since the creation of the Alliance in 1949.

Consensus decision-making means that there is no voting at NATO. Consultations take place until a decision that is acceptable to all is reached. Sometimes member countries agree to disagree on an issue. In general, this negotiation process is rapid, since members consult each other on a regular basis and therefore often know and understand each other’s positions in advance.

Facilitating the process of consultation and consensus decision-making is one of the NATO Secretary General’s main tasks.

The principle of consensus decision-making applies throughout NATO – from the North Atlantic Council, the Alliance’s principal political decision-making body, all the way down through its subordinate committees and structures.


This lack of formal processs and votes goes a long way to explaining the bizarre protracted public negotiations among NATO members. The supposed consensual process historically no doubt significantly depended on the “Some animals are more equal than others” position of the US as the big funder of and significant arms supplier to NATO. And NATO hasn’t had to face bigger decisions than whether to participate in US-led campaigns against men in sandals with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers.5

But NATO was caught out when the US/EU shock and awe sanctions did not quickly prostrate Russia. They gained undue hope from Russia quickly seeking negotiations, and tried to press their advantage. When that did not pan out and they found themselves literally outgunned by Russia, and the US unable to live up to its image and generously supply Ukraine with arms, they were forced to make decisions on a national basis. The consensus fiction has been frayed. Decision-making will become even more difficult with the Trump Administration not in the business of knocking heads together.

Let us put it another way: there are only two settings in which I have seen consensus at work. One is in Japan, and their process does not translate to anywhere else. First, it is not at all nice. Power dynamics and who has what to offer matters a great deal. Second, Japan as a society and Japanese companies even more so have strongly held norms, so there is a well-shared understanding of how things should work and what generally good outcomes look like. This is pretty much never a given when working cross cultures.

The other place I have seen consensus decision-making at work is Occupy Wall Street. It was exhaustively time consuming and seldom produced good outcomes.

This may also explain why the EU is making noises about becoming more of a military alliance. The EU has much more sensible decision processes, staring with voting with certain levels required to move forward.

Let’s return to NATO decision-making and Ukraine. Again recall that in 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, NATO decided that Ukraine “will become a member of NATO.” That decision was reaffirmed in a 2009 Declaration to Complement the Charter.

I have no idea what the formal status of this Declaration is. But irrespective of its legal standing, it has become iconic within NATO if nothing else by dint of repetition and high visibility. It is impossible to see how NATO could retreat from it, given its “consensus” practices and the fact that some NATO members will always oppose Russia.

So this is a long way of saying that Russia’s pre-election assessment is being proven correct. It is not going to matter in the end who is President, save perhaps the crucial difference that Trump might be a smidge less likely to risk nuclear war. But Trump being less predictable will make for a wilder-seeming ride.
____

1 Note that Putin is demanding a cessation of fighting before any deal of any sort, including a ceasefire, is inked.

2 Russian officials top to bottom have maintained that Russia’s objectives for the Special Military Operation will all be met. But those aims had been stated at a high level of abstraction, like “demilitarization.” So it had been fair to wonder what the Russia side would deem to be minimally acceptable. This speech was the first time Putin enumerated his preconditions to negotiations.

3 Do not forget that this falls short of the cheeky Russian requirement that Ukraine ceding additional territory in the four Russian-claimed oblasts along with withdrawing as a condition for Russia to stop fighting and only then start negotiating.

4 Italy for some time has been trying to distance itself from Project Ukraine without going into open opposition like Orban. Italy refused to send weapons, saying it did not even remotely want to be construed as waging war against Russia. Recall that after Germany, Italy was the second-biggest European customer for Russian gas, so it seems a wee bit more cognizant as to where its national interests lie.

5 Wellie, and Kosovo, but that was not a large commitment.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/12 ... -wall.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 22, 2024 1:30 pm

Trump, the European economy and military spending
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/22/2024

Image

During his first term in power, with Asia-Pacific already his main focus in terms of international politics, Donald Trump began the exercise of pressure that he now hopes to continue against his European allies. Particularly relevant was the case of Germany, the only continental power that could aspire to rival the United States in the industrial field. The harassment of Richard Grenell, then the United States ambassador to the country, was continuous and focused especially on the energy issue. These were the years in which Donald Trump, who is often wrongly defined as isolationist and whose position is opposed to the liberal interventionism of the Democrats, fought fiercely against the construction of the Nord Stream extension. “The 'little Trump' from Berlin: a controversial, aggressive and undiplomatic ambassador,” El Confidencial titled in 2019 an article in which it described Grenell as “a scourge of his hosts, who do not feel comfortable with his political incorrectness but assume that he is an important piece of Trump in Europe.” Europe was aware of its subordinate position, which has been further deepened in the last two and a half years by the complete voluntary subjugation of the EU to US interests in relation to, for example, the war in Ukraine, and so had to abide by the changes and adapt to them.

“Not only the US president, but also his representatives abroad, sometimes use language that takes some getting used to. The most recent example is the statements by the US ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell. He threatens German companies with sanctions for participating in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. Natural gas is to flow directly from Russia to Germany via this pipeline. Apart from the fact that different opinions on such a project should not be treated in this way between allies, Washington’s motives must also be critically questioned. The claim that Europe is becoming too dependent on Russia is correct. But this would not be of much interest to this US government if it were not a commercial competitor of the supplier country Russia. Here, honesty is somewhat lacking when one is already choosing the undiplomatic route,” wrote Deutsche Welle in 2019 about the main dispute between Germany and the USA at that time. Eliminating a competitor has always been the main reason for Washington's fight against Nord Stream, but in the German case, there was also the added nuance of the need to keep the risk of excessive industrial growth of a potential rival under control. As has been demonstrated since 2022 with the crisis in heavy industry, which requires enormous amounts of energy, the loss of affordable gas was one of the bases of the competitiveness of German industry. In this way, any sanction against the Russian energy sector was, in reality, a way of undermining the German economy, one of the engines of the European Union.

The war in Ukraine and the undisguised euphoria over the attack that destroyed three of the four pipelines linking Russia and Germany gave Washington exactly what it wanted: to begin the elimination of Russia from the lucrative European energy market. Starting January 1, and despite the prayers of several of its allies and neighbors in the European Union, Ukraine will stop the transit of Russian gas through the only pipeline through which Russian gas has so far been passing. However, victory is not complete for the United States and its Arab allies, mainly Qatar, since Russian liquefied gas remains one of the important energy sources in Europe. That is why one of the arguments that Trumpism wants to use to undermine the Russian economy and thus achieve a more favorable peace for Ukraine is the ban on Russian liquefied gas, serious competition for the more expensive American gas. Ensuring the expulsion of Russian gas requires not only treating the current symptoms, but preventing future ones. Despite being destroyed in 2022 and reconstruction being extremely costly and politically unfeasible today, the Nord Stream remains an enemy to be defeated. On Wednesday, the State Department announced new sanctions against companies involved in the construction of the pipeline and several owners of previously sanctioned ships. Although it is, in the words of Victoria Nuland, “a piece of metal on the bottom of the sea,” it remains a lurking danger.

Gas has been the US's preferred tool for putting pressure on European countries for years, but not the only one. In Trump's time, NATO was also a tool for achieving US goals. For reasons that cannot be a mere coincidence, Germany was also the main target of this criticism. "NATO was busted until I came along," Trump said at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. "I said, 'Everyone's going to pay.' They said, 'Well, if we don't pay, are you going to keep protecting us?' I said, 'Absolutely not.' They couldn't believe the answer," CNN wrote last February, quoting Trump at one of his political events. The then presidential candidate was thus defending himself against accusations of isolationism - there is a current within his party and his political tendency that is isolationist, but Trump has shown that it is not - and of wanting to destroy the Atlantic Alliance. Far from this fiction, Trump's objective, for which he has of course used the possibility of withdrawing the United States as a tool of pressure, has always been to achieve a strong increase in military investment by European countries, a way of reducing the expenditure that security in Europe represents for Washington and that can be invested in other areas of the planet, especially in the growing confrontation with China. The reality of the military industry means that, in the event of an increase in spending in European countries, a large part of the acquisitions that these States would have to make would be produced in the United States, thus contributing to the protectionist objective of America First of increasing internal production.

“For many years, there was no clear rule setting a minimum level of military spending required of member states. In practice, the United States accounted for a substantial share of this military spending, while several other members had tended to reduce theirs,” wrote Le Monde following the resumption of Trumpist pressure to force European countries to increase military spending. “Since 2006, NATO member states agreed to reverse this trend, collectively setting themselves the goal of increasing their military budgets to at least 2% of their GDP. Following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, member states clarified this objective: The aim was then to “move towards the 2% guideline” by 2024, although this rule was not made binding,” the newspaper added to contextualise the repeated figure of the minimum that NATO member countries must use for military spending.

Although many countries did not reach the minimum 2% of GDP in defense, Trump set a clear goal. “Germany just started paying Russia, the country it wants to protect itself from, billions of dollars for its energy needs, which will come from a new gas pipeline from Russia. Not acceptable! All NATO nations must meet their 2% commitment, and that commitment must ultimately reach 4%!” he wrote on his Twitter account on July 12, 2018. In these years, Germany has gone from 1.25% to 1.57% of GDP in military spending. And despite criticism from other countries, mainly France, that it is not doing enough to support Ukraine militarily, Berlin is kyiv’s second largest supplier, only behind the United States.

The current increase in European military spending is not enough for Donald Trump, who has resumed his pressure campaign despite the words of Mark Rutte, who called on NATO countries to move to a “war mentality” and now demands spending 3% of GDP on defense. Five countries currently spend that percentage: Poland (the only one that exceeds 4%), Estonia, the United States, Latvia and Greece. The fact that not even Washington reaches the minimum demanded by Trump six years ago may indicate the intentions of the future president to increase US military spending who, as the Financial Times reported on Friday , no longer considers the 4% mentioned in 2018 to be sufficient, but rather aims for 5%, which would put enormous pressure on European budgets, which would have to significantly reduce items that have until now been considered basic. Obviously, the reduction of the European welfare state is not a concern for Donald Trump who, surrounded by hawks, has always advocated remilitarization.

“One person said they understood Trump would settle for 3.5%, and that he planned to explicitly link higher defence spending to the offer of more favourable trade terms with the US. “We’re clearly talking about 3% or more by the [NATO summit in June in] The Hague,” said another European official briefed on Trump’s thinking, adding that the Financial Times is not concerned about the amounts countries would have to cut but is pleased by the apparent trade-off the US is offering.

“During his campaign for the White House, Trump promised to cut aid to Ukraine, force kyiv to enter into immediate peace talks and leave NATO allies defenceless if they did not spend enough on defence, which frightened European capitals,” the article recalls, adding that Trump’s change of stance is due to “the push of allies, deeply concerned about their ability to support and protect Ukraine without Washington’s backing. According to the article, Trump would commit to maintaining US military supplies to kyiv in exchange for NATO countries more than doubling their spending target. The 4% he referred to in 2018, which is only exceeded by Poland, is no longer enough and spending must be increased to 5%. All for the sake of war, be it the current one against Russia or any future conflict with the real enemy, China.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/22/trump ... o-militar/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Russian Ministry of Defence on the progress of the special military operation (as of 22 December 2024) Main points:

The air defence system destroyed a long-range missile "Neptune" and 100 aircraft-type drones in 24 hours;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 300 people in 24 hours due to the actions of the "South" group;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 185 fighters due to the actions of the "East" group;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 480 people in 24 hours as a result of the actions of the "Center" group;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 130 infantry units in 24 hours as a result of the actions of the "North" and "Dnepr" groups.

▫️Units of the "East" group of forces continued to advance deep into the enemy's defense, defeated formations of two mechanized brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Vremivka, Skudnoe, Konstantinopol of the Donetsk People's Republic and Temirovka of the Zaporizhia region. They repelled a counterattack by enemy assault groups. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 185 servicemen, two vehicles, a 155 mm self-propelled artillery mount "Bogdana" , a 152 mm self-propelled artillery mount "Akatsiya" , a 152 mm gun D-20 and a 122 mm self-propelled artillery mount "Gvozdika" .



▫️Units of the Dnepr group of forces inflicted losses on the manpower and equipment of the mountain assault brigade and the territorial defense brigade in the areas of the settlements of Stepovoye, Malye Shcherbaky in the Zaporizhia region, Sadovoye and Antonovka in the Kherson region. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 75 servicemen, a 155 mm M777 howitzer made in the USA, two 152 mm D-20 guns and a 122 mm self-propelled artillery unit "Gvozdika" . Two electronic warfare and electronic intelligence stations, as well as an ammunition depot , were destroyed.



▫️Operational-tactical aviation , strike unmanned aerial vehicles , missile forces and artillery of the Russian Armed Forces groups have damaged the infrastructure of military airfields, workshops for the production of strike unmanned aerial vehicles, places of their storage and preparation for launch, as well as concentrations of manpower and military equipment of Ukrainian armed formations and mercenaries of the "Foreign Legion" in 138 districts.

▫️ Air defense systems shot down a long-range Neptune guided missile , two US-made HIMARS multiple launch rockets , and 100 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles.

▫️ In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed: 650 aircraft, 283 helicopters, 38,341 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 anti-aircraft missile systems, 19,952 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,504 multiple launch rocket system combat vehicles, 19,932 field artillery guns and mortars, and 29,427 units of special military vehicles.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Brief report from the front on December 20, 2024

Novoolenovka and Ukrainka prepare for liberation! Report by Marat Khairullin with illustrations by Mikhail Popov.

Zinderneuf
Dec 20, 2024

Image
(Map key: ЛБС 12.9.2024=Line of Combat Contact September 12th, 2024. ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. ЛБС 01.12.2024=Line of Combat Contact December 1st, 2024. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary.)

The southern flank for the subsequent liberation of the city is being formed near Pokrovsk. Our forces are advancing from Novy Trud (Vidrodzhennia) along the railway to Chunyshino (Chunyshyne) and nearby Novoukrainka. Beyond, there is an approach to the rear of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the area of ​​Zelenoe (if they are still there by that time, as their is a path directly to Zelenoe that is also coming from Novy Trud/Vidrodzhennia, which is almost all already under our control). Zelenoe is not visible on the map above, but it is south of Novoukrainka. For more detail about this area, see the note below the article from Mikhail!

Fierce battles are underway for Peschanoe and near Volkovo, northwest of Novotroitskoe.

The Russian Ministry of Defense announced today the liberation of four settlements at once: Novopustynka, Pushkino, Vesyoliy Gai (Veselyi Hai), and Uspenovka.

Image
(Map key: ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 30.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 30th, 2024. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary.)

From Pushkino, the Russian Armed Forces advanced to Novoolenovka, the assault on which began yesterday from the north. Our fighters have consolidated their positions in the northern part and on the eastern outskirts. Thus, our forces are attacking the enemy in the settlement from two sides simultaneously. Considering this and the small size of the settlement, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will most likely not hold out there for very long. And after that, the same will happen with Ukrainka, which is under pressure from the east. After Novoolenovka is taken, the pressure will also come from two sides - from the east and from the north.

In the Kurakhovsky direction, after the enemy lost the "Uspenovka pocket" and Uspenovka itself, the remaining enemy units retreated to the Dachnoe area. At the same time, Dachnoe is already being stormed by our units from the north.

In Kurakhovo itself, scattered small pockets of enemy resistance remain in residential areas. They are being systematically cleared. At the same time, the main attention of Russian forces is directed at advancing toward the Kurakhovskaya TPP in the industrial zone.

It can be said about the Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers who left the "Uspenovsky pocket" that they left one pocket into another. Just recently, the width of the throat of the "Kurakhovo pocket" was about 12 kilometers, at the moment, there are less than seven kilometers between our positions, and the Konstantinopol-Andreevka (Kostyantynopil-Andriivka) region, which is very important for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, is under threat.

To the southeast, our people have taken control of Konstantinopolskoe (Kostyantynopolske) with the adjacent farm and agricultural enterprise warehouses. A small center of the Ukrainian Armed Forces remains slightly west of Konstantinopolskoe in the area of ​​the settlement Gigant. Despite the grandiose name, it literally has three buildings, which means it is not something thoroughly fortified. The enemy himself says that it is here that ours plan to force the river and reach the settlement Yantarnoe in order to advance in the direction of the settlement Ulakly on both banks of the river. Our artillery is already working intensively in the direction of Yantarnoe, providing evidence for this.

Ukrainian names in parenthesis *

If you have trouble viewing the maps on Substack then you can try our other resources:

X

Telegram

Bonus analysis from Mikhail Popov (only available on Substack):

Image

The road from Pokrovsk to Lysovka is intercepted in Zelenoe.

Image

This is also the gateway to the heights in the rear of Lysovka. This is also a strategic point in relation to Pokrovsk. There is an bridgehead in the area of the heights.

Image

This highest point is the dominant height near Pokrovsk. In the area of ​​Lysovka and nearby Sukhoi Yar there is a large fortified area of ​​the crests. Right on the heights. They have been trying to break through it for quite some time now. So far, it hasn't worked. And Zelenoe is a kind of key to this fortified area.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... cember-ca6

******

NATO complicit in the terrorist murder of Russia’s General Igor Kirillov

December 20, 2024

The murder of a senior Russian general in Moscow this week was a barbaric act of terrorism. It was also a cowardly act by a despicable enemy.

The United States and its NATO partners are complicit in this and countless other acts of terrorism against Russia. But the murder of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov was particularly flagrant and obscene, violating all rules of war. It demands a considered response, one that is different than before.

Lt. Gen. Kirillov was killed early on Tuesday morning as he walked out of his residential apartment block in Moscow along with a military aide, Major Ilya Polikarpov. The pair were defenseless, which raises huge questions about Russian military security protocols.

An explosive blast from a device secreted in a parked scooter near the doorway of the building appeared to kill both men instantly. Their bodies were later seen prone on the snow-covered sidewalk as crime investigators cordoned off the area. It was a grim scene, an icy indicator of how much at war the enemies of Russia are.

It is understood that Kirillov and his aide were monitored in real time by a camera hidden in a car at the scene by his assassins. The bomb was detonated remotely. It beggars belief that such a sophisticated ambush did not involve high-level NATO planners and equipment.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking during his Direct Line presser on Thursday, condemned the murder as an act of terrorism. The deceased general has been posthumously awarded the Hero of Russia medal.

Since 2017, Kirillov served as the Chief of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces. He was assigned to protect the Russian nation from weapons of mass destruction. Since Russia launched its special military operation in Ukraine to neutralize NATO-backed aggression, Kirillov’s team of investigators uncovered an alleged network of bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine run by the Pentagon.

The Russian allegations appeared to be based on intercepted classified U.S. documents that confirmed the operation of bioweapons labs. Kirillov’s presentations and detailed reports caused international alarm about sinister Pentagon involvement in producing biological weapons of mass destruction. According to the Russian investigations, the bioweapons programs were authorized by the Obama and Biden administrations. The programs also involved major U.S. pharmaceutical, engineering and financial companies in a clandestine operation.

For the United States, this controversial work by Kirillov and his team was a source of huge embarrassment, although the Western media brusquely dismissed it as “Kremlin disinformation.” It purportedly exposed Washington as being implicated in a systematic bioterrorism project facilitated by a NeoNazi regime that believes in the genocidal destruction of Russia – as its Third Reich forebears did.

The discovery of an alleged U.S. bioweapons industry in Ukraine made Lt. Gen. Kirillov a priority target. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson opines that it was this background that resulted in his murder.

Other commentators have claimed that the assassination was aimed at killing the truth about the alleged U.S. bioweapons program.

However, eliminating this senior figure does not abrogate the research his investigative team has compiled. One can be sure that the documented information and physical evidence recovered from these former laboratories is an ongoing investigation that can be presented to an international tribunal. The Russian authorities should endeavor to bring the research to a world forum for independent experts to adjudicate.

As for the perpetrators of Kirillov’s murder, the Ukrainian military intelligence service (SBU) was reportedly the triggerman. An Uzbek national recruited by the SBU to carry out the attack has been arrested by Russian state security.

On Friday, Russian air strikes on Kiev destroyed an SBU control center. According to reports, several high-ranking Ukrainian officers were killed. That can be seen as a form of retaliation.

But the question of perpetrators goes much wider and deeper. The United States, Britain and other NATO powers bear responsibility for every act of terrorism committed by the Kiev regime over the past three years. This applies not only to the barbarous assassination of Lt. Gen. Kirillov and his aide but also to the countless attacks on Russian civilians in Donetsk, Kursk, Bryansk, Rostov, and elsewhere.

What is particularly offensive about Kirillov’s killing is the way the NATO powers set him up for murder and immediately gloated as his bloodied body lay in the street. The British media was conspicuous in their grotesque reveling at the death. See this commentary by SCF columnist Finian Cunningham.

A BBC reporting team at the scene of the murder sounded like a bunch of jackals drooling over fresh blood.

Earlier this year, the Americans and the British accused Kirillov of overseeing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine. It was a baseless accusation with no evidence presented. Russia denied the use of chemical weapons and countered that it was the Ukrainian forces that were using them. Given the rapid successes of military advances against the NATO-backed regime, the deployment of chemicals by Russia makes no sense whatsoever.

A recent report by the United Nations watchdog, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, was inconclusive about an alleged incident even though the OPCW’s report was based on samples provided by the Ukrainians, which is hardly impartial.

In any case, using CWs was not Lt. Gen. Kirillov’s remit. His extensive work was dedicated to tracking down allegations of a Pentagon-run bioweapons program and countering that threat.

What the Americans and British were aiming at was to smear and set him up for assassination. In October, Britain announced it was imposing sanctions on the Russian commander. The wording of the British Foreign Office’s charges was shrill and bombastic and contained no evidence. It was a propaganda stunt to demonize.

The British condemnation led to the Ukrainian military intelligence fingering Kirillov as a war criminal. Just before the attack this week, the SBU issued what was a de facto death notice.

Russia has vowed to exact revenge for the murder. The strikes on the SBU center in Kiev can be viewed as justifiable. But are they reciprocal?

As long as the American and British masterminds of the terrorism against Russia remain pain-free, then the atrocities against Russian citizens will continue.

The NATO powers are complicit in systematic barbarity and aggression against Russia. Russia’s display last month of the invincible Oreshnik hypersonic missile and threats of retaliation have unfortunately fallen on deaf ears as the repeated deadly attacks with ATACMS, Storm Shadows and HIMARS on Russian soil this week show. Several civilians were killed in strikes with U.S.-supplied HIMARS rockets on medical college facilities in the town of Rylsk in Kursk.

This was in the same week that a respected general was cut down outside his home in Moscow. Then, the CIA and MI6 masterminds laughed about it through their various media outlets.

Should Russia stay its hand and resist the temptation for stronger retaliations in the hope that the next U.S. president, Donald Trump, might be more willing to resolve conflict?

Waiting for Trump to turn up is perhaps not a sound strategy. Will he even succeed anyway? Meanwhile, the terrorist masterminds get away with murder and will keep murdering – because they think they have impunity.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... -kirillov/

******

Geoff Roberts – Ukraine’s defeat by Russia will be a very bitter pill to swallow
December 20, 2024 natyliesb
By Geoffrey Roberts, Brave New Europe, 12/8/24

What do you think of Trump’s nomination of General Keith Kellogg as Ukraine special envoy and his plan for ending the war?

Trump’s nomination of General Kellogg shows he is serious about achieving peace in Ukraine. Kellogg has made an effort to understand the Russian perspective on the war and has identified ending the Ukraine conflict as a key American interest. Kellogg may be tempted to use hardball negotiating tactics to force Putin to accept an early ceasefire, but the US has leverage over the Ukrainians, not the Russians. By the time Trump becomes President again, Russian forces may well have conquered all, or nearly all, of Donets, Kherson, Lugansk and Zaporozhe – the four provinces that Putin incorporated into the Russian Federation in October 2022. In those circumstances the key issue to resolve before agreement on a ceasefire would be Putin’s demand that Ukraine becomes a neutral state. Kellogg has suggested a long-term moratorium on Ukraine’s membership of NATO. That is a good starting point for negotiations and there may be room for a compromise between Kellogg’s proposal and Putin’s demand for a declaration from Kiev that Ukraine will not join NATO, providing Putin can be satisfied that Russia’s future security is protected from further NATO threats and encroachments.

What should we expect from Moscow? Is Putin planning escalation or the opposite? Will he sit at the negotiating table? What will be his conditions for ending the war? Where will his territorial claims in Ukraine stop?

The Biden Administration’s final gambit seems to be to provoke Putin into an escalation of the war that will make it difficult for Trump to pursue peace in Ukraine. But Russia is winning the war decisively. Putin has no reason to snatch defeat from the jaws of the Russian army’s many victories on the battlefield. His actions in response to Western and Ukrainian provocations will be moderate and restrained.

Putin’s terms for peace were spelt out last June: Ukraine’s neutrality and concession of Crimea and the four provinces – Donets, Kherson, Lugansk and Zaporozhe – that have already been formally annexed by Russia. In addition, he will demand protections for the millions of pro-Russian Ukrainians that will remain under Kiev’s control, and a deal with the West about the return of its frozen foreign assets and the ending of Western sanctions against Russia.

However, if the war drags on, Putin may feel impelled to grab an even bigger chunk of Ukrainian territory as part of his military strategy and to enlarge the buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

3. Will negotiations and the end of the war be an indirect defeat by Russia of Ukraine and the West?

Peace negotiations will only begin when there is an armistice i.e. a ceasefire based on prior concession of Putin’s demands for Ukrainian territory and neutrality. Such an armistice would be a terrible defeat for Ukraine and for NATO’s proxy war with Russia. But continuation of the war can only lead to even greater disaster. The war has been a catastrophe for Ukraine. An imposed neutrality will restrict its sovereignty but it can survive as a free and independent state, much like Finland did after World War II.

Russia’s defeat of Ukraine and the West will be no great victory for Putin. It has been a costly and highly dangerous war for Russia. The damage done to Russia’s relations with the West has been huge. Russia has reoriented to developing partnerships with global South countries but, in the end, Russia’s prosperity and security requires good relations with the West, especially its European neighbours, as well as with China, India and other members of BRICS. The war has not changed the facts of geography and history or the reality that culturally and identity-wise Russia is a European country.

4. Which are the prospects for Ukraine once Donald Trump takes office?

Much better than they are at present, assuming Trump can help broker a peace deal for Ukraine. The slaughter of Ukraine’s people will stop and its economy and society can begin to recover from the ravages of war. Defeat by Russia will be a very bitter pill to swallow but most Ukrainians now believe that even a bad peace will be better than the continuation of a disastrous losing war.

5. What will be Europe’s role in the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine and for the country’s future?

The main external role in the negotiations will be played by the Americans. Europe may exercise a degree of influence but the Russians have lost all respect for most European political leaders. Europe’s role in Ukraine’s recovery from the war is, potentially, far greater. Frankly, Europe has a moral obligation to do all it can to aid Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction, given its role in encouraging Ukraine to fight on rather than accept the relatively benign peace deal offered by Russia in Istanbul two and half years ago.

I’m not very optimistic about Ukraine’s prospects for entry into the EU. Putin has signalled he has no in -principle objection to Ukraine joining the European Union, though, as the Russians point out, the EU is increasingly a military-political organisation as well an economic union, but when the war is over, the fine words spoken by the EU’s leaders will dissipate and negotiations about Ukraine’s membership will inevitable bog down in years of technical discussions.

6. Who will protect European soil in a future attack? NATO? EU defence alliance? Can Moscow be a future threat?

There is no such danger or threat from Russia. NATO will continue and the United States will stay involved in Europe, even under Trump.

Putin’s ambitions are limited to Ukraine. The is no evidence, he will threaten or attack any other country, with the possible exception of the Baltic States and Moldova, should Moscow see the Russian minorities in those states being persecuted even more than at present. The only country that will require additional security after the war is Ukraine. Agreement on an international security guarantee for a neutral and disarmed Ukraine will be central to any final settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. Putin has indicated he is amenable to such a guarantee. It’s not impossible that NATO could be a partner of that guarantee, but Putin won’t risk any deal that could provide cover for Ukraine, with Western help, to rebuild its military power.

7. What about Trump and Russia?

Trump says he wants a good relationship with Putin and competitively he is focussed on China. But the same was true during his first presidency and in practice relations with Russia deteriorated even further, not least because the United States built up Ukraine’s military. True, Trump was dogged by the Russiagate controversy and influenced by the many Neocons in his administration. His second presidency be may well turn out differently because it will contain fewer Neocons and more America First Trump Loyalists, people like Kellogg. In any event, loyalty to Trump will be the defining characteristic of the members of his second administration and he will call all the shots in relation to Ukraine.

Putin will remain sceptical of Trump but open to an improvement in Russia’s relations with the US, especially if the Ukraine war comes to a suitable conclusion.

8. One more question: what is Putin’s goal for the position of Russia in the world after the Ukraine war?

Putin is a visionary whose overarching goal is to end American global hegemony and usher in a new, post-Western system of international relations – a multipolar system of sovereign states based on diversity, equality and common security. It is not an empire that Putin is seeking to build, but a new world order that will safeguard the long-term security of Russia and its civilisational values. Defeating Ukraine and winning Russia’s proxy war with NATO are necessary preconditions, but Putin has his eye on an even bigger prize and he needs a stable peace to realise his historic ambitions to transform global politics.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/12/geo ... o-swallow/

Is Mr Roberts really paying attention? Seems like wishful thinking to me. Trump's team is a gang of war hawks who seem no more in touch with reality than the current losers. And I cannot see Trump accepting Russian terms which cannot but be seen as a loss for the US. Trump's ego will not permit that regardless of his vastly overblown claim of being a 'deal-maker'.

******

Answering Satellite (Alleged) Photos Of Yuzhmash...

People continue to post satellite photos from some guy's blog (Amerikanets, no less) of Yuzhmash. Mind you, somebody allegedly "bought" these photos and now, after three weeks since the event analyses it. Immediately, deferral to Ted Postol and his "analysis" should raise the red flag in terms of any validity of speculations on the physical nature of Oreshnik. So, here are some photos. One:

Image

And two:

Image

Now, for those people who still don't get it, let me remind you what was this all about and I quote myself in the immediate wake of strike at Yuzhmash.

TSIPSO and butt-hurt fanboys from the West are already in full arms on all forums declaring that they have seen satellite photos of Yuzhmash and that... ranging from "we saw 6 charred entrances" to "nothing was really damaged". Totally expected. For those, just in case, who still didn't get the message--MAIN activity of Yuzhmash was UNDERGROUND, as it would be in Soviet times if, God forbids, USSR and the US would go to war. Those underground facilities are gone, together with production and research facilities for NATO-404 joint missile programs. They are gone together with the shift and those NATO military and civilians present there. That is why SBU immediately classified the whole thing (showing some decrepit hut with broken roof as "real evidence") and some "debris" of allegedly Oreshnik.

But many people, with the memory span of a guppy fish still continue to ignore what was told to them from the get go. Moreover, read the whole post, which also partially explains that charred remnants of obvious fuel tank for some missile have nothing to do with Oreshnik. Anyone, like Ted Postol and a bunch of Western media cretins aka "journalists", who bought this BS from 404 have no understanding of the physical principles on which hypersonic weapons with maneuvering blocks operate. For starters, small Oreshnik MIRVs do not have this type of fuel tank, if any. Secondly, the boost phase and cut off (burn out) of the booster launched on suppressed trajectory from Kapustin Yar and separation of the bus with MIRVS which begin to travel completely on their own and maneuver highly likely happened over the territory of Russia which completely precludes Ukies getting their hands on anything Oreshnik related. Ukie exposed merely a dug out remnants of whatever the shit (Grom ballistic missile) they have been working on underground with NATO's technical specialists. All that infrastructure is not there anymore--it is all gone.

Image

Above is the range representation--launch from Kapustin Yar to Dnepropetrovsk. Slashed red line is approximately the territory of former 404 controlled by Russia. By then, the boost phase of hypersonic MIRVs would have been over and all remnants of a booster would have landed on Russian territory. In other words, what Ukies have shown as Oreshnik are the remnants of their own missile program. Moreover, anyone who posts photos of RSD 10 Pioner missile system telling that it is Oreshnik are full of shit. Oreshnik is a completely new thing and likely incorporates in itself many technological finds from many weapon systems. So, here it is--my last attempt to shake some sense into people, who continue to see things which are not there.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2024/12 ... os-of.html

******

The criminal nature became obvious and blah-blah-blah
December 21, 14:20

Image

Khinshtein reported that in total, 5 people were killed and 12 were injured during yesterday's shelling of Rylsk.
The fires in the city were extinguished by morning.

In fact, all the recent events - the shelling of Rylsk, the attack on Kazan, the shelling of the Rostov region by ATACMS, the murder of Kirillov, and so on - all these are markers of the ongoing escalation. And there will be a lot of this in the coming month. In anticipation of Trump's arrival, everything will be done to prevent even a hypothetical option for ending the war. Therefore, the terrorist instrument will be used to the maximum. There will be new terrorist attacks and new victims. Mantras about "we have once again seen the terrorist essence and blah-blah-blah...." (who is not already obvious to it?!) will not help. As well as stories "about retaliatory measures". We just need to hit. As harshly as possible, concentrating on maximizing damage to the enemy. Both at the front and in his rear. WELL, and of course, strengthening counter-terrorist measures in our rear. We will need this. The same applies to issues of target air defense in the rear regions.

P.S. As for how it is possible, the missile men in the Kursk direction are showing.

But there is also good news.

Untrained commanders of the 21st mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (military unit A4689) in the Sumy region held a formation of personnel every day at 11 am.
Yesterday, a Russian missile visited them during the formation.
As a result, more than 50 - "200", about 10 units of automotive equipment burned.
Why is Bezuglaya silent about this?

Revenge of good will ( https://t.me/Mestb_Dobroj_Voli )


https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9564913.html

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

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 23, 2024 12:46 pm

Petro Poroshenko's war
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/23/2024

Image

“Ukraine looks to European models for post-war elections,” was the headline of an article in the American newspaper Politico a few days ago, which pointed to Moldova, especially the referendum on introducing the Euro-Atlantic goal of foreign policy into the Constitution, as the most attractive model for Kiev. Although the article is primarily concerned with the attempt to involve the population living abroad in the process, Ukraine’s interest in the referendum is quite different. The vote of the Moldovan population living in the country gave the “no” a lead, and it was the counting of ballots from Western countries that ultimately gave the “yes” a narrow victory. Like Moldova, even before the Russian invasion, Ukraine has a large diaspora of people who emigrated for work or are descendants of Ukrainians born and educated in Western countries, votes that Kiev hopes to use to offset any internal dissent from those who have to suffer the effects of the war or the privatizing, elitist and harmful economic model for the working classes that is the hallmark of the libertarianism of Zelensky and his team. Also as in Moldova, a respectable number of citizens reside in the enemy country , Russia, or in territories considered under the control and influence of Moscow. Unlike the diaspora in the right countries , their vote, in many cases contrary to official postulates, is not only less important, but must be contained and, if possible, avoided.

Zelensky and his team, most recently Andriy Ermak, have made it clear that there will be no electoral process while the war continues, another argument for trying to prolong the conflict, since the polls do not seem particularly optimistic for the electoral prospects of the current president. And although Petro Poroshenko does not come out particularly well in the sociological studies carried out recently, the former president aspires to once again be the rival of the man who defeated him easily and without the need for a major campaign in 2019. At that time, making himself known as someone opposed to Petro Poroshenko was enough for the candidate Zelensky, who took advantage of the feeling of incompetence and inability to improve the economic situation and end the war in Donbass of the president elected in the first elections after the Maidan victory. The slogan “faith, army, Ukrainian language” with which Poroshenko went to the elections did not convince and despite having the support of the nationalist sectors linked to Svoboda, the situation in the country made the president’s re-election practically impossible. The spectacle put on by Ukraine months earlier also had a bearing, when Poroshenko sent two boats to cross the Kerch bridge without Russian permission to be seized, to raise collective hysteria against Russia and thus declare martial law that would have delayed the elections. The act, an obvious provocation even for Ukraine’s supporters, was always seen as a ploy by the president to avoid losing an election in which he had no chance and in which it was clear that he was going to be defeated by “a clown”, as the comedian Volodymyr Zelensky was known at the time.

Nearly six years later, Petro Poroshenko is working to present himself as an alternative to the wartime presidency of Zelensky, in which he boasts of having decisively collaborated. And he has done so in the most coveted electoral constituency, the outskirts of power in the United States. “During a live-streamed talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York earlier this month, Poroshenko revealed that he met with Zelensky just hours after Russia first launched its missile attacks on Ukraine, and proposed a united front against Putin and his generals leading the invasion. Zelensky instantly agreed, Poroshenko said, “and this has helped us save Kiev,” writes Forbes in an article in which he recounts, in a way that could easily be mistaken for a piece of political support for the candidate, the actions that the former president has recently carried out.

“Poroshenko and Zelensky are likely coordinating their campaigns to seek American support, especially that of the incoming President Trump, to counter or end the Russian invasion,” adds Forbes , which gives voice to Poroshenko in his insistence on the path of peace through force or the idea that there is no need to worry about Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats - in fact, the last words on the nuclear issue of the Russian president have been to dismiss the possibility in the face of the existence of other methods, such as medium-range ballistic missiles - since, according to Poroshenko, the Russian president is aware that it would be the end “of his regime”. Poroshenko thus repeats the official Ukrainian discourse, which calls for constant escalation because Russia will not be able to do anything. In other words, there is no danger in escalating the war because the response will not be nuclear. The fact that the Kursk invasion has renewed attacks on critical Ukrainian infrastructure or that Western missile strikes on Russian territory have intensified them, further complicating the lives of civilians, does not seem to be a factor for either the current president or his predecessor, for whom the only important aspects are issues of internal power and geopolitics.

At his event at the Atlantic Council – like Zelensky, Poroshenko knows exactly which audience he must convince – the former president tries to balance awarding himself medals for current successes, usually attributed to Zelensky, with distancing himself from the current presidency by giving his own a value essential to current victories. Poroshenko defines what he considers the three phases of war: demolition, counterattack and attrition.

In the first, in which he claims that the intention was to occupy all of Ukraine and that was why “they did not bomb hospitals or schools, they wanted them for themselves,” Russia was defeated thanks primarily to the Javelin anti-tank systems. The statement is more than questionable considering that it was not this type of weaponry that destroyed the convoys that, without the necessary air cover, imprudently advanced towards Kiev. When that front entered the trenches, it was the artillery and not the anti-tank systems that caused massive casualties that made the Russian command opt for withdrawal, which Shoigu tried unsuccessfully to present as a gesture of good will in favor of the negotiations that were then taking place in Turkey.

The second phase, which Poroshenko says will run from April 2022 to the end of 2023, has seen Ukraine take centre stage, with its victories in Kherson and Kharkiv, in a phase in which the former president sees the HIMARS as the weapon that made it possible to expel Russia from those regions. Finally, the current phase is marked by trench warfare, the absence of changes on the front and has drones as its protagonist, the weapon of the future that has changed warfare. For Poroshenko, tanks and armoured vehicles are a thing of the past - perhaps a way of distancing himself from the disastrous ground counteroffensive of his ally Zaluzhny in 2023? - and the only thing that matters now are missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Former President Poroshenko's view of the war is interesting for the way he presents the facts in order to simultaneously match and differentiate himself from Zelensky and involve the United States in Ukraine's successes, which must still be represented as a brave and united country, one of the main causes of Russia's defeats. It is no coincidence that Poroshenko mentions the Javelins as the miracle weapon of the first phase of the war. The Javelins have two things in their favour: they were sent by Donald Trump, who broke with Obama and Biden's policy of not sending offensive weapons to Ukraine, and it was Petro Poroshenko who got them. In the first phase of the war, when the epic of David versus Goliath was emphasised, phantoms of Kiev were invented, the mortal sacrifice made by the sailors of Snake Island instead of surrendering to Russia was emphasised (although in reality they did so and were exchanged as prisoners of war weeks after they were awarded medals posthumously) and the population was led to believe that an old woman had shot down Russian drones with a jar of pickles, the Javelins were renamed Saint Javelins, although their role was not decisive in that phase. Poroshenko is now taking advantage of the credit that can be given to him despite the fact that at that time he had already been out of office for three years, a position he left after an electoral debacle that he now wants to forget in order to show himself presidential again.

It is also significant that Poroshenko highlights the HIMARS as a decisive weapon in the second phase of the war, when Ukraine achieved several successes, not only with artillery but especially with infantry. Only in the case of Kherson, where Russian logistics depended on a single bridge over the Dnieper, were the HIMARS key, always used in combination with the much more abundant Soviet ammunition. However, it is easier to understand this phase of the war as an example of the superiority of American weapons over Soviet or Russian ones, especially when it comes to praising the work of the country that needs to be convinced of the need to continue supplying weapons, than to remember the numerical superiority that Ukraine enjoyed at that time on a front that stretched for a thousand kilometers. To understand the effectiveness of the HIMARS, one must remember Zaluzhny's words, who admitted that Russian troops learned to shoot down their shells, and to look at the balance of troops currently on the front. It is not the shortage of HIMARS but of personnel that is undermining Ukraine's efforts, which have been on the defensive for months.

Poroshenko's speech seeks to avoid going into detail about what happened in the ground counteroffensive of 2023, possibly because it was the work of Valery Zaluzhny, defended by the former president's entourage as the hero that Ukraine needed and pushed aside by Zelensky, fearful that the general would undermine his popularity. With no interest in the Donbass front, something he also shares with his successor, Poroshenko focuses on the war in the skies, mainly on the use of drones or missiles. The objective is clear: to show the United States that its enemies are achieving their objectives and are doing more than Washington, which must raise the stakes so as not to be embarrassed by countries that are not even great military powers. To do so, Poroshenko uses the arguments that one would expect: a high percentage of Shahed drones are of Iranian production, just as a part of the ballistic missiles are, according to the former president, North Korean. This supply, this material that Russia is said to have bought from these countries, implies that both Iran and the People's Republic of Korea are direct participants in the war in Ukraine. For some reason that neither Poroshenko nor Zelensky explain and that the journalists who interviewed them did not want to ask, the more than one hundred million dollars that Ukraine has received in the form of Western weapons from NATO member countries does not imply the direct participation of the United States, Germany or the United Kingdom in the war. Moreover, after presenting Western weapons, all of them American, as miraculous, Poroshenko's job is to help convince Donald Trump, the man who initiated the flow of offensive weapons to Ukraine, to increase pressure, increase military supplies and favour the continuation of the war by participating even more directly in the war until final victory.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/23/la-gu ... oshenko-2/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
on the progress of the special military operation (as of December 23, 2024)
Main points:

The Russian Armed Forces hit military airfields and warehouses of attack drones of the Ukrainian Armed Forces;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 610 servicemen and two tanks in the area of ​​the Center group of forces in one day;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 400 people in one day as a result of the actions of the South group;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost more than 400 servicemen in one day in the area of ​​responsibility of the West group;

— The Armed Forces lost up to 95 fighters in one day as a result of the actions of the North and Dnipro groups;

— Air defence systems shot down 14 Ukrainian aircraft-type drones in one day;

— The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 155 servicemen in the area of ​​responsibility of the Eastern group of the Russian Armed Forces.

▫️As a result of decisive actions by units of the "East" group of forces, the settlement of Storozhevoe in the Donetsk People's Republic was liberated . Formations of a motorized infantry, two mechanized brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and a territorial defense brigade

were defeated in the areas of the settlements of Razdolnoye, Razliv in the Donetsk People's Republic and Gulyaipole in the Zaporizhia region. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 155 servicemen, four vehicles, a 155-mm self-propelled artillery mount "Caesar" made in France, a 152-mm self-propelled artillery mount "Akatsiya" , a 152-mm gun D-20 and an electronic warfare station.



▫️Units of the Dnepr group of forces improved their position along the forward edge, defeated the manpower and equipment of the infantry , mountain assault brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the territorial defense brigade in the areas of the settlements of Novoandriyevka, Lobkovoe, Nesteryanka in the Zaporizhia region and Mykhailivka in the Kherson region. They repelled a counterattack by the enemy assault group. The Armed Forces of Ukraine lost up to 45 servicemen, three vehicles, a 152-mm D-20 gun and an electronic warfare station.



▫️ Operational-tactical aviation , strike unmanned aerial vehicles , missile forces and artillery of the Russian Armed Forces groups damaged the infrastructure of military airfields, warehouses for storing strike unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as concentrations of enemy manpower and military equipment in 143 areas.

▫️ Air defense systems shot down 14 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles.

▫️ In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed: 650 aircraft, 283 helicopters, 38,355 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 anti-aircraft missile systems, 19,961 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,504 multiple launch rocket system combat vehicles, 19,953 field artillery pieces and mortars, and 29,452 units of special military vehicles.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

SITREP 12/21/24: Things Heat Up in Kherson, Ukraine Losses Update, and More

Simplicius
Dec 21, 2024

After a period of strange rumors that Russian forces may attempt to storm the Dnieper, last night Russian forces began a massive artillery and MLRS bombardment of the Kherson region with claimed attempts of isolated groups to cross to the other side.

Details are scarce, and no one quite yet knows if this is all a part of some psyop campaign to throw the AFU off, or a real concerted beginning toward a major operation. Here’s what some of the reports are saying:

For several days now, heavy processing of APU facilities in Kherson has been underway. Strikes occur both at night and during the day. The enemy expects our offensive in this sector and claims that the Russian forces are grouped up to 120 thousand people on the left bank.

Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Vladislav Seleznev believes that the Russian army will create several bridgeheads on the right bank of the Dnieper. At the same time, according to him, an offensive operation will take place in Zaporozhye. According to him, the first wave will also include up to 2,000 troops and 300 boats.


From RVVoenkor:

Image

They report Russian forces stormed the Antonovsky Bridge area and captured or consolidated the dachas around it:

Hell in Kherson: Russian Army breaks through and consolidates dachas near Antonovsky Bridge near Kherson

▪️This was reported by director Sergei Zeynalov, who previously lived in Kherson.

▪️He reported that Kherson experienced “hell” the night before last, and the shelling reached the speed of “1000 shells in 40 minutes.” And at that moment, Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups tried to enter the city from the Antonovsky Bridge several times.

➖"The Russians have secured positions right behind the bridge, at the dachas," he said. The dacha area is on the left bank of the Dnieper and is partially controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

▪️Yesterday, Kherson authorities reported a sabotage and reconnaissance group attack on the city and heavy shelling on the night of December 20.

▪️ Zeynalov reports that Russian fighters were able to gain a foothold on the left bank in the Dachi area, which they can use as a springboard to attack the right bank, Antonovka and Kherson.

▪️Earlier in Kyiv it was reported that the Russian Armed Forces have plans to force the Dnieper in the near future, although this is an extremely difficult operation.


Nikolayev governor Kim confirmed some of the information in a video, though he remained confident, claiming Ukrainian forces on that side are ready for everything and that populations can be evacuated if necessary.

The interesting wrinkle was a new satellite map revealed that Ukraine had recently constructed a line of fortifications just in front of the area where Russia seemed to aim their assault, as if they’d long been expecting a cross-Dnieper offensive: (Video at link.)


A wider view for context so you can see where the fortifications are in reference to the Antonovsky assault—Vysoke seen above is circled below, with the yellow line indicating the rough placement of fortifications:

Image

The situation is confused because the AFU itself continues attempts to storm the river, with both small DRGs which are quickly eliminated, as well as larger forces. This video from last week gave the first recent glimpse of what the riverbed in that area may look like: (Video at link.)

A final report claimed some Russian sabotage groups even made it to the other side, but at this stage it’s impossible to verify it as yet:

In the Kherson direction, the enemy claims that Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups have been spotted on the right bank, where the Ukrainian Armed Forces are located, in the area of the Antonovsky Bridge. There is, however, no official confirmation of this information. There is objective control data on the most powerful combined attacks on the Ukrainian Armed Forces positions. Thus, the largest anti-tank missile defense system, located in one of the buildings of the former oncology hospital, was hit by a missile strike. The enemy used the floors of the hospital to install electronic warfare systems and launch UAVs, and to treat lightly wounded Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers



Elsewhere, Russian forces have finally captured virtually all of the residential parts of Kurakhove, with only the industrial western area with the thermal power plant remaining:

Image

They’ve also captured the entirety of Novy Komar north of Velyka Novosilka:

Image

Image

As well as expanding their hold in the southwest pincer and making their way into the town proper in the southeast, slowly bringing the stronghold into encirclement.


In the last report I covered how General Syrsky inadvertantly exposed the West’s narrative of high Russian losses with his bombshell that Russia actually gained 100k troops just in 2024 alone. Now we have something complementary to further reinforce and supplement this determination.

Yesterday another ‘exchange of bodies’ was announced, which was so lopsided in Russia’s favor that even I was at first instinctually skeptical. For the past two exchanges, the numbers were extremely lopsided, nor any ‘source’ given so I retained a healthy sense of skepticism, refusing to post about it until I can uncover more validating info for myself.

Previously, the exchanges I had reported on went as follows:

May 31 exchange: 45 Russian bodies vs. 212 Ukrainian bodies.
June 14 exchange: 32 Russian bodies vs. 254 Ukrainian bodies.
August 4 exchange: 38 Russian bodies vs. 250 Ukrainian bodies.
October 18 exchange: 89 Russian bodies vs. 501 Ukrainian bodies.


Since then, there have been three new claimed exchanges as follows:

November 8 exchange: 37 Russian bodies vs. 563 Ukrainian bodies.
November 29 exchange: 48 Russian bodies vs. 502 Ukrainian bodies.
December 20 exchange: 42 Russian bodies vs. 508 Ukrainian bodies.


As you can see, the last few have gotten so lopsided it began to raise questions.

I looked into the sources and was shocked to find they were pretty much verified by Ukraine’s side, with a small caveat.

Taking just yesterday’s as an example, it was reported directly by Russian Duma deputy Shamsail Saraliev, which was subsequently reposted by all the top Russian news outlets like Lenta, Tass, RBC, etc.

The bodies of 42 dead soldiers were returned to Russia. This was stated by the representative of the parliamentary coordination group on military operations, State Duma deputy Shamsail Saraliev.

The bodies of 503 dead Ukrainian soldiers were returned to the Ukrainian side. According to Saraliev, the exchange took place on December 20.

The Ukrainian Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War specified that 403 bodies were transferred from Donetsk, 12 from Luhansk, 57 from Zaporizhia, and the rest were returned from morgues in Russia.


It was further independently corroborated by frontline reporter Alexander Kots who gained further information from his own sources, including the precise checkpoint where the exchange occurred, which was Gomel, Belarus region:

Image

But this is still just ‘hearsay’ from the Russian side. So now we turn to what Ukrainian officials reported. The official Telegram channel for the ‘Ukrainian Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War’ reported on the exchange of bodies. This organization is part of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and appears to be headed by Budanov himself since 2022. Their official website is here, which also reported on the exchange, even listing precisely where all 503 Ukrainian bodies were from:

Image

Now here’s the catch:

None of the Ukrainian sources list the Russian bodies returned to Russia—only Russia itself lists this. So, we do have confirmation from both sides of the Ukrainian body count, but only confirmation from the Russian side for the Russian bodycount. This means technically Russia could be making up a lower figure—to play devil’s advocate—but it is unlikely.

Why? Because if Russia’s bodycount was high, Ukraine would readily have reported it. For instance, if the exchange was around ~500 to ~500, then you would think logically the Ukrainian sources would have noted the Russian losses. But because the Russian losses appear so comparatively low, the Ukrainian reports simply omit them, only listing their own repatriated bodies in order to maintain narrative.

Thus, we can say with fairly high confidence that the exchanges are probably accurate, and this points to horrific loss ratios for Ukraine. Let’s tally them all up:

May 31 exchange: 45 Russian bodies vs. 212 Ukrainian bodies.
June 14 exchange: 32 Russian bodies vs. 254 Ukrainian bodies.
August 4 exchange: 38 Russian bodies vs. 250 Ukrainian bodies.
October 18 exchange: 89 Russian bodies vs. 501 Ukrainian bodies.
November 8 exchange: 37 Russian bodies vs. 563 Ukrainian bodies.
November 29 exchange: 48 Russian bodies vs. 502 Ukrainian bodies.
December 20 exchange: 42 Russian bodies vs. 508 Ukrainian bodies.


Russian losses: 331
Ukrainian losses: 2,790
Ratio: 8.43 to 1

Now, the next natural objection is always: “Ukraine is retreating, so Russia gets to pick up more of the bodies, while Ukraine leaves its dead behind.”

Yes, and the reason Ukraine is retreating is because they’re taking heavier losses and losing in general. If they weren’t taking the losses, they wouldn’t be retreating—it would be Russia retreating.

But, wait: “That’s not right. Ukraine isn’t necessarily retreating because they’re taking heavier losses, it’s because Russia has MORE men! Ukraine is so outnumbered, they can dole out more casualties onto Russia while still being forced to retreat due to being outnumbered!”

Yes, unfortunately Ukraine started off the war vastly outnumbering Russia with a claimed 1 million troops to Russia’s 250,000. How is it that Russia is now outnumbering Ukraine by such a high count? There’s only one answer, and you know what it is.

Of course, it is true Russia is likely picking up more dead and thus the 8:1 ratio is probably skewed somewhat in accordance to this; I’m simply arguing that the ‘retreating’ myth is not entirely responsible for it. Maybe instead of 8:1 the real ratio is 5:1 or whatever it may be, but we have every indication it’s still greatly in Russia’s favor—this is just the latest in a long line of evidence which includes Syrsky’s stunning admission of 100k net Russian gain for 2024 while Ukrainian officials simultaneously revealed Ukraine now suffers a net monthly loss of troops.

Also, one of the reports stated the following:

▪️At the end of November, the total number of already identified bodies of soldiers and officers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, stored in morgues in southern Russia awaiting exchange, exceeded 4,000.

RVvoenkor



Which segues us:

Image
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... ine-troops

A series of interviews with Ukrainian officers, who spoke anonymously, given the sensitivity of the issue, paint a worrying picture for Ukraine’s war effort.

“The people we get now are not like the people who were there in the beginning of the war,” said one soldier currently serving in Ukraine’s 114th territorial defence brigade, who has been stationed in various hotspots over the past two years. “Recently, we received 90 people, but only 24 of them were ready to move to the positions. The rest were old, sick or alcoholics. A month ago, they were walking around Kyiv or Dnipro and now they are in a trench and can barely hold a weapon. Poorly trained, and poorly equipped,” he said.


The article goes on to write that Ukraine is sending air defense soldiers as infantry:

Two sources in air defence units told the Guardian the deficit at the front has become so acute that the general staff has ordered already-depleted air defence units to free up more men to send to the front as infantry.

“It’s reaching a critical level where we can’t be sure that air defence can function properly,” said one of the sources, saying he had been prompted to speak out by a fear that the situation was a risk to Ukraine’s security.

“These people knew how air defence works, some had been trained in the West and had real skills, now they are sent to the front to fight, for which they have no training,” said the source.


Of course, this was countered by certain Russian analysts noting that recently Russia even sent Strategic Missile Force troops as assault infantry as well. And I mentioned previously Russia was reportedly making assault squads out of airfield technicians, pilots, et cetera. However, upon digging I did learn these were not actively needed personnel, and were usually people who were deemed reserves or redundant in their positions.

Either way, the contradiction can easily be explained by the classic 3:1 ratio needed for successful assaults. If Russian troops hypothetically outnumber Ukraine on a given front by a large amount, they could still technically be considered “short on troops” because you need a much larger force disparity to successfully assault without huge losses. Simply assaulting head-on at 1:1 could succeed but with high losses, so it’s best to concentrate as high disparities as possible, for which Russia presumably seeks to generate additional forces wherever possible in order to effect this. There are also the previous tooth-to-tail arguments, given that Ukraine can afford to field more frontline units out of its “total” active force since NATO fills in as Ukraine’s ‘rear’ noncombat contingent. Meanwhile, Russia can have far more ‘active’ units, but is required to utilize more of them in noncombat logistics roles, thus needing to generate more active combat ones.

Ukrainian journalist Vladimir Boyko said that he foresees by spring of 2025, the AFU will simply begin to scatter and run away on every front:

Image

Image

We may be entering a stage of heightened Ukrainian provocation attempts in lead up to Trump’s inauguration. There has been a rash of SBU-orchestrated arson attacks throughout Russia, assassinations—like that of General Kirillov—followed by various new ATACMS, HIMARS, and drone strikes, particularly yesterday’s brazen one on various residential buildings in Kazan.

Image
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/18/worl ... neral.html

I agree with the following analysis, which is very much to the point:

The British intelligence agency MI6, together with the CIA, wants to develop the topic of arson and fireworks (near ATMs and MFC) swept through the regions of Russia in recent days, with propaganda about "Russian rebels" and Ukrainian intelligence. In fact, the SBU works by deceiving mentally ill and over-credited people, forcing them to commit such rash acts.

According to some sources, the enemy is planning attacks by surface and air drones on infrastructure and military facilities in Armenia and Georgia. It will also try to reach out to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, hook the Northern and Pacific fleets and remote, significant economic objects. Creating the impression that Russia has lost control of the situation in its air and water space. All this will be done to bring Russia to a favorable negotiating position in January-February 2025 and force us to a truce for 2-3 years.


This comes just as CIA chief Burns visited Kiev for the last time, likely to give Zelensky his final instructions:

Image

The objective is to create a swell of negative perception around Russia’s war efforts in order to keep Ukraine in the game when the expected “negotiations” season starts upon Trump’s arrival.

The problem is, recent signals indicate Trump may infact be regressing into the same old warhawk model as reports came today that Trump intends to continue arming Ukraine come late January:

Image
https://www.ft.com/content/35f490c5-3ab ... e804dd158f

This could be more preemptive sabotage by the MSM, but Trump has not yet denied it, as he so often vociferously does when some ‘fake news’ about him is spread.

As such, we cannot help but make the following projection for one possible outcome:

When Trump takes office and ceasefire overtures to Russia are rejected, Trump may revert to more war as suggested above. In this case, we now know from other recent sources that Zelensky has internally agreed to drop the mobilization age if more weapons are promised. As such, if Trump allows the war hawks to totally puppeteer him again, we can foresee an outcome where Ukraine gets its arms and aid quid pro quo then lowers mobilization, and the war continues on in the current grinding fashion. After all, a Ukrainian advisor to the Committee on Economic Development stated on video that the age will definitely be lowered to 18-20 by February-March 2025:

According to Volyansky, an adviser to the Committee on Economic Development, Western partners have been calling for this since 2022. The decision, according to him, will be made no later than March.

We can see that, as is always the case, Trump appears to be backsliding on all campaign promises. Early reports claimed he was exploring options to support Israel striking Iran, and now the new reports about continuing military aid to Ukraine. It seems increasingly likely the swamp will slowly assimilate Trump’s second term leading ultimately to little difference in foreign policy from the Biden administration.

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sit ... in-kherson

Campaign promises are only a means to an end: winning. And while this is invariably true of all bourgeois politicians it is even more so from Trump who needed that win to compensate for the previous loss which he could never accept due to his pathetic juvenile mentality.

(a little more...)

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sit ... in-kherson

******

"A creature that destroys its people" — the mother of a 20-year-old Ukrainian cursed Zelensky
Today
16:24

Image
Mobilization for Ukraine. Photo: Wolfgang Schwan / REUTERS

A video of the mother of a 20-year-old resident of Ukraine, who curses the head of the Kiev regime, Vladimir Zelensky, is spreading on social networks.

"A manipulator and a clown, a scumbag and a creature that destroys its people" — this is only part of the epithets addressed to Zelensky. As The Other Ukraine writes, "her emotional and bone—chilling appeal is a real cry of the soul." The woman curses Zelensky for the tears of all mothers, and also says that she is not afraid of Russia, and those who seized power on Ukraine and destroys its people.

"I am very scared to go out to work. And I, the beast, pay taxes, try to support myself, my family, try to live despite the fact that I don't sleep at night," the woman says, addressing Zelensky.

She notes that Kiev propaganda blames Russia for all the troubles of Ukraine. However, the real culprit is Zelensky and those who stand behind him. They plundered the country, led the people to poverty.

"Zelensky, you are a creature... a creature that destroys its people... rotting, sold… You are a creature, you have bred creatures in my country...", — says the Ukrainian.

The woman notes that she raised her son for 20 years, but not so that Zelensky, who had never served in the army and was hiding from the draft, would take him to the slaughterhouse.

"Now you are grabbing these guys, destroying them. These mothers are standing under the military enlistment offices for a day, asking at least to pass on food to their sons... you bastard, you're the first to catch it… I hate and will pray to God that you die," the resident of Ukraine concludes her appeal.

[youtube]http://vkvideo.ru/video-92700616_456239 ... adaily.com[/youtube]

https://eadaily.com/en/news/2024/12/22/ ... d-zelensky

******

Since the beginning of the SVO, 30 Patriot SAM launchers have been destroyed
December 22, 13:21

Image

Since the beginning of the SVO, 30 Patriot SAM launchers have been destroyed

During a special operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces destroyed at least 30 launchers of the US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile system.
This is evidenced by the calculation of RIA Novosti based on official data from the Ministry of Defense.

According to the agency, the most effective strike was on May 16, 2023, when, according to reliably confirmed data, a strike by the Kinzhal hypersonic missile system on Kiev destroyed five Patriot air defense missile system launchers at once, as well as a multifunctional radar station.

On December 15, the Ministry of Defense reported that the Russian Armed Forces destroyed four American-made Patriot air defense missile system launchers.

https://russian.rt.com/ussr/news/1412850-patriot-svo - zinc

The most epic, of course, was the defeat of the Patriot air defense missile system battery in Zhulyany when, in a panic, it tried to fire a full salvo at the Kinzhal, firing all the missiles, but failing to hit. Well, the episode with the defeat of one of the batteries on the march is also memorable.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9565911.html

Construction of shelter at Belbek airbase
December 22, 18:55

Image

The enemy, based on satellite images, reports that we are in full swing building full-fledged shelters for aircraft at the Belbek airfield in Sevastopol. They have matured by the end of the 3rd war.

Image
Image
Image

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9566625.html

You should have started earlier instead of waiting.
December 22, 21:03

Image

Russia should have prepared for military action earlier, acted more decisively and chosen the moment to start it, and not wait (c) Putin

On the issue of timeliness.
The discussion about when exactly earlier in the period from 2014 to 2021 will continue for a long time. But these will be rather scholastic exercises. Reality can no longer be changed.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9566825.html

Google Translator

Call it 'scholastic' , say reality can no longer be changed, but we who were on the sidelines 10 years ago on this site remember the lame excuses, the maddening frustration watching an easy victory slip away.

He better not fuck up again, I doubt that will be forgiven.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 24, 2024 12:46 pm

Resilience
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/24/2024

Image

“After nearly three years of a bitter war with Russia, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine faces a difficult balance: extracting more financial resources to sustain the fight without overwhelming a population already suffering under the weight of the conflict,” wrote an article published a few days ago by The New York Times, which dealt with the economic aspects that are most directly affecting Ukrainian society. “This tension has been on full display in recent days, as Mr. Zelensky has signed into law the largest tax increase of the war while introducing a state-sponsored program providing financial assistance to the Ukrainian population during the winter,” adds the article, which goes on to explain what this aid consists of, which is supposed to act as a counterweight to the increase in taxes in the poorest country in Europe (it was already poor before the Russian invasion, which has meant further impoverishment of society despite the triumphalist announcements of growth by Kiev and its allies).

“The government has said that every Ukrainian will be entitled to a one-time payment of 1,000 hryvnias, or about $24, a modest sum compared to the average monthly salary in Ukraine of about $500,” he explains, adding that “the government has promoted the measure as a way of showing support for its citizens.” The willingness to take Kiev’s every claim at face value translates into seeing a willingness to care for the population in a way that can in no way compensate for the reforms of recent years and the impoverishment of the war.

“For many families and across the country, this is tangible,” Zelensky said, confirming that 3.2 million people had already applied for the subsidy. The American media outlet, without any critical intention, described the measure as populist and defined it as an attempt by Zelensky to regain the trust of a population that, as polls show, has been worn down by war fatigue. Only 22% of the population of the territory under kyiv's control would be willing to vote for Zelensky in a hypothetical election that, for the moment, will not take place. Last week, Andriy Ermak, head of the President's Office, said that Ukraine is ready to hold elections the day after “a fair peace,” a term that kyiv uses to mean complete victory, with the recovery of its lost territories. Although there is no electoral danger for Zelensky in the short or medium term, the current president's team is aware that it needs populist measures to maintain a certain level of support, essential to guarantee social peace at a time when the war is not going as promised to the population, from whom more and more sacrifices are being demanded.

One of them is the increase in income tax from 1.5 to 5% that the Ukrainian government introduced to fill its ailing coffers. Economically closer to Milei's libertarianism in Argentina than to European liberalism, Zelensky's team did not hesitate to create a flat tax , that is, a regressive tax to cover part of the expenses of the war. As reported by The New York Times, Ukraine hopes to collect 3.5 billion dollars, a significant amount considering the state of the country's finances, dependent on the United States to cover military spending and on the European Union for the maintenance of the State.

Citing deputies from Holos, a liberal party that was initially an ally of Zelensky and is trying to position itself as an opposition, the American newspaper admits that the $350 million in subsidies to families that Ukraine is going to use cannot compensate for the increase in the tax burden. What The New York Times fails to mention is that the impoverishment of the Ukrainian population, especially acute among the elderly and pensioners, precedes the Russian invasion and the imposition of the tax with which Zelensky intends to increase state revenues in the event that Washington reduces its military assistance. Over the last decade, citing the demands of institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the need to move towards leaving the prices of basic services in the hands of the market in order to adapt to the European Union, and the desire to increase revenues to finance the war in Donbass, Ukraine has limited or eliminated subsidies that lowered electricity, gas and water prices, changes that have been particularly felt by the working, pensioner and rural population.

The well-being of the population was not a priority objective of the State in the years of relative peace and members of Zelensky's party worked to limit social benefits as much as possible and eliminate any trace of subsidies inherited from the Soviet Union that had not yet disappeared. The current situation, with hundreds of thousands of displaced people who have lost their jobs, makes it impossible to completely eliminate the benefits that help those who have had to leave their homes to survive. However, the miserable level of state aid contrasts with the attempt to continue expanding military spending by squeezing a little more from a population increasingly reluctant to continue fighting until final victory. The population remains not a priority for the Ukrainian government, which is more focused on ensuring that the war can continue. So much so that not even the Resilience Plan, the third of Zelensky's major proposals this year after the Peace Formula directed at Russia and the Victory Plan directed at its allies and suppliers, has the well-being of society as its central axis.

More important to Zelensky than improving the situation of the poorest people on the European continent is, for example, the creation of a Ministry of Unity. With such measures, the President's Office aims to consolidate the idea of ​​the unity of Ukraine , which is the basis of the war narrative, even though it eliminates with a stroke of a pen the part of society that has been fighting against Kiev for a decade in the territories that the government continues to claim as its own. According to the Ukrainian daily Strana , the ministry will be built on the basis of the former Ministry for the Temporarily Occupied Territories, a creation of the war years in Donbass and whose real mission was to prevent a resolution of the conflict through the Minsk compromise.

“The very appearance of the Ministry of National Unity, which should deal, as Zelensky previously stated, with the return of Ukrainians from abroad, instead of the Ministry for the Reintegration of the Occupied Territories, is extremely symbolic against the background of the ever-growing rumors about the imminent end of the war by detaining them on the front line. If these rumors come true, then, of course, the issue of the return of the territories occupied by the Russian Federation to Ukraine will become much less relevant than the issue of the return of Ukrainian refugees,” Strana writes , with excessive confidence in the chances of a ceasefire.

The note adds that stopping the war would mean the start of the election campaign, a complex issue due to the millions of citizens with the right to vote who are abroad. Strana sees the new ministry, which will be headed by such a prominent figure as the former head of Naftogaz, as a step towards the Moldovan scenario . “Now that millions of people have left the country, the situation is objectively different. It is problematic that the authorities are completely depriving them of the possibility of voting. Many more polling stations will have to be created abroad, and this is a huge work front that the authorities will probably try to take over completely in order to influence the outcome of the vote,” he explains, recalling the example of Moldova “where the votes of citizens living abroad determined the outcome of the presidential election (in favour of the incumbent president) and the referendum on the European Union.” The rights of the population are not a priority, but maintaining their control is in order to secure power.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/24/resiliencia/

Google Translator

*******

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (as of 24 December 2024)

— Units of the North force group in the Kharkov direction defeated the armed formations of the mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the territorial defence brigade in the areas of the settlements of Liptsy and Vovchansk in the Kharkov region.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine lost up to 40 servicemen, three vehicles and four 122 mm D-30 howitzers.

— Units of the West force group improved the tactical situation, defeated the manpower and equipment of three mechanized, assault brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, two territorial defence brigades in the areas of the settlements of Dvurechnaya, Zagryzovo, Kopanki, Ivanovka in the Kharkov region, Novoegorovka in the Luhansk People's Republic and Terny in the Donetsk People's Republic. Repulsed three counterattacks of the enemy assault units.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 380 servicemen, three pickups, a 152 mm self-propelled artillery mount "Akatsiya", a 122 mm self-propelled artillery mount "Gvozdika", two 122 mm howitzers D-30, two 105 mm guns M119 made in the USA, as well as two electronic warfare stations "Bukovel-AD" and "Anklav-N".

- Units of the "Southern" group of forces improved the position along the forward edge, defeated the formations of three mechanized, assault and airmobile brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the areas of the settlements of Serebryanka, Seversk, Druzhkovka, Konstantinovka, Chasov Yar and Kurakhovo of the Donetsk People's Republic. They repelled a counterattack of the assault group of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The enemy's losses amounted to over 250 servicemen, an armored personnel carrier, two cars and a 152 mm gun D-20.

— Units of the Center group of forces continued to advance deep into the enemy's defense, defeated the manpower and equipment of three mechanized brigades, a motorized infantry brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, a marine brigade, two territorial defense brigades and a national guard brigade in the areas of the settlements of Krasnoarmeysk, Udachnoye, Zverevo, Andreyevka, Dzerzhinsk, Shcherbinovka, Shevchenko and Novoolenovka of the Donetsk People's Republic. Repulsed 10 counterattacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The enemy lost up to 585 servicemen, a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, two armored personnel carriers, including a US-made M113, a Cossack armored combat vehicle, four cars and a 152 mm Msta-B howitzer.

— Units of the East group of forces took up more advantageous lines and positions. Defeated the formations of the motorized infantry, mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Vremivka, Konstantinopol, Neskuchnoye, Razliv of the Donetsk People's Republic and Temirovka of the Zaporizhia region. Repulsed a counterattack by an assault group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine lost up to 160 servicemen, two vehicles, a 155 mm self-propelled artillery unit "Paladin" made in the USA, a 152 mm howitzer "Msta-S" and a 152 mm self-propelled artillery unit "Akatsiya".

— Units of the Dnepr group of forces improved their position along the front line, inflicted losses on the manpower and equipment of the mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Nikolskoye, Pridneprovskoye and Yantarnoye in the Kherson region.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine lost up to 65 servicemen, three vehicles and a 122 mm howitzer D-30.

***

Colonelcassad
On the situation in the Kursk direction (data from the Ministry of Defense):

Over the past 24 hours, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have lost more than 300 servicemen, two tanks were destroyed, including an Abrams tank made in the USA, three infantry fighting vehicles - a Bradley IFV made in the USA, a Marder IFV made in Germany and a CV-90 IFV made in Sweden, three armored personnel carriers - a Stryker and two M113 made in the USA, three combat armored vehicles, an artillery piece, four mortars, an M88 armored recovery vehicle made in the USA and eight cars. In

total, during the military operations in the Kursk direction, the enemy lost more than 43,310 servicemen, 253 tanks, 194 infantry fighting vehicles, 135 armored personnel carriers, 1,315 armored combat vehicles, 1,174 vehicles, 324 artillery pieces, 42 multiple launch rocket system launchers, including 11 HIMARS and six MLRS made in the USA, 13 anti-aircraft missile system launchers, seven transport and loading vehicles, 79 electronic warfare stations, 13 counter-battery radars, four air defense radars, 28 units of engineering and other equipment, including 13 engineering obstacle clearing vehicles, one UR-77 mine clearing unit, seven armored repair and recovery vehicles and a command and staff vehicle.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

*******

Volodymyr Ishchenko: In Ukraine, the Real Desire to Sacrifice Oneself for the State is Very Weak
December 22, 2024 natyliesb

Interview with Volodymyr Ishchenko, The Bullet, 12/4/24

Volodymyr Ishchenko is a Ukrainian sociologist who was politically active and took part in several left-wing initiatives in Ukraine before moving to Germany in 2019. Ishchenko currently works at the Freie Universität in Berlin and continues his research on the Ukrainian “revolutions,” the left, and the political violence of the extreme right, which he has been studying for 20 years. Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, he has also written extensively in several international media outlets on different aspects of the conflict. He was interviewed by Philippe Alcoy and Sasha Yaropolskaya for the journal Révolution Permanente.

Philippe Alcoy, Sasha Yaropolskaya (PA-SY): Here in the West, there is much reporting of the enthusiasm of Ukrainians to defend their country. Yet today, we see images of young men deserting or refusing to serve in the army. Can you tell us how the Ukrainian population currently feels about the situation of the war with Russia?

Volodymyr Ishchenko (VI): There is no enthusiasm, or at least, this enthusiasm is limited to a much smaller group of people than in 2022. At that time, the enthusiasm was caused not only as a reaction to the Russian invasion but also by the fact that Russia’s initial invasion plan failed in a matter of days. There was not only outrage that Russia had attacked our country but also immense hopes for victory in that spring, and even more so after the Ukrainian counter-offensive in September 2022, with expectations of a greater success of the counter-offensive in 2023.

As we now know, last year’s Ukrainian campaign failed to achieve any of its objectives. We witnessed, instead, the relatively successful advance of Russian forces. This has consequences for how people feel about war. In public opinion, in particular, there are clear trends: when the situation on the front line was good for Ukraine and with chances of improvement, support for negotiations was very low. But when the situation deteriorated and hopes that Ukraine could win the war diminished, support for negotiations increased, while support for, and trust in, Zelensky decreased.

Image

Much indicates that the enthusiasm of 2022 was quite fragile. And this is not the first time that we have seen this kind of dynamic. After the “Orange Revolution” of 2004 and the “EuroMaidan Revolution” of 2014, people had high expectations that quickly yielded to disappointment. A similar dynamic occurred after the election of Zelensky in 2019, and again in 2022. One line of interpretation was that these events were the manifestation of the rise of the Ukrainian nation with a quasi-theological dynamic, as the ultimate outcome of a national liberation struggle.

You mentioned desertion. The number of people trying to escape across the border is high. An even more telling statistic is that of the majority of men subject to military service and aged 18 to 60 who have not updated their data with the military recruitment office. This requirement had been introduced in order to make Ukrainian conscription a little more effective and to avoid resorting to the rather brutal method of grabbing people off the street but rather to try to collect data on all potential conscripts and then to start mobilizing them more effectively. If people do not update the data, they are punished with a large fine, and if they don’t pay it, they invite even more complications in their work and life.

So, it is a very serious matter. Yet despite everything, the majority of Ukrainian men have not obeyed this requirement. And as for Ukrainian men abroad, according to estimates, only a few have updated their data, although everyone was required to do so. This means that the real desire to sacrifice oneself for the state is very low.

Military conscription is becoming increasingly brutal. Videos have emerged of arrests of military conscripts in public and of clashes between police and military personnel on one side, and citizens present at the scene.

PA-SY: Is there a parallel to the situation in Russia on the issue of military conscription? And is there a fear on the part of the state that pushing for a larger conscription could lead to social discontent as in Russia, where for years there was a movement of conscripts’ families, especially wives and mothers, who mobilized to support their husbands and sons?

VI: In Russia, the regime was afraid of launching a large-scale conscription effort. It has tried to find different ways to avoid large waves of military conscription. But I feel that Ukraine, especially when supplies from the United States were low, had no choice, and so it lowered the conscription age. This was accompanied by great brutality on the part of the police.

PA-SY: Are there potential social protests that could arise from this situation?

VI: There is much one can say about this. Unlike Russia, conscription has always existed in Ukraine. So, this is not a single wave of conscription, like the one Putin announced in September 2022 in response to the Ukrainian counter-offensive. The Ukrainian army obtains its soldiers mainly through conscription. Volunteers do not constitute the majority of the Ukrainian army, and their number has become negligible since 2022. All the brutal methods of mobilization are the result of a weak desire to volunteer for the army.

PA-SY: Why is it so weak?

VI: The most generous explanation for the Ukrainian state, and also the one that is repeated in some circles, is that this is simply because the United States did not supply enough weapons. This argument implies a very specific idea of ​​how the war could be won. But it is far from certain that, even if all the weapons and supplies had been delivered in 2022, a decisive victory over Russia could have been won. I won’t speculate about this. But I don’t think that there is a consensus among military experts.

The other side of the coin is that the shipment of weapons to Ukraine is conditional on the effectiveness of Ukrainian mobilization. And so, amendment of the law on conscription this year was linked to the shipment of weapons by the United States. This is confirmed by many Ukrainian politicians. The United States expected Ukraine to make conscription more effective.

Today, the most urgent issue is to reduce the conscription age. It has already been reduced from 27 to 25, and now there is strong pressure to lower it even further, to 22, or even to 18.

There’s a strong argument against this. That is the most fertile demographic cohort of the Ukrainian population, and it is also one of the smallest. In fact, if you send these young people to be massacred, the ability of the Ukrainian population to regenerate its numbers after the war will diminish even further. According to the latest UN projections for the Ukrainian population, by the end of the century it will number only 15 million, compared to 52 million in 1992, right after the disintegration of the USSR.

And this is not even the worst-case scenario. It’s based on the rather optimistic assumption that the war will end next year and that millions of refugees, especially fertile women, will return and be able to contribute to the reproduction of the Ukrainian population, which is not certain, to say the least.

This is an impossible choice. Throughout history, many nations have fought long wars against imperial conquests. And not necessarily only against imperial conquests, by the way. Take revolutionary France. After 1789, France was able to defeat the coalition of the greatest European powers until 1812, when Napoleon was defeated in Russia. For two decades, France defeated all of Europe. Such was the power of revolution. After 1917, revolutionary Russia was able to defeat the coalition of the strongest imperialist powers that all intervened because of the power of its revolution and its ability to build an effective, large, and victorious Red Army. In the Vietnamese War, the Vietnamese defeated France and the United States over a period of decades. Afghanistan defeated the USSR and the United States in a war that lasted from 1979 to 2021. Theoretically, one might think that a small nation could defeat a much larger enemy. But that requires a different social stature and politics than those of Ukraine.

All of these wars were fought by countries that had large peasant populations that could mobilize in large-scale revolutionary or guerrilla wars. In Vietnam, the demographics held up over the decades, despite the genocide that the United States committed, and even though the balance of forces was so lopsided. Such is the power of revolution.

Post-Soviet Ukraine is a very different country. Its demographic structure is very different from Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, and even Ukraine’s of a hundred years ago, when it was a largely peasant country with multiple revolutionary armies – the Red Army, Makhno’s anarchist army, armies of the various nationalist warlords – all of whom benefited from the demographics of the peasantry. Today’s Ukraine is a modernized urban society with a declining demographic. It’s not going to be able to wage war for decades.

And there are no revolutionary changes in today’s Ukraine. The three Ukrainian “revolutions” – 1990, 2004, and 2014 – did not create a strong revolutionary state capable of establishing an effective apparatus that could mobilize an army and the economy. The idea behind these “revolutions” was that Ukraine should integrate into the US-led world order as a kind of periphery. This type of integration would benefit only a narrow middle class, some opportunistic oligarchs, and transnational capital.

In Ukraine, the regime is still discussing a rather moderate tax increase – that after two and a half years of war. That says a lot about how much Ukrainians trust the state and about their willingness to defend that state. The question of social class was very important because the conscripts came mainly from the lower classes. These are mainly poor people who could not bribe the recruitment officers to let them go and people who could not find a way to flee the country.

PA-SY: Zaluzhnyi, head of the Ukrainian armed forces, and Kuleba, the foreign minister, were dismissed this year. Could you talk of the political struggles within the Ukrainian bourgeoisie?

VI: Zaluzhny is a potential political opponent of Zelensky. It was dangerous for Zelensky to see a popular general become a politician. This was one of Zelensky’s motives in sending him to the UK as ambassador. As for Kuleba, there was also a problem of trust.

We can analyze this as building a vertical power structure, an informal way of consolidating the elite and of governing the country using both formal institutions, such as the democratic Constitution and the Parliament, but also informal mechanisms. All Ukrainian presidents have tried to build this informal power. Zelensky’s power vertical started to be built before the invasion. But the war offered more opportunities, and his chief of staff, Andrei Yermak, is considered the second most powerful person in the country, with enormous informal power and the ability to build an effective informal structure that consolidates power around the presidential office.

The dynamics of these conflicts, that sometimes break out into public view, remain mostly hidden. They are mainly related to the results at the front and to military developments. In case of bad developments for the Ukrainian army, these conflicts would intensify, and some radical nationalists, even some oligarchs, could raise their heads, and so forth.

A lot depends on the position of the US and the EU and the strategy that Trump will choose. Zelensky has to end this war in a way that could be presented to the Ukrainian public as a victory, for example, by obtaining EU or NATO membership or some generous funding programs for Ukraine, even if it loses territory. With an outcome perceived as a defeat, Zelensky would probably not have much future.

PA-SY: What is the role of the far right in Ukraine?

VI: This topic has been widely discussed in Western media throughout the war. Some liberal media outlets try to portray the Ukrainian far right as less dangerous than the Western far right, because it is fighting on the right side of history against a Russia that is the more important enemy. The Zelensky regime has tried to appeal to these sectors of the far right by holding official ceremonies for the Azov Battalion or celebrating the birthday of Stepan Bandera, the extreme nationalist and Nazi sympathizer. It is difficult to follow from France how this dynamic is evolving as the war progresses.

PA-SY: Is the far right a small but powerful segment due to its presence in the military. Or is it gaining popularity outside of traditional sectors of the far right? Does the far right play a significant role in the Ukrainian political landscape, or is its influence being exaggerated by the media?

VI: When people in the West discuss the Ukrainian far right, I think they are using the wrong point of comparison. For example, in France, the far right, mainly the Rassemblement national, Le Pen’s party, is much less extreme than the movements that we are talking about in Ukraine. Le Pen’s party probably does not use Nazi symbols and has a more sophisticated attitude toward the Vichy collaboration during World War II. They are trying to clean themselves.

But such is not the case in Ukraine. You mentioned Stepan Bandera, who is openly glorified, and even more so the Waffen-SS, especially by members of the Azov Battalion. The degree of extremism of the Ukrainian far right is much greater than that of the West’s far right.

Recently, an international conference, “Nation Europa,” was held in Lviv, the largest city of Western Ukraine, to which groups such as Dritte Weg from Germany, CasaPound from Italy, and similar neo-Nazi groups from many European countries were invited. All major far-right organizations of Ukraine participated, including the Svoboda party and prominent members of Azov/National Corps. These Ukrainian parties, organizations, and military units are generally referred to as the “far-right,” but they have international relations with Western groups that are much more extreme and violent than the mainstream far-right parties. Incidentally, most of the Ukrainian military units that participated in this conference have ties to the Ukrainian military intelligence service, the GUR.

The ideologically sanctioned capacity for political violence of the Ukrainian far right is much greater than that of the dominant far-right parties in the West. They have much more weaponry and many paramilitary movements built around official military units that are capable of political violence. Unlike mainstream Western far-right parties seeking parliamentary status, the power of the Ukrainian far right has always rested on its ability to mobilize in the streets and to threaten violence. They have not been able to get elected, with the exception of the elections of 2012, when the far-right Svoboda party won over 10% of the vote. (But the far right was able to gain much more significant representation and to form the largest factions in many local councils in Western Ukraine.)

Their main source of power comes from their ability to mobilize outside parliament, unlike parties formed by oligarchs (big capital) or by the weak liberals. Ukrainian nationalists can draw on a political tradition that goes back to the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which was part of a family of fascist movements in interwar Europe. And post-Soviet Ukrainian nationalists have often drawn their inspiration directly from the OUN. This tradition has been upheld in the Ukrainian diaspora, particularly in North America. The Canadian public is only now discovering the number of Ukrainian fascists that its government welcomed after World War II. Other post-Soviet Ukrainian political currents don’t have this advantage of a preserved political tradition.

The members of the Azov battalion have today become very legitimate as war heroes. They enjoy extraordinary media attention and present themselves as an élite unit, a claim that the media uphold. Many Azov speakers have become celebrities. They have also benefited from a certain whitewashing in Western media, which before 2022 referred to them as neo-Nazis. Today, they easily forget this part of history.

And finally, we must think not only about the far right itself but also about the complicity of Ukrainian and Western elites in whitewashing the Ukrainian far right and ethno-nationalism. Not only in Ukraine but also in the West, discussing this topic today can immediately lead to ostracization. For example, Marta Havryshko, a Ukrainian historian who moved to the United States, continues to write critical articles about Ukrainian nationalists, Ukrainian ethno-nationalist politics, the Ukrainian far right, and she receives thousands of threats, death threats, rape threats.

PA-SY: Is Azov, in your view, the main force of the Ukrainian far right? Wasn’t it greatly weakened in the battles of Mariupol and Bakhmut? Do you think that it will still play an important role in the future, in the recomposition of the far right?

VI: On the contrary, Azov has grown, now forming two brigades – the 3rd Assault Brigade and the Azov Brigade of the National Guard. This is in addition to a special unit, the Kraken, which are subordinate to the GUR (military intelligence). Their political appeal and publicity in the media have grown considerably. Their legitimacy has also grown. So, they are not weakened, but strengthened. And contrary to popular myth, they have not become depoliticized.

PA-SY: Are you afraid that after the war, the extreme right, and in particular those that had fought at the front, will be the only force to have a sufficiently coherent ideological project for post-war Ukraine, given the absence of ideology of the neoliberal project for Ukraine and the weakness of the left?

VI: That depends entirely on the outcome of the war. And the range of possible outcomes is still very large. A nuclear war is a possible outcome, although one hopes that it is not the most likely one. In that case, everything we are discussing today will no longer matter. A lasting ceasefire is also possible, but unlikely.

The radicalization of the Ukrainian far right will depend on the stability of Zelensky’s government and the stability of the Ukrainian economy. In the event of the disintegration of state institutions and a failing economy, the nationalists will have a good chance of consolidating their power because they are a very legitimate, very well-known, and militarized political force.

PA-SY: What is the situation of the labour movement? There have been some minor strikes in Ukraine since the beginning of the war, especially in the health sector. But it is difficult to know what the real situation is. What is the situation and the capacity of the working class to organize and perhaps play a role, at least to counterbalance the rise of the extreme right in the country?

VI: The working class cannot play any role in the current situation. The labour movement in Ukraine was weak long before the war. The last really massive political strike was in 1993 among the miners of Donbass. They demanded autonomy for Donbass and closer relations with Russia, ironically. But even that strike was linked to the interests of the “red directors” of former Soviet enterprises who had a lot of power in the immediate post-Soviet years. They used the strike to obtain some concessions from the government. Eventually, the strike led to early elections and a change of government. But since then, there has been no large-scale strike.

Image

For three decades, we have seen only small-scale strikes, usually limited to individual companies, at best to certain segments of the economy, and very rarely politicized. Moreover, it was precisely the inability to launch a political strike during the EuroMaidan of 2014 that led to the escalation of violence because that protest movement was unable to put sufficient pressure on a government that was unwilling to make concessions. This gave the radical nationalists the opportunity to promote their violent strategy of protest.

And so yes, since the current large-scale invasion, strikes are banned. The strikes that have taken place are probably informal strikes.

What will happen after the war still depends a lot on how it ends. But from what we understand, the empowerment of the labour movement would require some economic growth so that workers are not laid off. This requires a successful reconstruction of the Ukrainian economy.

In some very optimistic – but not necessarily likely – scenarios, Ukrainian soldiers returning to the Ukrainian economy could demand more from the government. That has indeed happened after some wars, particularly after World War I. But that remains speculative today. Much darker scenarios now seem more likely…

PA-SY: As concerns the situation and the positions of the Ukrainian left, at the beginning of the war, many articles and texts presented the point of view of Ukrainian left activists and explained how blind some of the Western left is for not supporting NATO arms deliveries more. In your articles, you try to present a more nuanced point of view on the war.

How have the positions of the Ukrainian left, the organized left, but also intellectuals, changed since the two years after the invasion? Is the left adopting a more critical position toward the Ukrainian government and NATO’s role in the conflict?

VI: The Ukrainian left has always been very diverse.

Ironically, the largest left party in Ukraine, the Communist Party of Ukraine, supported the Russian invasion. The Communist Party of Ukraine was a very important party… until EuroMaidan. It was the most popular party in the country in the 1990s. The Communist Party candidate won 37% of the vote in the 1999 presidential elections. Even on the eve of EuroMaidan, the Communist Party won 13% of the vote. Although its support had declined, it had significant representation in parliament and effectively supported the government of Viktor Yanukovych. After EuroMaidan, it lost its electoral stronghold in Donbass and Crimea, as these territories were cut off from Kiev. The party also suffered repression due to the government’s “decommunization” policies – the party was suspended, and in 2022, it was permanently banned, as were a number of other so-called pro-Russian parties.

Petro Simonenko, the leader of the party since 1993, fled to Belarus in March 2022. From Belarus, he supported the Russian invasion as an anti-fascist operation against the “Kiev regime.” The communist organizations in the areas occupied by Russia have merged with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and participated in the local elections organized by Russia in 2023, even entering some local councils. The same merger occurred with the soviet-type Ukrainian trade unions in the occupied areas. Such is the lion’s share of what was called the left in Ukraine.

At the same time, there were much smaller and younger left groups. They were always critical of the communists and integrated better with the democratic socialists and the liberal left in the West. They also had a very different social base than the communists – closer to the pro-Western NGO-ized “civil society” of the middle class in Ukraine. After the invasion began, they were able to communicate their position much more effectively to the West through a kind of identity politics: “We are the Ukrainian left. The stupid and arrogant Western left does not understand anything about what is happening in the country.”

Of course, this position was very problematic, to say the least, from the very beginning. For comparison, the Communist Party had 100,000 card-carrying members in 2014. The young left milieu had no more than 1,000 activists and sympathizers in the whole country, even in the best years of its development, and their numbers have been declining since then, after Euromaidan. Among that left, most supported Ukraine, many volunteered for the army, but they were not able to create a left-wing military unit comparable to the extreme right units, even on a much smaller scale. Many also participated in humanitarian initiatives.

Today, some of them are tending to revise their positions on the war, especially in response to the brutal conscription. It is really difficult to claim that the war is still some kind of “people’s war” when the majority of Ukrainians do not want to fight. The extent to which they are willing to express this revised position also depends on their fear of repression. It is difficult to speak critically of the war in the Ukrainian public sphere. That kind of criticism exists mostly in private conversations, in “friends only” Facebook accounts and so on, and is articulated only very cautiously in publications.

There is also criticism of the ethno-nationalism coming from this left environment because it has become too difficult to ignore how Ukraine has changed in two years, with the spread of discrimination against Russian speakers and the regime’s ethnic assimilation policies. For example, Russian is no longer taught in Ukrainian schools, even as an option, even in massively Russian-speaking cities like Odessa, where probably 80-90% of even ethnic Ukrainian children speak Russian with their parents. A recently introduced bill could ban speaking any Russian in schools, not only in class with teachers, but also during breaks, in private conversations of students among themselves. The bill has already been approved by the Minister of Education.

The third segment of the Ukrainian left is Marxist-Leninist, and is part of what I call the “neo-Soviet revival” that is happening in many post-Soviet countries. They are usually organized in kruzhki – literally ‘circles’. These are proto-political organizations, something more than just Marxist-Leninist reading groups. They are much more popular in Russia, where they are able to create YouTube channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. In Russia, Belarus and Central Asia, kruzhki can involve thousands of young people who have not lived a single day in the USSR, but who are critical of the social and political reality of their country and who find in orthodox Marxist Leninism instruments to deal with this reality. They exist and have even developed in Ukraine as well, despite decommunization and the rise of anti-Russian nationalism and anti-communist attitudes.

Almost from the very beginning, these groups opposed their governments and adopted a revolutionary defeatist position. One can wonder whether a social revolution is even possible, as it was a hundred years ago in Ukraine in the collapsing Russian Empire. Nevertheless, from the very beginning, these groups criticized forced conscription, called for internationalism, and did not try to legitimize the actions of the Ukrainian state. •

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/12/vol ... very-weak/

******

Ukraine Weekly Update
December 20th 2024

Dr. Rob Campbell
Dec 20, 2024

<snip>

Prison for the Mobilised

Image

Mobilised Ukrainian men are being kept in appalling conditions before being sent to the front as you can see here. It’s a bloody nightmare.

Ukrainian Soldiers Massacre Whole Families

On October 30, 2024, while retreating from the village of Kruglyakovka in the Kharkiv region, AFU soldiers marched along Pobedy Street, firing indiscriminately at homes. In the yard of house number 59, they spotted Lyudmila and Anatoly Berezin, who rushed into their home seeking shelter from the gunfire. The AFU soldiers threw a grenade and a smoke bomb through the window. Dazed and disoriented, the couple managed to stumble into their yard, only to be gunned down with automatic rifle fire.

The Ukrainians then placed booby traps on the bodies.

Image

In another incident some time ago in Mariupol, according to The Islander:

Svetlana Vladimirovna Surma from Mariupol, Korolenko lane, told us that there was an “Azov” sniper settled in the house near Korolenko Lane, Gugelya Street. He was shooting at small children. When families left houses, he killed first children of 3-5 years old, then killed their parents. There were no Russian or Donetsk soldiers, only Ukrainian divisions and Azov.

Another report claims that around the same time Ukrainian snipers located on the upper floors of buildings in Makhinov Street, Mariupol, shot at residents when they tried to leave - killing many.

Ukrainians Killed 100 in Selidovo

Image
Selidovo - about a month ago

This report claims that Ukrainian soldiers along with Georgian and French mercenaries, killed over 100 civilians just before their recent retreat from Selidovo (DPR). They shot their victims in the head and neck and killed whole families. The International Public Tribunal for the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis provides a detailed report here. Sputnik also covers this report. https://t.me/worldpravda/20394(I cannot open Telegram)

Border Guards Fleeing

Image

More and more Border guards are abandoning their posts and fleeing west, according to the Islander Once the guards start leaving the prison, the authorities are in big trouble. So those who have been preoccupied with forcing others to be cannon fodder fear that they could become cannon fodder themselves as part of the latest ‘recruitment’ drive. The hunter has become the hunted.

Ukraine Terrorist Attacks
13th/14th December

Image
Minibus in Kherson

Two Ukrainian drones attacked a minibus in Kherson overnight, killing one passenger and injuring two others. Seven drones were destroyed over Bryansk while in Krasnador drones caused some damage to buildings.

Image
Mayskiy - where a nine year old boy was killed

In Belgorod District, a man was injured by a drone attack on his car while in the village of Mayskiy a nine year old boy was killed by a drone attack on his house. His mother and seven month old sister were injured.

14th/15th December

Overnight, explosions were heard over Sochi where the air defences were triggered. In Gorlovka, a drone attack destroyed civilian infrastructure damaging an underground passage but no casualties were reported.

15th/16th December

Poor Gorlovka (DPR) was attacked again with a drone drops on a car, which killed one and injured another while cluster munitions injured another three.

16th/17th December

Overnight in Belgorod Region a drone attacked a moving lorry injuring the driver.

(Much more at link.)

https://robcampbell.substack.com/p/ukra ... update-731

*******

Uchilyant Cartographers
December 23, 15:37

Image

Bezuglaya reported that the characters from the zradophile resource Deep State are going to be sent to the front to be butchered. There is no need to stir up panic in the rear by drawing a deplorable situation at the front.
Now the editors of Deep State will have the opportunity to show in practice "how to fight". True, not for long, but there will be a chance....

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9568298.html

Fortifications are being built in the Dnepropetrovsk region
December 24, 9:13

Image

Following the advance of the Russian army south of Krasnoarmeysk, the enemy hastily stepped up the construction of fortifications in the Dnepropetrovsk region, which, according to Ukrainian sources, are completely inadequate.

Currently, the advanced positions of the Russian Armed Forces are located approximately 8.5 km from the borders of the Dnipropetrovsk region, on the territory of which full-fledged land combat operations have not been conducted before. The entry of the Russian army into the Dnipropetrovsk region will be an important symbolic event, the offensive of which the enemy is trying to delay.

Image

If the war drags on, we will eventually see an offensive on Pavlograd.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9569648.html

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

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 25, 2024 12:53 pm

The eternal dispute over gas transit
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/25/2024

Image

Russia's international isolation is one of the foundations of the sanctions regime imposed by the West after the Russian invasion, and kyiv regularly demands that it be tightened. The economic blitzkrieg that the European Union and the United States believed they were waging with their initial package, which was to destroy the Russian economy by isolating it from the rest by disconnecting the world's largest country from the SWIFT international payment system, did not work, and fifteen other similar packages have followed, always with the hope that this time it will achieve its objective. The time elapsed, the ineffectiveness of the measures in preventing Russia from continuing to fight, and the collateral damage they imply for some of the countries have caused skepticism and rejection among some actors in the European Union, who have threatened to veto future sanctions. Despite having been the most affected economy, Germany is not on the list of countries seeking to avoid extending the sanctions regime or relaxing restrictions on the most important sector, energy. Leading the front in favour of changing course in EU-Russia relations are Hungary and Slovakia, two of Ukraine's neighbours that have recently provoked the fury of kyiv.

Viewing every gesture of détente as disloyalty, the Ukrainian government actively condemned the phone call made by Olaf Scholz in its timid attempt to make the attempt to achieve peace an argument for its future election campaign. Zelensky has been so harsh on Germany and especially its president – ​​for its slowness in joining the supply of lethal weapons, reluctance to send Leopard tanks and outright refusal to supply Taurus missiles – that even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte politely asked the Ukrainian president this week to stop criticizing Olaf Scholz, recalling that Germany is Ukraine’s second largest military supplier only behind the United States.


Less important and leaders of countries with less economic capacity, Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico, the two people most criticised by Ukraine, have received less support from the EU and NATO. The arguments of the two European leaders are slightly different, although they share a concern about the energy aspect. Taking advantage of his position at the head of the rotating presidency of the European Union and his personal relationship with the president-elect of the United States, the Hungarian leader wanted to make a personal and personal initiative to put the question of peace on the table. His trip to kyiv and Moscow was disappointing for Orbán, who saw something that was obvious: the positions remain opposed, there is no will to dialogue, there are no minimum conditions to initiate even preliminary contacts in search of a ceasefire and, due to his political position, the Hungarian president is far from being a person capable of mediating between the two countries. His idea of ​​a Christmas truce was quickly rejected and denounced as a Russian plot or an attempt by the Hungarian leader to favour Vladimir Putin, even though any pause in the war always favours, in military terms, the party that is suffering the most, Ukraine in this case.

However, what has most upset the Ukrainian government has been the apparently surprise visit of Robert Fico to Moscow this week. Although his profile is clearly lower than that of Orbán, the leader of a country with more weight in Europe, Ukraine has taken advantage of the weakness of Fico, a loose cannon in the European Union who has not developed a close relationship with Donald Trump like Orbán, so he does not have that protection either. The Slovak president, who suffered an assassination attempt a few months ago, visited Moscow with an agenda focused primarily on the resumption of economic relations on the continent and, above all, the energy issue.

For years, kyiv claimed to have abandoned Russian gas, since it did not buy its energy from the Russian company Gazprom, but rather through a Slovak company, which in reality sold to kyiv the Russian gas that had passed through the Ukrainian transit system. The sanctions imposed on the energy sector after the invasion of Ukraine and the refusal of the countries themselves to help finance Moscow's military effort by purchasing Russian raw materials have significantly reduced the amount of gas that the Russian Federation has supplied to the countries of the European Union in these almost three years. After the attack on the Nord Stream, in which Ukraine is suspected of being the executor, kyiv has recognized its strategic position in this regard. Despite the war, the Ukrainian gas transit system has continued to supply Russian gas uninterrupted by military actions and has become the only gas pipeline that directly connected Russia with the European Union, giving Ukraine a dose of power that kyiv now wants to take advantage of. Unlike five years ago, when Gazprom and Naftogaz, the Russian and Ukrainian state-owned companies, signed the latest agreement after the summit of heads of state and government of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia, kyiv is not now seeking to secure revenues from gas transit. Ukraine now has other sources of financing, mainly subsidies and loans from its foreign suppliers, so it is more important to deny Russia revenues from gas sales than to obtain the financing that would allow Gazprom to use Ukrainian facilities to ship gas to its European customers.

For months, Slovakia has been trying to negotiate with kyiv the possibility of extending Russian gas supplies to countries that have been left vulnerable by Ukraine's refusal to sign a new contract with Gazprom. During his meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Shmygal, Robert Fico, who has supported Kiev in recent years but has not visited the city to carry out the propaganda events that have accompanied institutional visits, reminded him of Slovakia's aid in the form of exports of electricity. Russian attacks have undermined its own production capacity, so that a country that was previously an exporter has become an importer of electricity. To do this, it has demanded help from the European Union and especially from neighbouring countries, the same ones to which it now denies the possibility of receiving the gas they need to cover their needs. Unlike richer countries such as Germany, Slovakia cannot afford to abandon a cheap and reliable source of energy in favour of another that is politically correct but more expensive.

This was the origin of Fico's visit to the Kremlin and of Orbán's latest attempt to convince Ukraine to allow the passage of Russian gas. The scheme proposed by Hungary and quickly rejected by kyiv was that Russian gas would be considered Hungarian, Slovak or Austrian at the moment it crossed the border. In this way, Ukraine would not be transiting Russian gas in the same way that it has consumed Slovak and not Russian gas for years. This formula was also the one preferred by Ukraine to extend the contract with Gazprom during the time in which kyiv wanted to prioritize obtaining income instead of stopping the transit and depriving Russia of sales and some of its allies of the energy that their countries need. Slovakia claims to have reserves, sufficient in the face of low internal demand, and even Moldova claims to have alternative sources. The most difficult situation is, as expected, in Transnistria, where more than 300,000 people depend on Gazprom gas, which Ukraine refuses to transport.

Ukraine’s aim on the gas issue is so simple that kyiv’s latest proposal – if such a grotesque scheme can be called that – makes it clear that it is simply denying Russia revenues no matter what happens to countries that, like Slovakia, gave Kiev their entire fleet of Soviet-made aircraft. “What kind of idiot would sell us gas for free?” Fico asked this week when reporting on Zelensky’s proposed initiative: that Slovakia would buy Russian gas now, but not pay for it until the end of the war.

In line with its tendency to take offense at any initiative other than war, especially if it breaks, even minimally, Russia’s attempt at a diplomatic and economic blockade, kyiv has reacted furiously to the image of Fico visiting Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin. “Without a doubt, Slovak Prime Minister Mr. Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Mr. Orbán have an absolute right to their own understanding of honor, dignity, modern values ​​and economic benefits. However, their obsessive desire to ensure… Russia’s right not to be at all responsible for the act of aggression on European territory, to be able to continue financing the mass murder of Ukrainian citizens at the expense of “European sales” of energy carriers, and their constant desire to humiliate the reputation of the European Union and the European Commission seems very strange,” wrote Podolyak, deliberately confusing the responsibility of a political leader to guarantee basic raw materials to his country with dishonor, disloyalty to Ukraine and an attempt to benefit Russia. Not content with insulting the presidents of two of their neighbouring countries, the adviser to the Office of the President also takes aim at the European Union and, resorting to vetoes that have not existed - although threats have been made - Podolyak states that "much more important, however, is why the regular vetoes and the manifest rejection of pan-European unity based on values ​​carried out by these two leaders do not receive an adequate legal response from the European Union itself." Slovakia and Hungary not only do not deserve to have gas for their industry and domestic consumption - or for re-export to Ukraine - but they also deserve sanctions.

“It should be noted that after their meeting in Moscow, Fico and Putin did not make any joint statements or answer questions from the media. They simply cannot say anything publicly about what they discussed at the meeting. They are afraid of the public reaction,” Zelensky wrote on his official social media account (in English, to ensure that the audience of the message receives it without interference). Conspiracy theory is always useful when it comes to demonizing a wayward enemy or ally. “Moscow offers Fico significant discounts, but Slovakia pays for them. Such discounts are not free: payments to Russia are made through sovereignty or shady schemes. This should be a cause for concern for Slovakia’s law enforcement agencies and special services,” adds the Ukrainian president, who might seem to be appealing to some kind of Slovak deep state to intervene in the face of some kind of conspiracy.

“Details of this funding were revealed at a recent meeting of European leaders in Brussels. The leaders noted that Mr. Fico does not want to participate in the common European work on energy independence or to find a substitute for Russian gas, but wants to help Russia to take American gas and other partners’ energy resources away from Europe, which implies that he wants to help Putin earn money to finance the war and weaken Europe,” Zelensky continued, not wanting to understand that a poor country cannot afford to replace cheap energy with more distant and expensive energy, in order to finally focus on what is important. “Mr. Fico even refused compensations to facilitate the transition period and get rid of dependence, which means that it is not a security issue for him. He is specifically interested in Russian gas and the value of the issue is 500 million US dollars a year.”

The figure and the formulation of this compensation idea seem to confirm the accusation made by Fico a few days ago. Annoyed by Ukraine's attitude regarding the gas transit, Robert Fico denounced that Ukraine had offered Slovakia a payment of 500 million dollars from Russian assets seized by the European Union - Kiev is not accustomed to offering compensation or payments from its own pocket - in exchange for lifting the veto on Ukraine's accession to NATO. Fico has publicly insisted that the Slovak veto on Ukraine's entry into NATO will remain as long as his government does so. Zelensky's accusation, which sees hidden payments, black hands and shadow interests in every step of Vladimir Putin, thus turns out to be nothing more than a confession.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/25/la-et ... to-de-gas/

Google Translator

*******

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (as of December 25, 2024 ) Main points :

- The Russian Armed Forces launched a massive strike with long-range precision weapons and drones on Ukrainian energy facilities providing military-industrial complex;

- The Russian Armed Forces destroyed a deployment point of foreign mercenaries and the SBU;

- Air defense forces intercepted five HIMARS shells and 119 Ukrainian UAVs in one day;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 170 servicemen in one day in the

area of ​​responsibility of the East group; - The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 400 servicemen in one day in the area of ​​responsibility of the West group;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 245 servicemen in one day in the area of ​​responsibility of the South group;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost more than 130 fighters in one day as a result of the actions of the North and Dnipro groups.

- Russian troops liberated the settlement of Novy Trud in the DPR

Units of the Dnepr group of forces improved the situation along the forward edge, inflicted losses on the manpower and equipment of the mountain assault, infantry brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Novoandriivka, Zherebyanki in the Zaporizhia region, Prydniprovskoye and Nikolskoye in the Kherson region.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost over 90 servicemen, nine vehicles, a Polish-made 155-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Krab" , three 152-mm D-20 guns and a 122-mm self-propelled artillery unit "Gvozdika" and an electronic warfare station . Two ammunition depots and a depot with military-technical equipment

were destroyed .

▫️Operational-tactical aviation, strike unmanned aerial vehicles, missile forces and artillery of the groups of troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation destroyed the deployment point of foreign mercenaries and the SBU, damaged the infrastructure of military airfields, as well as concentrations of enemy manpower and military equipment in 140 districts .

▫️ Air defense systems shot down five US-made HIMARS multiple launch rockets and 119 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles.

▫️ In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed : 650 aircraft, 283 helicopters, 38,539 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 anti-aircraft missile systems, 19,969 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,504 multiple launch rocket system combat vehicles, 19,991 field artillery and mortar guns, and 29,490 units of special military vehicles.

***

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the progress of repelling the attempted invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into the territory of the Russian Federation in the Kursk Region (as of December 25, 2024) The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation continue to defeat the formations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk Region. - Units of the North group of forces during offensive actions defeated the formations of a heavy mechanized, five mechanized, three airborne assault brigades , a marine brigade and four territorial defense brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the areas of the settlements of Alexandria, Viktorovka, Lebedevka, Leonidovo, Martynovka, Nikolaevka, Nikolayevo-Daryino, Nikolsky, Novaya Sorochina, Russkoye Porechnoye, Sverdlikovo and Cherkasskaya Konopelka. Seven counterattacks of enemy assault groups were repelled. - Strikes by operational-tactical, army aviation and artillery fire damaged enemy manpower and equipment in the areas of the settlements of Kositsa, Kruglenke, Kurilovka, Loknya, Makhnovka, Cherkasskoye Porechnoye, as well as Basovka, Belovody, Vladimirovka, Vodolaghi and Zhuravka in the Sumy region. - Over the past 24 hours, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have lost more than 230 servicemen, two tanks, two armored combat vehicles and three cars have been destroyed. - In total, during the military operations in the Kursk direction, the enemy lost more than 43,740 servicemen, 255 tanks, 194 infantry fighting vehicles, 136 armored personnel carriers, 1,318 armored combat vehicles, 1,182 vehicles, 324 artillery pieces, 42 multiple launch rocket system launchers, including 11 HIMARS and six MLRS made in the USA, 13 anti-aircraft missile system launchers, seven transport and loading vehicles, 80 electronic warfare stations, 13 counter-battery radars, four air defense radars, 28 units of engineering and other equipment, including 13 engineering obstacle clearing vehicles, one UR-77 mine clearing unit , seven armored repair and recovery vehicles and a command and staff vehicle. The operation to destroy the Ukrainian Armed Forces formations continues.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

(This is a re-post from July 9, 2018.)
An open message to Vladimir Putin from a Russian volunteer: Mr. President, do you want a war?

Image

Well, mister PRESIDENT (supplied by the resident), played out in partnership? And what will you do now? Does your minister of concern ministry Kalantaryan (Lavrov) express another concern? Gather a regular meeting of the UN Security Council and accuse the United States of violating international law? And what's the point? States it ever stopped? It makes no difference who is right and who is guilty in this situation, whether chemical weapons were there or not, the United States has once again shown that they are the law, that they have every right to violate international law, because the world is strong and only with strong will be considered. And your accusations, as an excuse for yourself, are suitable only for the narrow-minded people who live on your television. Unfortunately, I’m not one of those, because I’m well aware that your media says only what is beneficial to your government. I think my head. I am looking for alternative information, primary sources that you need to find yourself, because no one in the finished form will give them to a person.

But then you yourself are not so honest. Take, for example, the Crimea, where you did not observe international law. The Declaration of Principles of International Law (October 24, 1970) states: "By virtue of the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in the UN Charter, all peoples have the right freely without external interference determine your political status ". The methods of exercising the right to self-determination can be:" dividing a state into parts, creating a sovereign and independent state, freely joining an independent state or merging with it, or establishing any other political status. " without outside interference "was not executed in the Crimea. You can even intervene with protection, even with an attack - everything is considered interference. Yes, I understand that under the agreement Russian troops had the right to be in the Crimea But it has nothing to do with the people’s right to self-determination. And if you follow the rule "without outside interference", they should not have interfered in the Crimean events, because Crimea then still belonged to another state, and the Crimeans had Ukrainian passports, i.e.
In confirmation of this, there is the Resolution of the UN General Assembly A / RES / 68/262 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine - a document adopted on March 27, 2014 as a result of an open vote at the 80th plenary meeting of the 68th session of the UN General Assembly. According to the resolution, the UNGA confirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and does not recognize the legality of any change in the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the status of the city of Sevastopol, based on the results of the all-Crimean referendum held on March 16, 2014, since this referendum According to this resolution, is null and void.
You yourself admitted that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation blocked the Ukrainian troops to ensure the safety of the will of the citizens, and you personally led the special operation. And your detachment No. 0900 of the special operations forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation began its operations in the Crimean peninsula on February 22, 2014. Video report is attached:
[youtube]http//youtu.be/7_IDh_4Zz_w[/youtube]

If everything depended only on the people, the Crimea would leave the composition of the Russian Federation, for example, back in 2001, 2005 or 2007. And there Donbass would not have to wait. But the people can express their opinion in such a way that it will produce a result, only with the permission of the powerful.
If you clearly do not follow all the principles of international law, then why should Americans follow them? To whom are you making excuses? In front of people who do not read anything, but only watch TV or sit on social networks? Only for Western partners such excuses do not mean absolutely nothing! Well, launch your propagandists once again, they will tell once again about the dangers of the Third World War or that Russia did not promise anything to anyone, then what? Respect for Western partners will not add to this.

I’ve been looking at the last years with the most popular and pronounced “Russian” trait, I promised to promise people, and then say “we don’t owe anything to anyone” Right here, "respect" you want for it. I would not be surprised if your propagandists, through your media, finally say that there was no rocket attack in Syria. Does this remind me of something?

Do you remember Donbass? If you have forgotten, I will quote your words: “If we see that this chaos begins in the eastern regions, if people ask us for help, and we already have the official appeal of the current legitimate president (Yanukovych), then we reserve the right to use everything the means we have to protect these citizens. And we consider this quite legitimate. ” And the Federation Council gave permission for the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. And Churkin at the UN demonstrated this written appeal of Viktor Yanukovych. By the way, a strange coincidence: only at the international level they remembered this written address of Viktor Fedorovich, and in the Kremlin they began to blatantly lie that they did not receive any request from the Ukrainian president, so the main witness died - Vitaly Churkin. I do not believe in such "coincidences".

And then, Vladimir Vladimirovich, you meanly “moved out” from the topic and in Austria in June 2014 you said that only the Crimea meant the use of troops. But you clearly said “if we see that this chaos begins in the eastern regions”. Or again hope for a short memory of your fellow citizens? Oh yes, in the Crimea there is a naval base. Valentina Matvienko said bluntly that "we intervened in the internal affairs of Ukraine only because we were afraid of NATO ships off the coast of Sevastopol." But there is no base in the Donbas, so you can beat and quit. And turn on your propaganda again, starting from Shapiro-Solovyov, who said that the people in Donbas are genetically different, that the wrong Russians live there, ending with the ravings about the Third World War or the fact that the Minsk agreements are a blessing for the LDNR people. I will tell you what is genetically different, just, your little Solovyov. Recent studies at Moscow State University have shown that residents of eastern Ukraine do not differ absolutely from Russians — they are one people.

Trying to expose the situation in such a way that you have nothing to do with, but just send humanitarian aid to Donetsk and Lugansk? Only those who still believe you are left with less and less. I wonder how many kilograms of cereals and cans of canned food would you rate your own life?

How abnormal to read when your female journalists submit the Minsk agreements in such a way that it is almost a blessing for the residents of the LPR and the DPR, and that it is the Minsk agreements that help the republics to defend their statehood in the international arena. And you asked the residents of the young republics, they need this statehood? Firstly, the Minsk Agreements do not help in this regard, and secondly, you know perfectly well that the second referendum on joining Russia was promised to the people. These 90 and 89 percent of people in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, respectively, came out to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, and the creation of the LC and the DPR was perceived only as a stage on the road to joining the Russian Federation.

(Videos at link. bp)

It is too expensive for Lugansk and Donetsk that your “statehood formation” comes out. It may last for several more years, which will entail greater sacrifices and destruction. So, maybe it is worth doing the same as with the Crimea? To recognize the first referendum on sovereignty, to stop the Minsk mockery, after the liberation of the republics to hold a second referendum on joining the Russian Federation, and nothing will have to be defended? Then these senseless sacrifices will end. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no naval base there.

And how vile, then, on May 7, 2014, was your alleged warning to Lugansk and Donetsk not to hold a referendum, exactly, after Didier Burkhalter's arrival in Moscow. But you understood perfectly well that the uprising began long ago, that all administrative buildings were seized, Ukraine began to pull up weapons, work was done on preparing a referendum, and the events went so far that it was impossible to stop them three days before the referendum. Although, on the square in Donetsk they talked about the referendum on March 1st. Why not warned then? But your analysts convinced Donbass that you made this “warning” for western partners to show the world community that DNR and LC are completely independent, therefore, to confirm this,

And he spent. In the end, what did you get? And they received, after the victory over the Ukrainian army in the Ilovaisky cauldron, when the demoralized descendants of the ancient ukrov fled, throwing equipment, and it was possible to drive them out of the territory of Lugansk and Donetsk regions without destruction and practically without casualties. At that time, you rendered military aid in very high doses, so that, God forbid, the militia would not go to liberate other cities of young republics. As I understand it, you were initially set up for the Minsk agreements, therefore you stopped the militia, since 1/3 of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions is much easier to cram into a single Ukraine than the whole Donbass. After Minsk-2, your Lavrov straight text said that “Russia is pushing the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics to sign the Minsk agreements,

As a result of the Minsk agreements, the Ukrainian side actually re-established its army; increased it quantitatively, having spent several waves of mobilization; built three lines of defense; pulled up even more military equipment, so that with even greater brutality shelling of settlements LDNR. As a result, there was a Debaltsevsky boiler, shelling before and after it.

Humanly, I will say that the one who invented this “truce”, the one who allowed the enemy to increase his military power, when he could be rather easily ousted from the territory of two regions, let him correct his mistakes. Because to allow this, and then say “we are not a party to the conflict”, “we have nothing to do with it” - this is not in Russian, but somehow it turns out in Jewish. But in life it always turns out that the mistakes of politicians are raked by the common people.

After all, you were really afraid of one time, Vladimir Vladimirovich, and therefore respected. You do remember perfectly well that on February 28, 2014 there was a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, where the question was decided whether to start military actions in the Crimea or not. As Turchinov admitted, then the western partners called and asked not to fight for the Crimea, because there were only 5,000 active servicemen in Ukraine. In the west, they were afraid that Russia would go further, and all regions of the south and east of the country, where 2/3 of the population of Ukraine live, will be under its influence. That is, no one in the west was going to fit in with Ukraine. Even Sergey Markov, a deputy of the State Duma of the 5th convocation of the Russian Federation, a member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, admitted that not bringing in troops was a mistake on the part of the Kremlin. I quote: “Look at how power departments (army, SBU) behaved in the Crimea! 90% of them wrote a statement about the desire to continue serving in the Russian army. And this is despite the fact that Kiev ensured that there were more anti-Russian security officials in the Crimea. Therefore, it is highly likely to say that if the liberation forces entered the territory of the south-east of Ukraine, they would receive the full support of the population, and the army would not shoot at the Russian soldiers, they would simply massively go over to the side of the liberation forces. “The Ukrainian soldiers were really ready to surrender, but they were waiting for the Russian troops to enter. The fact is that it is dishonorable to surrender to former miners and laborers for a soldier, especially for an officer. But if a professional army came in, everything is in order of rank.
But instead, you abandoned the policy of non-recognition of the Kiev junta, when your Lavrov shook hands with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, and then the Ukrainian side turned from rogue states to partners and began to actively use its weapons in the Donbas. You actually recognized the new fascist Ukrainian government, calling Petro Poroshenko a partner, and declaring that you were the first to support him, and you will continue to support him. In the spring and summer of 2014, Russia transferred to Ukraine weapons and military equipment from the Crimea - in whole echelons. Although they warned from Donetsk that this should not be done, the one who does this will share responsibility for the escalation of military actions, will become an accomplice to the crimes committed. They wrote letters to Shoigu with a request to stop all this, expressly indicating that this technique would then be used against the LDNR. It was later used. All Ukrainian anti-terrorist operation then was carried out on the Russian fuel. And for a long time in relation to Ukraine on the part of Russia there were no restrictive measures to supply there either fuel for military needs, no spare parts, or military technology. In a recent interview, my words were confirmed by Boris Borisov, the former deputy foreign minister of the DPR, and for this truth he spent a long time "in the basement", where those who spoke the truth about the Minsk agreements still sit.

Image

Everywhere you have one continuous partnership: partnership with the Kiev fascists, partnership with Europe, partnership with the USA - alone, damn it, partners. And the West respects not partnership, but strength. How loudly and for a long time the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation applauded Trump's victory, as if he was their president. The footmen welcomed the new lord - this is unworthy for a sovereign state.

You know, I do not believe that the “5th column” is stopping you. For some reason, to get into the Crimea and Syria, to disperse undesirable meetings to you, the “5th column” does not interfere. More recently, very few spoke of the so-called “5th column”. Now even old women are talking about her at the entrances. It seems that information about the “5th column” was thrown into society on purpose, in order to write off all the sins of the Russian government to this “5th column”. Who is the first shouting "hold the thief"? Of course, the thief himself. According to this principle, it is not difficult to guess who those who dump everything on the so-called “5th column” are.
The main thing that needs to be understood is that the “5th column” consists exclusively of people who influence Russia's internal and foreign policy. That is - it is the powers that be. No bulk, Kasyanovs, Nemtsovs and other liberal pro-Western lackeys have the levers of influence that the president has.
You yourself said in plain text: “If I thought that the totalitarian or authoritarian system was the most preferable for us, then I would simply change the Constitution. As you understand, it was easy to do. This does not even require a nationwide vote, it was enough to hold this decision in parliament, where we had more than three hundred votes. ” Here is a video with your direct speech: (Video at link)

You can, of course, choose a waiting position, wait for the US and the EU to fall apart, when something suddenly happens to Ukraine, but this is not power, but the real weakness. Although, if it happens, your propagandists will present it as your personal achievement only. Or, again, the next "agreement", which only delay the imminent events? But, western partners see and understand everything perfectly. Respect so you do not deserve. As for the Donbass, sacrificing normal, adequate Russian people and waiting for something to happen with the Kiev regime, against the background that you supported this regime, is not a method. Would you agree to sacrifice your loved ones to similar events?

Vladimir Vladimirovich, you have the last chance to rehabilitate and deserve respect among Western partners and thinking citizens - these are more decisive actions in the Ukrainian direction, up to an asymmetrical attack on the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the actions of the United States in Syria, and indeed to end fascism. Because you, by your flirting with the West, and this abnormal partnership turned into a whipping boy. States have openly shown you. And the more you give in, the more you will be beaten, and no propaganda will save you, since everything will become too obvious. And in the end, they will beat you on the territory of the Russian Federation, but then the Third World Won can really begin, unfortunately, on Russian soil. The West understands only power. It is your strength (if any), not lies and propaganda on TV,
Russian volunteer, participant of hostilities in the Donbas from May 2014 to April 2015, Andrei A., callsign “Vivat” .

http://vladimirsuchan.blogspot.com/2017 ... a.html?m=1

Google Translator

This fighter got Putin's number, I'd say.
In the frenzy of support context is important.

*****

Another re-post from July 1, 2015:
07-01-2015#1
blindpig
Ideological principles of the Ghost Brigade of A.B. Mozgovoi - What it means.
Ideological principles of the Ghost Brigade of A.B. Mozgovoi

The first commander of the Ghost Brigade was Alexei Borisovich Mozgovoi. He was able to create a cohesive and responsible staff. Despite the tragic death of A.B. Mozgovoi, this team continues its work. The Ghost Brigade was formed by the people in arms -- the militia. It became famous because, from the outset, this Brigade did not pursue material gain, believed in the need for establishing people's power, and threw down an uncompromising challenge to the fascist dictatorship, incorporating the best representatives of the Donbass workers and volunteers from other countries. With their cowardly murder of the legendary Brigade Commander, the enemy unknowingly made him an immortal symbol of popular resistance. Despite this heavy loss, the Brigade has become more cohesive, our motivation to struggle for the liberation of the motherland grows even more.

Image

In its year of existence, the Ghost Brigade has created and developed these principles:

1) Collectivism and solidarity. Priority given to collective interests over individual ones. Joint decision-making.

2) Fear not for your skin – fear for your honor. We give priority to our moral principles. Fear of personal safety and material well-being are not qualities that contribute to the creation of a just society.

3) Friendship of peoples. We have no national prejudices and preferences. We recognize and strengthen fraternal solidarity with all the peoples of the world. Consequently, our enemies are those who incite war, oppress workers and contribute to hostility between peoples. We also believe that the culture of every nation is important and special. We oppose the liberal version of multiculturalism. We are for the preservation and development of the traditions and characteristics of different peoples. The main thing is that these characteristics and traditions do not provoke new conflicts. Only the friendship of the peoples can stop ethnic strife and destroy the instigators and sponsors of these inhuman developments worldwide. We think of ourselves as the successors of the international brigades that defended the values ​​of popular revolutions in Spain from 1936-1939 and Afghanistan from 1979-1989.

4) People who have become Brigade fighters are representatives of labor rather than capital, defend their homeland, and consciously advocate for the creation of a society that operates on principles of justice.

5) Democracy. This is why Donbass rebelled in Spring 2014. We are against the seizure of power by oligarchic clans. The oligarchic clans are guilty of unleashing the current war in the Donbass. The people must have maximum power. While fighting, we are at the same time building the foundations of a new society -- within the Brigade and within the liberated territories. We also support close contact between military forces and civilians. The first social canteens in Novorossiya appeared thanks to the Ghost Brigade. Humanitarian aid to the population, organizing various public events – these are also part of the Brigade’s activities.

6) People's Militia. We are not trying to build a regular army modeled on other states (regular state armies, no matter how they are officially described, carry out the orders of the government, not the people). Our goal is to create a new type of armed forces, taking into account the unique characteristics of the Donbass. The militia -- that is, the armed people -- can always resist state and corporate dictatorship. Unarmed people are defenseless before governments and large corporations, which are protected by their own armed groups. History shows that most often they are treated like cattle. Therefore, the militia is necessary not only in war, but also in peacetime.

7) The principle of voluntary service. We do not conduct forced mobilizations. Therefore, those who come to us are those who feel responsible for their relatives and friends, cherish their homeland, and share our ideas. We don’t have people who come "to make money" or who are compelled to serve so as not to go to jail.

8) Victory in the Great Patriotic War is the foundation of the anti-fascist movement. There can be no revision of the outcome of the Great Patriotic War in favor of Nazi Germany and its allies. We condemn all those who are attempting such revisions -- first of all, the Western, Ukrainian and Russian neoliberals and neo-Nazis.

9) Attention to the education of youth. Throughout the countries formed on the territory of the former Soviet Union, the youth were tossed aside. These states offer no ideological education, no social ideals. The relationship between these states and the youth is like that between a drunken stepfather and weak children. Those who were born and lived in independent Ukraine could see this from their own experience. We know that young people are the future. We understand the need for their cultural, physical and intellectual education. We take on this responsibility.

10) Discipline. In war, discipline is one of the fundamental factors of successful military operations. Without discipline, military victory is impossible.

11) Freedom of conscience. Each Brigade soldier is an integral part of the team, proudly and honorably bearing the battle flag of the people's Brigade. Opinions, religious beliefs and political beliefs are a private affair of each member of the team. However, they must unite around the fundamental principles of the people's ideology -- anti-fascism, anti-oligarchism and democracy. Any hateful ideology (right-wing radicalism, neo-Nazism, neo-fascism, racism) is alien and hostile to any brigade fighter.

12) Russian world. We associate ourselves with the residents of a large Russian world, which brings together different cultures, nationalities and linguistic characteristics, but has a common mentality hostile to fascism, Nazism and racism, and has its own domestic and psychological characteristics that have always helped us to defend our homeland and beat the enemy in the most difficult times. The Russian world is a worldview and attitude, the spirit of its carriers. Novorossiya is the front line of the Russian world.

13) Our principles are of general importance – there can’t be a separate liberation of Donbass without changes in Ukraine and Russia. We are engaged in a liberation struggle that has significance not only for the Russian world, but also for the whole world.

Source: Political Commission of the Ghost Brigade

Translation by Greg Butterfield

http://redstaroverdonbass.blogspot.c...t-brigade.html
This is a remarkable document, a tocsin for the twenty-first century. It deserves all the attention we can give it, and then some.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151017195 ... p?t=135616
******

On the closure of the Ukrainian OSINT project DeepState
December 23, 2024
Rybar

Today, Ukrainian ruling party member Maryana Bezuglaya reported that the DeepState OSINT project is under threat from the Ukrainian Defense Ministry. In recent months, the authors have been publishing on a daily basis all the territories that have been liberated by Russian troops.

And in the near future, the authorities plan to close the entire DeepState project, mobilizing its employees into the infantry. This was done on the personal order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Oleksandr Syrsky , due to the actions of its authors.

In fact, the project's website has stopped functioning to the same extent, and the last update on the operational situation on the front in the Telegram channel was on December 20 , although DeepState previously published everything daily, and sometimes several times a day.

And given that DeepState, unlike many other Ukrainian resources, could hardly be called adhering to the line of the Ministry of Defense, then the information that its authors will be subject to disposal is probably true . The resource itself will either be closed or made "an obedient tool that has embarked on the path of correction . "

At the same time, we again draw attention to the role of Bezuglaya in the current Ukrainian information field, which has recently been artificially creating a negative image around Syrsky. For six months, she has regularly criticized all his actions, and she has not received any punishment for this.

In this way, she earns political points by playing on the negative public sentiment towards the Ukrainian Armed Forces command and in advance prepares the Ukrainian commander-in-chief for the role of a scapegoat , who will be blamed for all the failures at the front. Especially in anticipation of the new offensive, which he himself announced.

Well, DeepState, apparently, will suffer the same fate as many other Ukrainian OSINT projects that were created with the beginning of the SVO, but by the end of 2023 ceased to exist due to the cessation of funding and the reorientation of the world's attention to other areas.

https://rybar.ru/o-zakrytii-ukrainskogo ... deepstate/

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

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 26, 2024 12:47 pm

Creative ideas: seized Russian assets and war financing
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/26/2024

Image

“Olaf Scholz was exasperated. At a meeting of EU leaders this week to look at ways to maintain support for Ukraine when Donald Trump becomes US president again, the German chancellor was furious to see an idea he has regularly rejected being floated again,” says the Financial Times about the meeting in which the German chancellor again showed his disagreement with the most provocative ways of responding to the war in Ukraine and finally lost his temper with the country that is taking the most advantage of the situation to benefit from the situation, Poland. The economic consequences of the war, especially the breakdown of economic relations between the east and west of the continent, have hit Germany the hardest, which has voluntarily given up cheap energy that was one of the bases of the competitiveness of its industry, leaving Berlin exposed to pressure from countries hitherto considered minor. Added to this is the shift of political power in the European Union towards the eastern countries, closer to London and Washington than to Brussels or Berlin. The combination of circumstances has emboldened capitals such as Warsaw to seek to increase their power and undermine the power of those countries that have held it until now. It is no coincidence, for example, that Poland took advantage of the current moment, when Germany has been perceived as the weakest link in the European chain, to demand reparations for the Second World War.

The current episode, however, is not a product of the past, but of intentions on how to operate in the immediate future. “In discussions held on Wednesday night in Brussels at the home of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Polish President Andrzej Duda called for the EU to seize and spend the €260 billion of Russian sovereign assets tied up in European financial institutions, an idea promoted by the United States and the United Kingdom but resisted by Germany, France and Italy,” adds the Financial Times about the meeting in which NATO countries and their secretary general tried to agree on an economic plan for the coming months. The rush and the need for creative solutions have a clear cause: Europe’s fear that Donald Trump will keep his campaign promises of seeking peace at all costs.

Fears that the new US president will abandon Ukraine should have disappeared by now, given that in his Time magazine Person of the Year article , Trump stated that his goal was “to reach a deal, and the only way to reach a deal is not to abandon.” Not abandoning means continuing funding, the flow of military supplies, and above all, supporting increased European involvement in the war. However, as Zelensky tries to warn almost daily, neither European industry, input, nor security guarantees are sufficient to continue the war as Ukraine hopes to continue. “I think that European guarantees alone will not be enough for Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters after the meetings. “It is impossible to argue only with the Europeans, because the only guarantee, current or future, is [membership] in NATO,” wrote the same newspaper a few days ago in an article in which the Ukrainian president made it clear that European countries do not have the capacity to offer sufficient security guarantees, not even by committing to sending a peacekeeping mission to guard a hypothetical ceasefire, nor to finance the war effort that Ukraine wants to undertake to achieve its military objectives.

An important part of these shortcomings that the Ukrainian president allows himself to expose to the four winds - always in search of more help, without caring about showing the weaknesses of his allies in order to get more from them and from the United States - is the economic question. The war is dragging on and over time the capacity of the different countries to deliver to Ukraine material available in their arsenals without sacrificing their own defense is diminishing. For example, the material promised by the different countries in recent weeks is representative of this: the most modern and effective Leopard 2 have become Leopard 1, older and hardly more effective than their Soviet equivalents. Continuing with the supply as it has been this year implies increasing production and acquiring material on the market to cover what the industry cannot provide.

This is where the Russian assets seized by the West after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 come into play. Part of these assets, namely the profits they have created during the time they have been held by Western countries, have already been used in favour of kyiv. The clearest example is their use as collateral for loans granted by the G7 countries for Ukraine's military and reconstruction needs - in reality a trick of financial engineering to grant Kiev aid that it will not have to repay, but which will not appear in the accounts of the different countries in the column of expenses or transfers but as credit that will be recovered thanks to the profits of the seized Russian public and private assets.

For those countries that want to continue the war at all costs until they achieve their objectives, which in the case of the Baltic countries or Poland goes beyond Ukraine's victory in the war, Russian assets are an opportunity to significantly increase Kiev's war budget, to invest in order to ensure that, in practice, Russia bears the costs of rebuilding Ukraine and, above all, to guarantee the maintenance of the status quo of the current war regime. Once again, the countries that oppose taking steps in this direction are the same ones that have tried to maintain a more moderate position, always within the support for Ukraine that has been the only existing position in the European Union. This is the case of Germany and its chancellor, who is especially opposed to Poland's demand, which is also shared by, for example, Kaja Kallas, to hand over the seized Russian assets to Ukraine.

“You don’t understand how this would affect the stability of our financial markets,” Scholz told Duda from across the table, surprising other leaders present, according to three people briefed on the debate. “You don’t even use the euro!” writes the Financial Times about the Polish president’s demand to use Russian assets to finance the continuation of the war in Ukraine. After nearly three years of pressure, this idea has finally managed to make the normally calm German chancellor lose his cool.

“In the two years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the question of financial support for Kiev has never been more critical. Given how long it has taken the EU to approve a new long-term aid package, and the US has yet to do so, an obvious solution is to seize the $300 billion of Russian assets currently frozen in the West and hand them over to Ukraine. But while useful for financing Kiev’s war needs and morally justified, such a move would also entail some risks,” wrote Alexander Kolyandr, a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis , in an article published by Carnegie last February . “The bulk of the seized Russian assets are not in the US, but in Europe: primarily Germany, France, and especially Belgium, where more than half of all frozen Russian assets are held by the Euroclear depository and clearing house,” the author adds. It is not surprising, then, that countries such as Poland, where there are no significant amounts of Russian assets seized, and so the consequences would perhaps be more limited than for Germany or Belgium, are pushing for these assets to be effectively stolen.

“With no precedent to follow, European governments are reluctant to seize assets from a country with which they are not officially at war,” Kolyandr adds, in what is the most important part of the argument and which is likely to be one of the legal bases of the Russian Federation in an inevitable litigation against the theft of its public and private assets. “Above all,” the author continues, “they fear that doing so would deter sovereign funds, central banks, companies and private investors from the Global South from investing in European assets. A possible outflow of euro-denominated investments would have serious consequences: an increase in borrowing costs and inflation, as well as a fall in tax revenues.” Despite the absence of alternative financial systems to transfer to and the lack of capital flight since the Russian assets were seized, this last argument is the one that, judging by Scholz’s words to Duda’s demands, worries the German chancellor.

The seizure of Venezuelan gold reserves deposited in the United Kingdom to be handed over to interim President Juan Guaidó and his government of ministers without portfolio or effective power should have served as a warning to foreign countries. But Venezuela is a country with limited political and economic weight on the world stage. Seizing, freezing, requisitioning or stealing the assets of the Russian Federation, a permanent member country of the United Nations Security Council because of a war in which the countries that exercise these sanctions say they are not directly participating, significantly raises the threat. Scholz's words show that he understands the message that the European Union would be sending to countries like China, an economy capable of causing exactly the effects that the German chancellor warns about. “Weaponising Western financial channels such as Euroclear fuels financial fragmentation,” warned sanctions expert Agathe Demarais a year ago, when the debate on how to seize assets without suffering the consequences began, adding that “if Euroclear were to facilitate the seizure of Russian reserves, emerging economies might take note that, like Swift, Western securities depositories have become unreliable.” In that case, “non-Western alternatives to Euroclear, such as China Securities Depository and Clearing, could become more attractive to non-G7 economies, fueling financial fragmentation” and, as Scholz warns, putting pressure on the European financial system.

Fear of the long-term effects of the precedent that would be set by the massive theft of public and private assets from a country that has not been declared war on is perhaps the only reason why kyiv has not yet achieved its goal of getting its hands on the $300 million to invest in the war.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/26/ideas ... la-guerra/

Google Translator

*****

Brief report from the front on December 24, 2024

The Russian army is moving deeper into the enemy's defenses! Report by Marat Khairullin with illustrations by Mikhail Popov.

Zinderneuf
Dec 24, 2024

ЛБС 10.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 10th, 2024
In the Kupyansk direction, Russian units are expanding their bridgehead on the western bank of the Oskol. In Dvurechnaya (Dvorichna), they expanded control in the southern part of the settlement, taking the Dvurechnaya-Kupyansk highway passing through it under fire control and thereby interrupting the logistics of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in this area. The enemy, having abandoned its positions, retreated to the heights northwest and southwest of Dvurechnaya. Our soldiers are conducting attacks in the direction of the settlement of Zapadnoe, trying to establish control on the heights southwest of Dvurechnaya.

Image
ЛБС 01.11.2024= Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024

In the Borovaya (Borova) area, the Russian army is expanding control along the bank of the Oskol. Active hostilities are underway in Zagryzovo (Zahryzove), in the northern part of which our military managed to gain a foothold. Clashes are taking place in the center of the settlement, shifting to the south.

The Russian Armed Forces liberated the settlement of Lozovaya (Lozova) and continue to advance deep into the enemy's defenses. Attacks in the direction of the settlements of Zeleny Gai (Zelenyi Hai) and Borovskaya Andreevka (Borivska Andriivka) are also continuing.

Image
ЛБС 01.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 1st, 2024. ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. Зона активных боев=Zone of active fighting.
In Toretsk, Russian assault groups are working in the Krymskoye area, gaining a foothold in the buildings and increasing pressure on the fortified area in the territory of the Toretskaya mine (Шахта Торецкая*). In the city center, fighters from our units are expanding the control zone in the area of ​​the central market. The line of combat here is very dynamic and has no clear boundaries. Nevertheless, our military is gaining a foothold in new positions, advancing in the northern and western directions. The Russian Armed Forces are also expanding control in the north of the Tsentralnaya mine (Шахта Центральная*) waste heaps, gaining a foothold in the buildings of the Khimkolonka area. Actions to establish control over the waste heaps of the Tsentralnaya mine continuing. The advance groups are already working in the area of ​​the third, northern waste heap.

In addition, Russian military personnel are also working west of the waste heaps. In Shcherbinovka (Scherbynivka), our armored vehicles are already operating in its center.

Image
ЛБС 12.9.2024=Line of Combat Contact September 12th, 2024. ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. ЛБС 01.12.2024=Line of Combat Contact December 1st, 2024. Зона продвижения после предыдущей сводки=The zone of advancement since the previous summary.
In the Pokrovsky sector, offensive actions in the Lysovka area have intensified again. Attacks are coming from the east and south with increased use of artillery. To the north of Dachenskoe, our units have advanced in the direction of Novoukrainka. In the direction of it and Chunishino (Chunyshyne), attacks are coming from Shevchenko and Vidrodzhennia/Novy Trud along the railway. Fierce fighting is taking place in Peschanoe, where the southern part of the settlement is under our control.

In the Volkovo area, our soldiers have driven the enemy out of strongholds in front of the settlement and, having advanced into it, have begun assault operations. We have also advanced toward the settlement of Solenoe, expanding the zone of control west of Novotroitskoye, and according to incoming information, our units have entered Solenoe, beginning battles for it.

Assault operations are also underway in Novovasilyevka, where our soldiers have managed to gain a foothold on the eastern outskirts. In addition, we have also advanced to Novovasilyevka from the south along the ravine. The Russian Armed Forces are advancing west of the Pokrovsk-Kurakhovo road in the area from Novotroitskoye to Novoolenovka. The latter is almost completely under our control. The clearing of the last houses on the southern outskirts is being completed. Ours have already advanced to Novoelizavetovka, having consolidated their positions in its buildings.

Having expanded their control, Russian forces entered the settlement of Ukrainka, having consolidated their positions in its eastern part. After its liberation, our troops will further expand their zone of control along the road in the direction of Andreevka. Now, a pocket has formed along the Novoolenovka-Zelenovka line and is gradually tightening on both sides.

Image
ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 30.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 30th, 2024. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary.

Our fighters have also advanced in the area of ​​the settlement of Zarya (Zorya), having expanded their control north of it. After the liberation of the settlement of Sontsovka (aka Krasnoe), the pressure on the settlement of Petrovpavlovka is increasing. Probably, the fiercest fighting is taking place in the Petrovpavlovka-Shevchenko area. The enemy is trying not to let our forces through to Andreevka. Meanwhile, the pressure from our side will only increase. We have already leveled the line of contact between Sontsovka and Starye Terny, having completely cleared the small Kurakhovsky pocket north of the reservoir.

In addition, there is an advance towards this area from the south. There, after the liberation of Konstantinopolskoe (Kostyantynopolske), Russian units are making their way to Yantarnoe, both clearing out a stronghold along the Sukhi Yaly River, advancing from the side of Uspenovka, and attempting to force the river near Yantarnoe itself for further advancement to the area of ​​the settlements of Dachnoe and Ulakly. The latter is already under pressure from the area of ​​the settlement of Zelenovka. The distance from here to the settlement of Ulakly is just over a kilometer, and the road leading to Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk is under our fire control.

Image
In the Velikaya Novosyolka (Velyka Novosilka) area, the Russian Armed Forces liberated the settlement of Storozhevoe.

Russian units are aiming to cut off the last supply route to Velikaya Novosyolka from the side of Gulyaipole (Hulyaipole). Having taken the dominant height of the Mogila Storozhevaya (Могила Сторожевая*) mound and having advanced further towards Neskuchnoe, our units simultaneously advanced towards the road. At the same time, the attacks of the advanced detachments already reach the road itself and even go north of it.

Translation Note: When Russian is written by hand, the "г" (when typed) looks like a backwards "S," and the "и" looks like our "u." Also, the typed Russian "т" looks like a western "m" when it is written by hand.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... cember-7eb

Brief report from the front on December 25, 2024
The Russian Armed Forces do not allow the enemy to concentrate forces for a counterattack. Report by Marat Khairullin with illustrations by Mikhail Popov.

Zinderneuf
Dec 25, 2024

Image
ЛБС 12.9.2024=Line of Combat Contact September 12th, 2024. ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. ЛБС 01.12.2024=Line of Combat Contact December 1st, 2024. Зона продвижения после предыдущей сводки=The zone of advancement since the previous summary.
The Russian Ministry of Defense announced the liberation of the settlement of Novy Trud (Vidrodzhennia) in the Pokrovsk section of the Donetsk direction (earlier it was renamed by the Ukrainian authorities to Vidrodzhennia). Attacks on the settlement of Zelenoe located near Novy Trud and fighting in the area of ​​Dachenskoye and Lysovka continue.

The enemy is trying to prevent further advancement of our troops along the Peschanoe-Novovasilyevka line, which threatens their logistics for Pokrovsk, and, in the long term, threatens the loss of the coking coal mine in the Udachny area. Our fighters are pushing through the enemy's defenses despite stubborn resistance.

In Peschanoe, our forces have expanded control both in the settlement itself and in the adjacent industrial zone. Actions are being taken to advance west of Peschanoe. There are also reports of expanded control near Novovasilyevka and increased pressure on it from the south. The enemy has been completely driven out of the settlement of Novoolenovka. There, measures are being taken to consolidate their positions.

Image
ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary.
At the Velikaya Novosyolka (Velyka Novosilka) section, the Russian Armed Forces are accumulating forces for a further offensive. At the same time, offensive actions and attacks in the direction of Neskuchnoe and the road leading from Gulyaipole (Hulyaipole) to Vremevka (Vremivka) continue.

Russian units have eliminated the salient between Novodarovka and Rivnepol, strengthening their position here. Also, the activity of our units in this area does not allow the enemy to concentrate forces for a counterattack on our military advancing to Velyka Novosyolka. Moreover, our further advance from the Novodarovka area threatens the enemy not only on the highway leading from Gulyaipole to Velikaya Novosyolka, but also with a large fortified area near Temirovka.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... cember-b99

******

Paul Robinson: Ending the War in Ukraine: Analysis and Recommendations
December 23, 2024
By Paul Robinson, Landmarks, 12/11/24

The war in Ukraine is nearing the end of its third year, but as yet there is no indication of imminent peace. For the past three years, Western powers, led by the United States of America, have sought a solution to the war by means of a single strategy: supporting Ukraine and pressuring Russia. The aim has been peace through victory. This strategy has failed. Probably over 200,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed; possibly tens of thousands of civilians have been killed also; and property worth tens of billions of dollars has been destroyed. The time has come when the policy of peace through victory needs to be replaced by a policy of peace, pure and simple.

The return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in January 2025 offers an opportunity to pursue such a policy. President Joe Biden has shown no interest in mediating a peace process. Neither have any European leaders. Trump, however, has indicated that he wishes to do so, and as a first step has appointed General Keith Kellogg as his Special Envoy for Russia and Ukraine, tasked specifically with finding a way to end the war.

In this context, proposals for how to end the war in Ukraine have acquired a new importance. Unfortunately, to date, many such proposals have been divorced from any understanding of how in practice wars actually end. This paper thus seeks to ground policy recommendations in studies of war termination. To that purpose, it first analyzes war termination theories and then applies those theories to the war in Ukraine.

The paper examines the topic from the standpoint of what is most likely to produce a lasting peace settlement. The rights and wrongs of the Ukrainian and Russian causes are not the subject of concern. While it has been said that “there is no peace without justice,” it might be more correct to say that “there is no justice without peace.” The aim of the analysis is peace in the negative sense of an absence of war, not peace in the positive sense, as the achievement of justice. Some may object to this approach, but any peace plan that fails to place the ending of war at the top of its agenda is liable to fail.

How Wars End

The starting point for any realistic proposal to end the war in Ukraine must be an understanding of the conditions that are necessary for successful war termination, as well as of the barriers that prevent political leaders from recognizing that those conditions are present.

There are many variations of war termination, but in essence they boil down to two options:

The absolute victory of one side, allowing it to impose its terms on the other. In this case, the war ends because one of the warring parties ceases the struggle. This could be due to its complete destruction or disintegration (e.g. the Iraqi army in 2003), its withdrawal (e.g. the US withdrawals from Vietnam and Afghanistan), or its surrender (e.g. Germany and Japan in World War Two).
Neither side achieves absolute victory, and the war ends through a negotiated settlement that involves some degree of compromise by both parties. This need not mean that both sides do equally well in the final settlement: one may do decidedly better than the other. The form of the settlement may also vary. In some instances, it may take the form of a peace treaty. In other instances, it may consist of a ceasefire without any treaty (the Korean War being an example). Regardless, the key feature is that the settlement is negotiated not imposed.
In the first case, wars end when the losing side is either destroyed or gives up. Thus it has been said that “War is pressed by the victor, but peace is made by the vanquished1.

The second case is more complicated. According to a popular thesis developed by William Zartman, wars end when both warring parties perceive themselves to be in a “mutually hurting stalemate,” and when they both perceive the possibility of a way out via a negotiated settlement. At such point, the conflict is deemed to be “ripe” for termination2. The term “mutually hurting stalemate” is somewhat misleading, as it does not imply total deadlock; one side may hold a definite advantage over the other. However, it does imply that neither side believes itself to be able to achieve absolute victory, and it does imply that both sides perceive the existing situation to be harmful to their interests.

Objective criteria, such as success or failure on the battlefield, play into both these scenarios. However, what matters is not objective reality but rather the warring parties’ perceptions of reality3. In the first case, wars end because one side either perceives the war not to be worth continuing or perceives itself to have lost. And in the second case, wars end because both sides perceive that there is a mutually hurting stalemate and that there is possible negotiated way out. Bringing a war to an end is thus a question of altering perceptions. In the first case, it involves convincing the losing side that defeat is inevitable; in the second case it involves convincing both sides that victory is impossible.

Needless to say, this is easier said than done. Even if it is clear to an objective outside observer that one side has lost or that neither side is capable of absolute victory, those involved in the fighting may not view things the same way or may be unwilling to act on the knowledge. There are a number of explanations for this:

Cognitive biases: Political and military leaders, like all human beings, are subject to cognitive biases that prevent them from correctly assessing their situation. Optimism bias, sunk cost fallacies, the tendency to take risks rather than accept bad certainties, and so on, mean that wars generally continue long beyond the point when a purely rational actor with perfect knowledge would have brought them to a halt4.
Internal political and bureaucratic dynamics: Political leaders may be fed overly positive information by subordinates; they may be fearful of the political consequences of accepting defeat; or they may meet resistance from powerful forces who wish to continue the war. The attitudes of the general public, the political elite, and the military leadership all play into this dynamic5.
Imperfect information. War may be seen as a method by which involved parties exchange information about their relative strength and resolve. But as the great Prussian strategist Karl von Clausewitz pointed out, war is shrouded in uncertainty. Even if one has good information about the state of one’s war effort (which is not always the case), information about the state of the enemy’s is always limited. Future developments are also unpredictable. For instance, one cannot know for sure what one’s allies will do. Humans also tend to be less able to recognize change if it happens slowly than if it happens rapidly. Political and military leaders may not recognize their relative military decline until long after it has become critical if the decline is gradual, not due to a sudden and unexpected defeat. One study thus concludes that “combat is a relatively inefficient means of hastening war termination through information transmission.”6
Distrust (often referred to in academic literature as the “commitment credibility” problem). Even if leaders recognize that they have lost or are stalemated, they may be unwilling to negotiate because they do not trust their opponents to comply with the terms of any agreement – i.e. they do not believe that their enemy’s commitments are credible. Perceptions of past behavior are crucial in this regard7. If one’s enemies are seen to have broken agreements in the past, one will be reluctant to make new agreements with them, however bad one’s position. In extreme cases, fears of non-compliance can induce warring parties to continue to insist on absolute victory even in the face of obvious battlefield defeat8.
Spoilers. Efforts to make peace may be deliberately sabotaged either by individuals or groups within a state, or by third parties9.
The analysis above suggests that third-party state leaders who are seeking to end a war being fought by other states have two options:

Alter the perceptions of one side to convince it that it has lost and must concede. In this instance, it is obviously easier and quicker to alter the perceptions of the side that is in a weaker position. Trying to convince the stronger side that it is losing will likely be very difficult and only possible after a very long process which would involve so altering the dynamics of the war that the relative positions of the two warring parties are reversed.
Alter the perceptions of both sides to convince them a) that neither of them can win an absolute victory, b) that the current situation is harmful to their interests, and c) that there is plausible way out via negotiations. Given the problems noted above, this too is likely to be a slow process.
The quickest way to end a war is thus probably to work on convincing the weaker side that its cause is lost and that it must settle. The second quickest way is option 2 above. And the slowest is to try and alter the perceptions of the winning side in order to convince it that it is losing.

Political leaders whom one is trying to convince in this way will probably be loath to admit that their war will end in a suboptimal way. Peacemakers will have to overcome the barriers to recognizing reality mentioned above. To this end, one may offer the following possible courses of action:

Alter reality to conform with the desired outcome. This would involve exerting pressure on one side so as to weaken it, while aiding the other side so as to strengthen it. In accordance with the logic above, this is more likely to succeed, and more likely to have rapid effects, if it involves pressuring the weaker side and/or supporting the stronger side. This approach has a number of weaknesses, however:
Given the uncertainties of war one cannot be certain that the combination of pressure and support will have the desired impact on objective reality;
Even if it does, one cannot be certain that the perceptions of the warring parties will alter accordingly, especially (as is likely) if the change in objective reality is gradual; and
Even if perceptions are suitably altered, one cannot be sure that the parties will respond in the desired manner due to the issue of distrust mentioned earlier.
Work to overcome the targeted state’s cognitive biases and the problem of insufficient information. The weaker party may not, for instance, recognize its position due to optimism bias or because it misunderstands the level of support it may receive in the future from allies. Frank conversations that disabuse state leaders of their illusions may be necessary.
Enable state leaders to overcome internal political opposition to a settlement of the war. This could be done, for instance, by promises of financial aid after the war, or by very overt arm-twisting that makes it clear to internal forces opposed to peace that their leader has been left with no other choice by key outside actors.
Devise the settlement in such a way as to reassure the warring parties that their opponents are likely to abide by the commitments they have made. In this regard, a formal peace treaty is preferable to a pure ceasefire, as the latter involves almost no commitments beyond ceasing military actions. In addition, the more contested issues that can be resolved in any peace treaty and not left hanging till later, the better. Security guarantees, the deployment of peacekeeping forces, and other similar devices may also help overcome problems of mutual distrust.
Engage with potential spoilers to convince them that it is not in their interest to sabotage negotiations. A combination of positive and negative inducements may be used to persuade them to adopt a more amenable position.
The War in Ukraine

The trajectory of the war in Ukraine has surprised all observers. One would be very hard put to find a single analyst who has correctly predicted all its ups and downs. War is inherently uncertain, and given this record, one would be rash to declare that one knows the likely future direction of the conflict. Nonetheless, after nearly three years of fighting certain things have now become sufficiently clear that one can draw fairly confident conclusions about some key issues.

First, it is now obvious that Russia is the stronger of the two parties. Moreover, its relative strength is growing. While one cannot rule out a reversal of the trend in Russia’s favor, it stretches plausibility to imagine that such a reversal could go so far as to render Ukraine stronger than Russia. The issue is more the extent of Russia’s future advantage than the existence of such an advantage.

Russia’s military superiority can be measured in many ways. The first is in terms of territorial gains. These have accelerated in recent months, with Russia capturing 725 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory in November 2024, the largest amount since the first weeks of the war in early 202210. The second is military production; Russia’s production of weaponry far exceeds that of Ukraine, and in key sectors, such as artillery shell and armored vehicle production, it exceeds that of all Ukraine’s Western allies put together. A recent German report noted, for instance, that “Production has strongly increased across all weapon systems,” with Russia producing sufficient weaponry not only to replace its losses but also to outfit new formations11. A third area is manpower. Russia began the war in February 2024 with an invasion force of at most 200,000 soldiers. By early 2023, the size of the Russian army in Ukraine had increased to around 360,000 men, and by early 2024 to about 470,0012. According to Vladimir Putin, in June 2024 the number of Russian troops in the zone of military operations was just under 700,00013. Despite claims of massive losses, the Russian army in Ukraine has grown considerably in size.

Ukraine, by contrast, is experiencing severe difficulties. Not only is it inexorably losing ground, but it has little prospect of turning the situation around in its favor due to a) the extreme unlikelihood that Western support will increase substantially beyond its current level, b) manpower shortages, and c) growing problems of morale. The latest mobilization effort has not yielded the desired results, while desertion is become ever more prevalent. According to recent reports, over 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been charged with desertion during the war, of which some two-thirds were in 2024 alone. Recently Ukraine is estimated to have lost about 4,000 soldiers a month more than it has been able to recruit14. While the Russian army is growing larger, the Ukrainian army is growing smaller.

Protracted wars necessarily become wars of attrition and of morale. At present, Russia is winning in terms of attrition, while it also appears that Russian morale is holding up better than that of Ukraine. There is no obvious reason to suspect that either factor will change significantly in Ukraine’s favor in the short to medium term.

From this one can draw the conclusion that an absolute Ukrainian victory (measured in the terms set by the Ukrainian government itself – which is to say the recapture of all its lost territory) is almost impossible. That does not mean, however, that Russia is assured of victory in the sense of acquiring such a dominant position that it can force whatever terms it wishes on Ukraine. Such an outcome remains possible, should, for instance, Western aid to Ukraine entirely cease or should Ukrainian morale collapse. Absent that, however, Russia’s current advantage is not so great as to make such a result probable. Russia is advancing, but only slowly, and it has not demonstrated that it has the capacity to exploit any breaches it makes in the Ukrainian lines in such a way as to permit rapid advances over large distances. At the current rate, it will take Russia at least another 12 months just to capture the rest of Donetsk province. Ukraine’s capacity to resist and inflict heavy casualties on the Russians remains large. Moreover, much of Russia’s military production involves refitting old Soviet equipment. As stockpiles run down, production may begin to run down too, leading some commentators to believe that Russia’s military strength may peak in 2025.

Given this, Russia is not currently well placed to inflict such a massive military defeat on Ukraine as to force it entirely to submit. Objective reality, therefore, points towards a situation of mutually hurting stalemate, rather than absolute victory, albeit a stalemate which is hurting Ukraine far more than it is hurting Russia.

The question which then arises is whether the leadership of Russia and Ukraine correctly perceive this reality, and if they do, whether they are likely to act on this perception. The fact that the war continues, and that negotiations between the two are not even taking place, suggests that the answers to these questions are no. At the start of December 2024, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared that he saw “no grounds for negotiations yet.15” Russian officials continue to insist on their original demands – Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and de-Nazification – to which they have now added recognition of the “new territorial realities,” in other words recognition of Russian control over those Ukrainian territories it has annexed. As yet, there is no sign of any flexibility that might indicate an understanding that the Russian army is not in a position to so weaken Ukraine as to be able to impose these terms by force.

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, by contrast, has recently demonstrated a tiny bit of flexibility, but arguably only a tiny bit. In late November 2024, he suggested that Ukraine would not be able to recapture “some” territory by force, notably Crimea, and stated that he would be willing to freeze the conflict and de facto abandon efforts to retake territory in return for NATO membership16. But the reference to “some” territory suggested also a continuing belief that other territory could be retaken by military means, while the request for NATO membership for all of Ukraine within its pre-2014 borders is hardly realistic. It is not obvious that Zelensky has yet come to terms with the reality of his situation.

Neither side, therefore, despite their decidedly limited military prospects, and the heavy losses they are suffering, at present acknowledges that the costs of continuing the war exceed the potential gains. In line with the analysis above, a number of reasons present themselves:

Cognitive biases. Leaders on both sides may genuinely believe their situation to be better than it is due to optimism bias. They may also be stuck in a sunk cost fallacy, believing that after having invested so much in the war, they must invest more in order to recoup their losses. In Russia’s case, optimism may be due to a belief that sooner or later the West will tire of the war, and abandon Ukraine. In Ukraine’s case, optimism may be due to endless assurances from Western politicians that they will support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” Ukrainian leaders may also believe that they will be able to gradually obtain more and more powerful weapons from their Western allies, in the end tipping the war in their favor. The West’s incremental escalation during the war, gradually handing over different types of weapons that were once ruled out of bounds, has arguably encouraged this attitude. In addition, the fact that Ukraine’s military position has declined quite gradually may have made the decline more difficult to acknowledge than if it had resulted from a sudden defeat. A decisive shock may be required to jolt perceptions.
Internal political and bureaucratic dynamics. Both Putin and Zelensky may fear for their political future if they compromise. Of the two, Zelensky’s position looks the weaker, and so this factor may be a particular problem for him. Zelensky may face intense pressure from powerful forces within Ukraine who are resistant to any compromise. This could include elements of the military, including those associated in one way or another with the nationalist right.
Imperfect information. It would not be surprising if both President Putin and President Zelensky were being fed unduly positive reports by their subordinates. Information about the state of their opponents, including their losses, their morale, and their productive capabilities, is uncertain. So too are factors such as the likely future behavior of other countries, in particular of Ukraine’s Western backers. All this may feed into the cognitive biases mentioned above.
Distrust/Commitment credibility. It could be that Putin and Zelensky are in reality fully aware of the reality of their situation. However, to make peace they must not only perceive that they cannot achieve absolute victory but must also perceive a way out. They may not do so, because they so distrust one another that they consider it probable that the other will break any agreement, leaving them even worse off than before. The level of mutual distrust between Ukrainian and Russian political leaders is indeed enormous, due to perceptions of past behaviors. The Ukrainians see the Russians as having broken promises to guarantee Ukrainian security made by Russia in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. They argue that Russia will use any ceasefire to strengthen itself prior to relaunching its war of conquest against Ukraine. As Zelensky said in January 2024, “A pause on the Ukrainian battlefield will not mean a pause in the war. A pause would play into [Russia’s] hands. It might crush us afterward.17” Russians, meanwhile, use exactly the same argument, but in reverse – Ukraine will use any ceasefire to rearm, and then restart the war on terms that are more favorable to itself. The experience of Ukraine’s failure to enact key clauses of the 2015 Minsk II agreement that was designed to end the war in eastern Ukraine, above all the failure to grant some degree of autonomy to Donbass, is often cited in this regard. So too are statements by Western leaders, such as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the Minsk agreement was never meant to be fulfilled but was designed simply to give Ukraine time to recover its strength18. This has a powerful effect on Russian attitudes towards a potential ceasefire in the current war. Thus, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov commented in December 2024 that “the West is starting to talk about a ceasefire as a means to give Ukraine a respite, and give themselves the opportunity to once again pump Ukraine up with modern long-range weapons. This, of course, is not a path to peace.19”
Spoilers. There is a common assumption that America’s allies will inevitably fall in line with whatever policy the United States pursues. Thus, if the United States pushes for peace in Ukraine, European states will accept whatever deal is being proposed. This is not necessarily true. Some European countries, most notably Poland and the Baltic States, but to a lesser degree also France and the United Kingdom, consider preventing a Russian victory to be a vital national interest and have committed themselves so fully to the Ukrainian cause that it is quite possible that they will act as spoilers of any US-led peace effort, urging Ukraine to stand firm, and offering to make up for any decreases in American assistance.
Policy Conclusions

To date, the United States and its allies have conducted a two-pronged policy based on a) military and economic support to Ukraine, and b) economic pressure on the Russian Federation. One can identify three stages to this policy. At first, immediately following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the aim was simply to prevent Ukraine being defeated. Later, following Ukrainian successes in late 2022, it would appear that Western states believed that Ukraine could actually emerge militarily victorious, and military aid to Ukraine was premised on that possibility. Third, following the failure of the 2023 Ukrainian offensive, policy shifted away from achieving victory towards trying to prevent a further deterioration of the Ukrainian position so that when negotiations eventually begin, Ukraine can participate in a position if not of strength then at least not of enormous weakness.

Despite the shifting aims, however, the basic policy has remained the same: strengthen Ukraine and weaken Russia. This has not been successful. The longer the war has continued, the more the balance of power has shifted in Russia’s favor. This trend seems likely to continue, and it is probable that the longer Ukraine waits to make peace with Russia, the worse its position will be. In the meantime, it will suffer continued losses of people and physical infrastructure. It is clear, therefore, that the time has come for a shift in policy away from helping Ukraine fight its war and towards peacemaking.

The analysis above suggests certain conclusions as to what would best serve the interests of peace:

Increased pressure on Russia is unlikely to bring the war to an end in the short to medium term. Abandoning all military, political, and diplomatic pressure on Russia will increase its optimistic understanding of its relative strength, and thus encourage further its pursuit of absolute victory. For this reason, such an abrupt change in policy is not advisable. That said, increasing the pressure is unlikely to be any more productive than eliminating it. It is improbable, for instance, that the volume of military supplies to Ukraine will ever reach that provided in the winter of 2022-23, a volume that was insufficient to enable the Ukrainian 2023 offensive to succeed. However much aid Western states provide to Ukraine henceforth, the Russian military will almost certainly continue to enjoy an advantage over Ukraine, and the pressure on the Russian government to end the war on disadvantageous terms will therefore necessarily be weak, at least in the short to medium term. It is possible that continued pressure will eventually convince the Russian leadership that it cannot achieve its most important objectives by military means and also convince it that a continuation of the current situation is harmful to its interests. This, though, is likely to take a very long time, during which Ukraine will continue to suffer. Moreover, even if the Russian leadership is convinced in this way, the commitment credibility problem may mean that it might remain unwilling to abandon its objectives and might prefer to continue the war rather than accept a peace that it believes will prove short-lived. We can conclude, therefore, that while it would be unwise to significantly decrease pressure on Russia, the path to peace probably does not lie through doing the opposite.
Negative and positive inducements to Ukraine are more likely to bring the war to a quick conclusion. As a general rule, it is the weaker party that brings the war to an end, by finally recognizing its position and either unilaterally ceasing the struggle or signaling its willingness to make concessions. Given that Ukraine is the weaker party, the surest and fastest way to peace therefore probably lies in negatively altering its perceptions of its ability to achieve key objectives by means of negative inducements (diplomatic pressure, withdrawal of aid, etc.), while also providing it some positive inducements, such as promises of economic assistance following the end of the war.One of the problems of Western policy over the past decade, from the Maidan revolution of 2014 onwards, has been that Western states have been unwilling to pressure Ukraine to make the concessions required for a peaceful settlement of its political conflict with Russia. This has had fatal consequences. For instance, the failure to induce Ukraine to fulfil the promises made in the Minsk II agreement to grant autonomy to Donbass led to the collapse of the agreement, and arguably therefore contributed to the outbreak of full-scale war in 2022. Meanwhile, the policy of incremental escalation pursued by the USA and its allies has possibly convinced Ukrainian leaders that they will always eventually be able to push their Western allies to go one step further. Dangling false hopes in front of Ukraine – for instance, promises of eventual NATO membership or hints of some form of direct Western involvement in the war – encourages optimism bias and prevents Ukraine from correctly perceiving the weakness of its position. The time has come for firm diplomacy that aligns perceptions with reality.A careful balance will be required between pressuring Kyiv enough to induce a change in its perceptions that encourages it to seek peace, and pressuring it so much that it changes Moscow’s perceptions in a way that encourages it to further pursue war. The correct balance will be difficult to find. But it is clear that to date the balance has been skewed in the wrong direction, and that a move in the direction of more pressure on Kyiv is required.
Such firmness should assist with the problem of internal opposition to peace within Ukraine. Overcoming that opposition will be difficult, but if President Zelensky can tell both the Ukrainian people and key players within the political elite and the military that future Western support is dependent on making peace, then his hand will be considerably strengthened.
A formal peace treaty is much preferable to a Korean-style ceasefire. Negative and positive inducements will be unlikely to succeed as long as both parties remain suspicious that the other side will use a ceasefire as a breathing space to rearm prior to restarting hostilities. A Korean-style ceasefire is therefore best avoided. A formal treaty, by contrast, commits both parties not merely not to resume fighting but also to a recognition of the resolution of their differences. Formal treaties can, of course, be broken, but doing so is a much more significant breach of promise than ending a ceasefire. Treaties thus provide a degree of reassurance that ceasefires do not.
Issues such as territorial boundaries should be formally resolved in any treaty. By the same logic as above, it is best that any treaty be as comprehensive as possible and not leave issues hanging that might be the basis for future disputes and serve as an excuse for recommencing the war. For this reason, it would be better if any treaty ending the Russo-Ukrainian war formally recognized the new border between the two countries. Most proposals to end the war suggest that Ukraine should de facto recognize the loss of territory but not de jure, because this would be politically easier to accept. However, in the absence of de jure recognition, Russia and Ukraine will be locked into a permanent territorial dispute that will perpetually endanger the peace. Knowledge that this will be the case accentuates the credible commitment problem.
Both Ukraine and Russia need reassurance that the end of the war will truly be the end, not merely a respite used by the other side to recover prior to a restart. This is perhaps the key to a successful peace process, as it is clear that at present neither side believes this to be the case. The importance both Ukraine and Russia attach to the issue of Ukraine’s potential NATO membership reflects this. To Ukraine, NATO membership is the guarantee par excellence that Russia will be unable to attack it again. This is why Zelensky has recently expressed a willingness to forego other benefits in order to achieve this single objective. For Russia, however, a Ukraine in NATO is one that could potentially restart the war but this time with the backing of the whole of the Western alliance. From a Russian point of view, the only way of guaranteeing that Ukraine will not restart the war is rendering it incapable of doing so, which means its neutrality and de-militarization.This creates a serious dilemma for any peacemaker: security guarantees for Ukraine are essential for overcoming the credible commitment problem. Without them, Ukraine may continue to fight even if its leaders recognize that its position is hopeless. But what are security guarantees for Ukraine are perceived as security threats by Russia. And likewise, what Russia sees as security guarantees are perceived as security threats by Ukraine. Squaring this particular circle will be extremely difficult, but arguably it is the most important task of any mediator, as unless it is circled the war cannot end.Examples of how perhaps this could be done include leaving the issue of NATO membership open, but with guarantees that NATO troops and long-range weaponry will not be permitted in Ukraine; accepting NATO membership for Ukraine but reconfiguring the entire European security structure in such a way that Russia no longer views NATO as threatening; the provision of some sort of peacekeeping force that neither side considers hostile; making Ukraine neutral but providing security guarantees in some manner that does not include NATO; or something else entirely. Some of these potential solutions are rather more implausible than others. Some may also require considerable arm twisting of the Ukrainian leadership by American diplomats. But what is clear is that providing the necessary reassurances to both sides will require very original thinking.
Efforts will be required to neutralize spoilers. States such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia fear that anything short of a decisive Russian defeat will embolden Russia in a way that could eventually threaten them. They will therefore be inclined to encourage Ukraine to resist any peace efforts. To prevent this, they too will require reassurance. This will probably require some sort of commitment by the United States to the continued defense of Europe.
Final Conclusions

Of all the issues mentioned above, the credible commitment problem is possibly the most important. A combination of positive and negative inducements may alter the perceptions of one or both sides in such a way as to make them more amenable to peace, but this cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, any step that makes one party’s perceptions more pessimistic, and so renders it more willing to negotiate, is likely simultaneously to make the other party’s perceptions more optimistic, and so render it less willing to do so. Moreover, even if the parties’ perceptions are altered in the desired manner, they will not act in the desired manner if they remain convinced that any ceasefire will only be a temporary pause used by their opponents to strengthen their position prior to recommencing hostilities.

Studies of war termination suggest that warring states may forego secondary objectives if they are able to achieve another objective of very considerable value. At that point, as one study notes, the side that has achieved a super-valuable objective could continue fighting but “does not because the costs of going further threaten to escalate the conflict, and it is less motivated to keep going because additional increments of the good are not as valuable.20” It is important, therefore, to identify what those at war consider “super-valuable” and seek to guarantee that. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, it would appear that the most valuable thing sought by both sides is security, defined as freedom from fear of a future conflict. Arguably, it was Russian fears of the movement of Ukraine into the NATO camp, of apparent Ukrainian hostility, and of an escalation of the war in eastern Ukraine into a wider conflict involving Western powers, that motivated Russia’s leaders into launching a preventive war against Ukraine. Likewise, fears that anything less than victory may produce such a result further down the road persuades Russian leaders to keep on going. At the same time, having been invaded by Russia, Ukraine has well-founded fears of future Russian aggression and seeks a settlement that protects it against further such aggression hereafter.

Any settlement of the war must therefore address the issue of the future security of both parties. That means that any third party attempting to mediate between the two must take seriously the security concerns of both belligerents. In particular, ignoring the concerns of the stronger party is very unlikely to result in successful war termination. Accepting this will require a considerable change in attitude from Western leaders. It is also a precept that many in the West will doubtless strongly resist. Overcoming this resistance may require some strong diplomacy and will involve taking steps that incite sharp criticism from some quarters. The potential benefits, however, far outweigh the risks.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/12/pau ... endations/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 27, 2024 12:56 pm

The danger of drones
Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 12/27/2024

Image

Perhaps no area better illustrates the maxim that generals are always prepared for the next war than drones, possibly the only area in which the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has changed the way we fight. Developed over decades, drones are not new, nor is their use in military scenarios, although the current war marks the first time that they have been used intensively in a high-intensity conflict and where they have become a necessity for any unit on the ground. Attack, defense and surveillance are now unimaginable without the possibility of using drones as a weapon or as an element of coordination between the different branches of the armed forces or between different units.

The ability to detect and view in real time any even minimally significant enemy convoy has made it increasingly difficult to conduct a war of manoeuvre. This was proved by Ukraine when each of its armoured convoys that were to break through the Zaporozhye front in the direction of Melitopol and Crimea was detected on its way out. At the time, Kiev's allies preferred to focus on presenting Russian minefields - which Ukraine should have anticipated would exist - without admitting that the ability of Russian troops to detect the presence of enemy armoured vehicles and thereby adjust artillery was also one of the key causes of Ukraine's failure to reach the Surovikin Line , which they never managed to destroy. Ground warfare necessarily involves fighting armoured vehicles, and their destruction guarantees the defence of the front. In this task, the Russian troops were assisted by the Lantset loitering munition, the main novelty in Russia's arsenal, which at the beginning of the war realized that it had fallen far behind in the development of unmanned vehicles. So much so that it needed the help of Iran to obtain its first kamikaze drones, the already famous Shahed. The West, always willing to believe that its enemy is not capable of learning from its mistakes, did not foresee the possibility that the Russian Federation could, in just one year, develop the type of weapon that could do the most damage in this war and especially in an open field maneuver battle scenario such as the one that Ukraine and its allies proposed in the direction of Rabotino.

On the other side of the front, Russia has also suffered from the effects of drones and the inability to efficiently use the defence tools prepared to detect and shoot down missiles, aircraft or drones of a certain range, but not necessarily smaller unmanned vehicles or even commercial drones modified to carry explosives. Something similar can be said of maritime drones, an even more important development. With the help of its allies, especially the United Kingdom, the most interested of the Western powers in limiting Russia's ability to operate in the Black Sea, Ukraine and its military intelligence have developed drones with which they have managed to cause serious damage to the Russian fleet and leave it practically out of action. kyiv has used this material to attack Russian ships and, above all, to create the certainty that danger lurks anywhere in the Black Sea at all times. In this way, and despite lacking a fleet, destroyed by the years of capitalist restoration and by the loss of Crimea, Ukraine has been able to eliminate Russian control over the Black Sea, one of Russia's qualitative advantages at the start of its military intervention. This makes impossible, for example, any aspiration that Moscow might have had to reach Odessa (questionable given that there was never any hint of the amphibious landing that kyiv expected every day in the first weeks of the Russian invasion).

Increasingly sophisticated, Ukrainian drones have also caused losses to Russia in its land rear. Without the Russian ability to use missiles, kyiv has considered various strategies to “bring the war to the territory of the Russian Federation.” The Western ban on the use of missiles, lifted after the end of the US election cycle in November, has forced Ukraine to seek creative solutions. The development of its own missiles, the use of which there are, as Antony Blinken indicated, no restrictions, has been one of the Ukrainian initiatives. kyiv claims to be developing missiles capable of reaching Moscow, although it is doubtful that, under current conditions, it will be able to produce them in large quantities. It should be remembered that the dream of running out of missiles in Russian arsenals has been one of the bases of false Ukrainian hopes, which indicate that missiles are important for their quality, but above all for their quantity.

Ukraine's main successes in attacking the Russian rear have come without the use of missiles. This is the case of the attack on the Kerch bridge, which was seriously damaged - especially on its railway section - by the use of a truck bomb in which kyiv sent the driver to his death, who was unaware of the load he was carrying. And although Ukraine still yearns for the moment when it can destroy the bridge with its Western missiles, for the moment, this has been the most successful attack, as Russia has been able to prevent the projectiles or maritime drones from causing structural damage in the different attack attempts.

Even though it has been given express permission by the United States, the United Kingdom and France to use Western missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation within its internationally recognised borders, it is drones that are causing the most problems for Russian defences. Because of their small size and ability to act virtually anywhere, drones have been able to hit refineries across wide swathes of Russia from St Petersburg to Astrakhan, passing through the Kremlin towers, causing varying levels of damage. The latest major attack, or at least the most spectacular, took place a week ago in the city of Kazan, capital of Tatarstan, located more than 850 kilometres east of Moscow. Drone attacks are a daily occurrence in both Ukraine and Russia, although the tactics used are significantly different. The Geran-2s, better known in the Western press as Shahed to highlight their Iranian origin, although they have long been produced in Russia, have been detected practically since their launch and their trajectory is easy to guess, while the Ukrainian modus operandi is to confuse Russian defences with small drones, possibly even operated from Russian territory, which can act undetected until the last moment and in practically any region of western and central Russia. The objective, in addition to causing damage, is to create instability and danger for both the authorities and the Russian population. The drones that attacked Kazan last week, for example, hit two high-rise buildings, one of them residential. The words of Kirilo Budanov a few months ago, in which he promised to make the Russian population suffer, make it impossible to believe the claim of certain pro-Ukrainian sectors, which claimed that the impacts were caused by Russian electronic warfare, which diverted the drones from their real targets.

“We will continue to attack Russian military facilities with drones and missiles, and there will be more and more Ukrainian missiles,” Zelensky said after the attack on Kazan. “We will attack military bases and military infrastructure that are being used to terrorize our people,” he insisted, despite the fact that the damage had been done to civilian targets. The implicit aim of Zelensky’s words is to make it impossible to defend Russian airspace and force Russia to keep air defense systems far from the front.

The constant use of drones also increases the danger in airspace. Drones can collide with low-flying aircraft (or during takeoff/landing) or cause accidents due to the use of air defences. This is what is currently being investigated in the case of Azerbaijan Airlines flight J2-8243, which crashed in the Kazakh city of Aktau after being diverted from its destination, Grozny, first to Makhachkala in Dagestan and then to Kazakhstan. Neither the first explanation, excessive fog at the destination airport, nor the hypothesis of a bird strike seem convincing. And although the Azerbaijani and Kazakh authorities are calling for caution and for the investigation to bear fruit, the Western press is already citing sources from those countries who suggest that one of the plane's wings was hit by Russian air defence projectiles. Days earlier, Ukraine had attacked the city of Grozny with drones, causing damage to civilian infrastructure and a police station.

Despite the good manoeuvring of the crew, which allowed the plane to land before it exploded, the incident with the Azerbaijani plane caused 38 deaths, while 29 people were saved. NATO and Western governments have demanded a full investigation, but have maintained a certain restraint that has only been broken by Ukraine. “Russia should have closed the airspace of Grozny, but it did not,” said Andriy Kovalenko, head of the Centre for Countering Disinformation. His words denote that creating chaos in Russian airspace is one of Ukraine’s objectives. These statements are striking considering that kyiv was not able to close the airspace of Donbass until the downing of MH17 in August 2014, despite the fact that it was a very limited area and where fighting involving aircraft was taking place.

As is often the case, only the most exalted section of the Ukrainian camp is capable of using the tragedy of others to its advantage. “It was only a matter of time before the tragedy of MH17 (the downing of a passenger plane) would be repeated. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Baku-Grozn flight of the Azerbaijani airline was attacked and partially destroyed by elements of the uncontrolled Russian anti-aircraft defense system,” wrote Mikhail Podolyak, who believes that everything can be explained by the deliberate hand of some rebel faction of the Russian Federation. The adviser to the President’s Office was the only one who, despite the SBU’s claim, claimed that the general killed last week in Moscow had been eliminated by the Kremlin authorities themselves. Every episode is susceptible to being used to demand more weapons and more support for Ukraine. The death of 38 people in an episode that there has not yet been time to resolve cannot be less.

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/27/el-pe ... os-drones/

Google Translator

*****

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (from 21 to 27 December 2024) ㅤ

From 21 to 27 December this year, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carried out a massive and 37 group strikes with high-precision weapons and attack unmanned aerial vehicles, which resulted in the destruction of: energy facilities that ensured the operation of enterprises of the military-industrial complex of Ukraine, the infrastructure of military airfields, ammunition depots, fuel bases, production workshops, storage sites, preparation sites for the launch of attack unmanned aerial vehicles and training centers for drone operators. Also, temporary deployment points of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, nationalist formations and foreign mercenaries were hit.

- During the week, units of the North group of forces continued to destroy formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kursk region. In the Kharkov direction, units of the mechanized, motorized infantry brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and two territorial defence brigades were defeated.

Over the past week, in the area of ​​responsibility of the North force group, the enemy's losses amounted to over 2,450 servicemen, 11 tanks, including US-made Abrams and German-made Leopards, 13 infantry fighting vehicles, including German-made Marder, Swedish-made CV-90 and five US-made Bradleys, 13 armored personnel carriers, including two US-made M113s and a US-made Stryker, as well as 44 other armored combat vehicles. 69 vehicles, 25 field artillery guns and nine electronic warfare stations were destroyed.

— The active actions of units of the West force group liberated the settlements of Lozovaya, Zagryzovo in the Kharkiv region and Ivanovka in the Donetsk People's Republic.

The enemy lost over 3,080 servicemen, three tanks, including a German-made Leopard, three armored personnel carriers, including two US-made M113s, 38 vehicles, and 53 field artillery pieces, including 24 Western-made. Eight electronic warfare stations and four field ammunition depots were destroyed.

— As a result of decisive actions by units of the Southern Group of Forces, the settlements of Gigant and Ostrovskogo in the Donetsk People's Republic were liberated.

Over the past week, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost over 1,970 servicemen, three armored personnel carriers, including a British-made Spartan and a US-made M113, three armored combat vehicles, 13 vehicles, 22 field artillery pieces, including seven US-made, and eight ammunition depots in this area.

— Units of the Center Group of Forces continued to advance deep into the enemy's defenses and liberated the settlements of Krasnoye and Novy Trud in the Donetsk People's Republic.

The losses of the Ukrainian armed formations amounted to over 3,815 servicemen, six tanks, including the Leopard made in Germany, six infantry fighting vehicles, seven armored personnel carriers, including the M1117 and four M113 made in the USA, 11 other armored combat vehicles, including five of Western manufacture. 42 vehicles and 26 field artillery pieces were destroyed.

— Units of the Vostok group of forces, as a result of active operations, liberated the settlement of Storozhevye in the Donetsk People's Republic.

The enemy lost up to 1,140 servicemen, 16 vehicles, 22 field artillery pieces, including four self-propelled artillery units and 155-mm howitzers made in NATO countries.

— Units of the Dnepr group of forces improved the situation along the front line, defeated the manpower and equipment of the mechanized, infantry, mountain assault, airborne assault brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and three territorial defense brigades.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 455 servicemen, 22 vehicles and 16 field artillery guns. Eight electronic warfare stations and three field ammunition depots were destroyed. Over the course of a week, 51 Ukrainian servicemen were captured on the contact line.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Large frontline summary 17-23 December 2024
The sick brain of the Armed Forces of Ukraine or How the West Fights an Imaginary Army. Written by Marat Khairullin.

Zinderneuf
Dec 24, 2024

Image

By the third year of the war, it became completely clear that we were fighting with frankly sick people. You can call it whatever you like - brain-sick, with severe brain damage from worms, with brain parasites, with brain leprosy, and so on. In any case, you will hit the nail on the head. Even the most mocking and caustic comparison, which denotes a complete break from reality, is suitable for the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their Western masters. For example, if you scroll through popular Western mainstream media over the past month, you will get an absolute picture that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are fighting exclusively with North Korea. And, interestingly, they are winning. I am not joking!

The details are simply astonishing: poorly educated North Korean soldiers do not know how to hide from Ukrainian drones and therefore suffer huge losses. And last week, Korean soldiers confused the front line due to a language barrier and attacked Russian troops. Or here - "North Korean troops suffer heavy losses while advancing on Ukrainian troops." The sly Russians, taking advantage of the inexperience of Korean soldiers, throw them into battle without explaining the intricacies of modern warfare. The article is called "Too Early, Too Inexperienced." This is being discussed in all seriousness by the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, and so on down the list.

Somewhere in the middle, as if in passing, it is mentioned that this is the Kursk region. But with all its might, they make it seem as if the North Koreans are advancing along the entire front and throughout Ukraine. And the fact that no one has yet shown a single real North Korean fighter in the Kursk forests is kept silent.

What is striking is not even how the Western mainstream directly "defecates" into the heads of its people. But on what a scale! This is especially felt if we talk about the real state of affairs on earth.

According to the official report of December 23, in the Kursk region alone, the Ukrops suffered 300 casualties in manpower in one day. Two tanks (one of them an Abrams), three infantry fighting vehicles – an American Bradley, a German Marder, and a Swedish CV-90 – were destroyed. Three armored personnel carriers – a Stryker and two M113s, one artillery piece, an M-88 repair and recovery vehicle (USA), and eight cars were also destroyed.

Image
Source

If we take average prices, then in just one day and in just one region (Kursk), Russia destroyed NATO equipment worth almost 30-40 million dollars. This, of course, does not include the cost of the Ukrops - they are worth nothing at all.

But there is not a word about this in the Western mainstream media. The Russian army is generally only mentioned in the context of "fleeing Syria" - this is another "propaganda narrative."

The most surprising thing is that the West does not have its own Podolyakas and Mardans, who explain to the people that their army and equipment is so ineffective in combat. For some reason, only we have such comrades with their bastard pessimism. It is useful to throw mud at the army, but it is impossible to praise it - this is "obscene optimism" (Mardan came up with such a formulation on the TV channel of a famous TV presenter).

By the end of 2024, the collective West suddenly went mad en masse, invented an imaginary enemy, and began to fight it hard in the steppes of Ukraine. It's all about that very soft power, which is the strongest among the West. The West can not admit its shameful defeat on the ground for one simple reason. The propaganda barriers called soft power were designed to hide the real state of affairs. Our opponents are not just weak, they are rotten to the core.

Of course, they are wildly “stressed” that the peoples whom they have oppressed and humiliated for centuries will finally stop being afraid of them and will come to ask for everything. That's why the West puffs itself up like a toad to seem bigger and scarier than it really is. That's why it keeps creating a parallel, virtual reality. It's their last and only defense. The story of the non-existent North Korean troops is their latest attempt to portray themselves as strong. In reality, they are terrified.

Just think about it. We destroyed 650 aircraft in Ukraine. In all of NATO (including the US), there are probably less than a thousand serviceable multi-role aircraft. We destroyed more than 19,000 tanks and other armored vehicles. In all of NATO, there are probably less than a thousand serviceable tanks.

The collective West has become so carried away by drawing into virtual reality that it no longer even knows how much it has and what is in working order. The adventure on the Eastern Front has revealed stunning falsifications and corruption in the sphere of maintaining combat readiness. This is apparent when, for example, Spain writes that it has more than three hundred tanks in its troops, but in reality it cannot send even five in normal condition to Ukraine on an urgent request. Only after a long repair. Even then, they only sent 20 pieces in total. Imagine if Russia spent a year repairing 20 of such vehicles, and then we went to Ukraine to fight with them.

The story of the non-existent North Korean troops showed that their all-powerful soft power is not so limitless. Russia gave them such a slap in the face that it is no longer possible to continue waging an information war with such a smashed pride. So they had to invent a new army and fight with it. It's somehow safer, imaginary troops can't shoot down as many planes as the real Russian forces can.

Actually, this is one of the important markers of our Victory - we have definitely won the information war. The West simply fled from this front. All that remains is to finish off the enemy on the ground.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... 3-december

Brief report from the front on December 26, 2024

The Ukrainian Armed Forces will leave Ukrainka in the near future. Report by Marat Khairullin with illustrations by Mikhail Popov.

Zinderneuf
Dec 26, 2024

Image
ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary.

In the Borovaya (Borova) section of the Kupyansk direction, the Russian Armed Forces have advanced into the settlement of Zagryzovo (Zahryzove). Russian groups in armored vehicles are already working on the southern outskirts of the settlement, pushing the enemy back to the Boguslavka (Bohuslavka) area.

Image
ЛБС 12.9.2024=Line of Combat Contact September 12th, 2024. ЛБС 01.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 1st, 2024. ЛБС 01.12.2024=Line of Combat Contact December 1st, 2024. Зона продвижения после предыдущей сводки=The zone of advancement since the previous summary.

In the Pokrovsk section of the Donetsk direction, Russian units have taken control of almost the entire territory of the settlement of Dachenskoe, with the exception of a small, separately located part in the northeast, for which fighting is still ongoing. This part of Dachenskoe will provide access to the western part of Lysovka, that is, access to the rear of the Ukrainian Armed Forces units and pressure on them from three sides at once.

In the Peschanoe area, our troops penetrated the enemy's defenses between Peschanoe and Volkovo (Vovkove), advancing west along the forest belt, and created a threat of a flank attack on the enemy in both settlements at once.

Interesting reports are also coming from the north of the Pokrovsk sector, where our units have begun to cross to the other bank of the Kazenny Torets in the area of ​​Mirolyubovka (Myrolyubivka), preparing a bridgehead for an offensive, most likely in the direction of Novoekonomichesk (Novoekonomichne) to form the right flank of the envelopment of the Pokrovsk-Mirnograd agglomeration.

In Novovasilyevka, the situation is also rapidly deteriorating for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Our troops have advanced towards it both along the gully from the south and in the fields from Novotroitskoye. From the ravine area, our fighters entered the farm territory and consolidated their positions there. Most likely, after the accumulation of forces, an assault on this small settlement will follow.

Our units have expanded their control in the Novoolenovka and Novoelizavetovka areas. South of Novoolenovka, enemy strongholds were captured, which made it possible to consolidate near the northern outskirts of Ukrainka, for which fighting is already underway, and part of it is under the control of our fighters. The current situation allows us to say that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will leave this settlement in the very near future.

Image
ЛБС 31.10.2024=Line of Combat Contact October 31st, 2024. ЛБС 30.11.2024=Line of Combat Contact November 30th, 2024. Продвижение после предыдущей сводки=Progress since the previous summary.

Northwest of the settlement Zarya (Zorya), ours advanced, clearing out the enemy stronghold. Attacks are underway in the direction of the Pokrovsk-Kurakhovo road section south of Ukrainka. Fierce fighting continues in the area of ​​Petropavlovka, Shevchenko, and Dachnoe.

Image

In Kurakhovo, fighting continues on the outskirts of the high-rise district. Russian forces have managed to advance, taking the area of ​​the city hospital located in the southwest of the city. Attacks are underway in the area of ​​Zaporozhye Avenue (the orange road in the north of Kurakhovo) and battles are underway for the garage development and industrial zone (the fish farm) north of it.

The advance has begun in the fields south of Kurakhovo. West of the settlement of Dalnee (Dalnje), Russian detachments are making their way to the area of ​​treatment water bodies. Our zone of control has also been expanded in their direction. The Russian Defense Ministry announced today the liberation of the settlement of Gigant (Hihant). Our units are increasing pressure from its area on Yantarnoe. The exit to it through the Sukhie Yaly River will allow us to move in the direction of the settlement of Ulakly along the tree lines located there. It is the situation in the area of ​​the settlement of Ulakly that will most likely determine how long the enemy will be able to hold out in the industrial zone of Kurakhovo and in the entire pocket south of the city.

https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/ ... cember-54d

*******

Kim Iversen – FOIA Emails: State Department Let Gonzalo Lira Die in Ukraine
December 23, 2024



https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/12/kim ... n-ukraine/

*******

Brazilian criminals fight as mercenaries for Kiev and commit war crimes in Kursk

Lucas Leiroz

December 23, 2024

Brasília urgently needs to sign a cooperation agreement with Moscow to prevent the departure of mercenaries.

In recent times, the participation of Brazilian mercenaries in the conflict in Ukraine has become a particularly serious issue. NATO’s aggressive war against Russia has turned into a fertile ground for foreign fighters from different parts of the world, including many Latin Americans. Among them, Brazilians stand out, and their presence on Ukrainian soil raises questions about the motives that attract them to such a distant conflict, as well as the way these mercenaries engage in brutal practices that violate the most basic principles of international law.

Recently, the case of Lucas Ribeiro de Jesus, a Brazilian who enlisted as a mercenary in Ukraine, came to light after he published a disturbing video on social media. In the video, Lucas coldly and in detail confesses that he executed two Russians, a father and a son, in the Kursk region of southern Russia. In his post, he grotesquely describes how he cut off one man’s ear and decapitated the other, detailing the acts with shocking indifference. The brutality of his words and the public exposure of this act reveal not only the dehumanization of the conflict but also how some fighters, particularly Kiev’s mercenaries, become involved in war crimes and human rights violations.

The release of this video reflects the growing radicalization of certain foreign fighter groups in Ukraine, including many Brazilians who enlist in the Ukrainian forces, driven by various reasons, many of which may be related to economic issues, ideologies, or even the pursuit of fame. In the case of Lucas Ribeiro, the aggressive and cruel stance in the video reflects the distorted view some mercenaries have about the war, treating it as an excuse for indiscriminate violence.

This incident also highlights the increasing presence of Latin American mercenaries, especially Brazilians, who have been actively involved in the Ukrainian conflict. The political and social situation in Latin America has contributed to this dynamic, with many fighters being attracted by promises of money, recognition, or ideologies that align with the interests of the Ukrainian government and Western powers. However, the role of these mercenaries has been problematic, as many engage in military actions without any effective surveillance or control, frequently leading to human rights violations.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, mercenaries like Lucas Ribeiro are not regular agents of governments or armies but individuals who choose to fight for foreign causes without the political responsibility typically attributed to state military forces. The involvement of Brazilians and other Latin Americans in such actions adds to the tragedy of the conflict, as many of these fighters become complicit in abuses and crimes, often escaping justice and facing no consequences for their actions. Lucas Ribeiro’s case is just the “tip of the iceberg”, as many other Brazilians and Latin Americans find themselves in the same situation, with no regulation or legal oversight.

In the specific Brazilian case, it is necessary to mention how the country’s social and economic situation contributes to this scenario. In Brazil, military legislation requires every male citizen to enlist at the age of eighteen and complete mandatory service that can last from one to eight years. Since the country is undergoing deindustrialization with high unemployment rates, military service is seen by many Brazilians as an opportunity for a “first job.” Over eight years, these soldiers can take military qualification courses, including some in special operations.

However, after eight years, these soldiers are simply expelled from the military ranks and prevented from pursuing a career in the Army. With no industry or jobs outside the armed forces and having military skills as their only professional qualification, many veterans of the armed forces end up joining mercenary groups or organized crime. As a result, Brazilian criminal factions are becoming increasingly professionalized (including the use of combat drones by drug traffickers in Brazilian cities), just as more Brazilians are fighting and dying in Ukraine.

Moreover, the presence of these mercenaries in the conflict in Ukraine sparks a broader debate about the nature of modern warfare and the ethics of civilian participation in international combat. For many, these individuals are not heroes, but part of an international network of violence that further destroys the prospects for peace. Furthermore, the conduct of many of these fighters, like Lucas Ribeiro, raises serious concerns about the responsibility of the countries involved, including Brazil, in relation to their citizens who choose to engage in such combat.

On the other hand, it is essential to understand that Ukraine has become a magnet for mercenaries of various nationalities, not only for money or the desire to fight against a common enemy but also because of the victimization narrative promoted by the Ukrainian government and its Western allies. In many cases, Russian victims are treated as enemies of “humanity,” with an attempt to legitimize any violence against them. This dynamic has been exploited by groups opposing the Russian government but who often overlook the grave human rights violations committed by Ukrainian forces themselves.

In the specific case of Lucas Ribeiro de Jesus and other mercenaries, the war in Ukraine has become fertile ground for the exploitation of an exaggerated nationalism and a revenge-driven ideology that ignores the laws of war and prisoners’ rights. The brutality described by Ribeiro is not an isolated event but part of a growing trend of indiscriminate violence that has intensified as the conflict continues.

Therefore, it is crucial for the international community to pay attention to these cases, as they not only reveal the horrors of a prolonged conflict but also call into question the morality and legality of mercenary participation in the war. The presence of Brazilians and other Latin Americans in Ukraine should not be seen as a mere issue of support for one side of the conflict but as part of a larger problem involving the dehumanization of war and the loss of any ethical and legal responsibility.

It is also vital that Brazil engages in a cooperation project with Moscow to prevent its citizens from becoming mercenaries and fighting against Russian forces. Brazilian authorities, facing diplomatic embarrassment due to the case of Lucas Ribeiro, should promise Moscow an effort to investigate and thwart plans by Brazilian citizens to fight against a partner of Brazil in the BRICS. This, after all, is within Brazil’s own strategic interests, as the existence of these mercenaries clearly poses a threat to Brazilian sovereignty.

Brazilian fighters who survive the war in Ukraine will return to Brazil, brainwashed by Ukrainian neo-Nazi ideology, desensitized by the practice of war crimes, and with extensive combat experience. This is likely to create a kind of “militant army” of veterans in Brazil, which could be used by Western powers for a potential “Brazilian Maidan” in the future. The only way to avoid this is through a Russo-Brazilian cooperation agreement to punish mercenaries and prevent more Brazilians from going to war.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... -in-kursk/

******

Torture special: the army of slaves

Alcoholism, extortion, torture in the Ukrainian army. Moonshine like motor oil. Crucifixion, cages, organ failure and broken skulls. Like godfather like godson. Not even Americans are safe.

Events in Ukraine
Dec 24, 2024

Today’s post will continue trying to answer the question - why is it that the supposedly numerically superior Ukrainian army is outnumbered on the frontline by the numerically inferior Russian army?

In a January 2024 interview, Zelensky stated that the Ukrainian army counts 880,000 servicemen. In December 2023, intel chief Budanov stated that there are 1.1 million members of the AFU.

Yet in December 2024, Zelensky stated that there are 800,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Putin himself stated in June that there are around 700,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine. So whence, given this apparent parity, the constant Ukrainian complaints of insufficient men at the frontline? That well-built fortifications are taken by the Russians - with no sign of Ukrainian soldiers inside?

Yesterday’s post dealt with the murderous abuse faced by men as they are mobilized. We also touched on the phenomenon of enormous dungeons where the mobilized are beaten, killed, and extorted. And what happens after you have been snatched off the street, sometimes in a stretcher because the beatings have rendered you unconscious? If you manage to survive the mobilize prisons?

Today, we will have a look at last week’s media sensation - systematic torture and extortion in the 211th brigade, and the extent to which such practices are to be found in the army as a whole. Our topics include:

The origins of the 211th brigade - why corruption is endemic to engineering units meant to create fortifications

How desertion in the 211th uncovered the systemic extortion in the unit

How military extortion works - pay the fee, or get sent to the ‘meat grinder’ at the front

The chronic alcoholism in the Ukrainian army - ‘70% of soldiers need vodka to sleep’

‘There are many cases in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which for obvious reasons are not publicized: someone gets drunk, grabs a weapon, and kills his own. And then his comrades had to shoot him."'

‘Moonshine so strong it burned like motor oil’

Official testimony on the 211th: the cage for naked soldiers and crucufixion

How soldiers in the 211th were also forced to build a country home for their commander

The cover-up - how those responsible in the 211th were protected by courts, promoted, and now released on bail

Just how long did the army and parliament know of torture in the 211th?

Is torture and extortion widespread in the army? Parliamentarian Skorokhod, investigating the matter, states that her group was looking into 22 units with such cases, with five more potential ones

Parliamentarian Mazurashu on how military command sees its subordinates as ‘slaves’ - 70% of Ukrainians are in favor of fighting to the last, while 30% live in Ukraine… [this is the] bitterly ironic joke of the day

The market price of avoiding the frontline meatgrinder as a soldier - currently starting at 25,000 hryvnia

US company accuses the national police of extortion

The origins of the 211th

Image

(Paywall with free option.)

https://eventsinukraine.substack.com/p/ ... al-torture

******

Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare strategy: The connection between organized crime, the Ukrainian government, and scam call centers

Lucas Leiroz

December 26, 2024

The use of global fraud networks indicate that Ukraine is willing to go even further to achieve its strategic goals.

On December 21, a series of acts of sabotage occurred across various regions of Russia, coinciding with a growing wave of telephone fraud schemes, primarily targeting elderly people and students. These schemes, believed to originate from Ukraine, are part of a broader strategy adopted by the Kiev regime to resort to terrorist tactics in the face of a lack of significant victories on the battlefield. The most recent wave of scam calls has highlighted an increasingly close connection between organized crime and the Ukrainian government, something that concerns not only Russia but also Kiev’s Western allies, as these schemes also affect citizens of Western countries.

Ukraine, traditionally known for hosting a large number of scam call centers – which are illegal even by Ukrainian law -, has become a global hub for any type of criminal activity. It is estimated that 95% of all scam calls in Russia originate from Ukraine. These call centers, often located in areas of Ukraine controlled by armed groups and other actors, are highly linked to crime, targeting not only Russian citizens but also foreigners, including Westerners. Telephone fraud, which involves deceiving victims into revealing financial information or making bank transfers, has generated billions of dollars in illicit profits. Ukraine’s role in this scenario has attracted growing attention, especially after the FSB’s recent arrest of several criminals who were involved in these schemes, working on behalf of Kiev, within Russian territory.

The use of terror tactics by Kiev

Criminal practices such as fraud and corruption have long been commonplace in post-Soviet Ukraine, even more so since the 2014 coup that plunged the country into true anarchy. In the current context, due to the open conflict with Moscow, these practices have assumed a more significant, strategically relevant role.

Kiev’s growing reliance on fraud and sabotage schemes as part of its war strategy is not just a response to the battlefield stalemate but also a form of psychological warfare. The goal is to destabilize Russian society by creating distrust and insecurity among the population, especially among the most vulnerable, such as the elderly. This form of asymmetric warfare aims not only to psychologically weaken ordinary Russians but also to create an atmosphere of chaos and mistrust in the country’s institutions, enabling strategic gains for Ukraine without direct military confrontation.

These telephone fraud schemes, in addition to attacking Russia’s financial system, also serve as a way to fuel the conflict by other means, while the Ukrainian army faces difficulties on the battlefield. It is estimated that some call centers earn over one million dollars a day, indicating that this is a valuable resource for the neo-Nazi regime. Moreover, it is a strategy that aims to destabilize Russia from within, exploiting the country’s social and economic weaknesses, while Ukraine seeks to reduce direct confrontations that could lead to more losses on the ground.

The impact on Kiev’s western allies

Although most of Ukraine’s Western allies are striving to support Kiev with military aid and sanctions against Russia, the growing connection between the Ukrainian government and organized crime raises difficult questions about the legitimacy of international support for the regime. The expansion of fraud schemes puts Kiev’s allies in an uncomfortable position, especially when citizens of Western countries are also involved in these criminal actions, both as perpetrators and, in many cases, as victims.

Call center schemes are not only a problem for Russia but also for the entire global financial system, as these frauds often involve the use of cryptocurrencies and international transfers, making tracking and recovering funds a significant challenge. Western nations, which have been the main sponsors of Ukraine, are beginning to face the consequences of supporting a government that increasingly employs unconventional war tactics and deepens its involvement in illegal operations.

In a recently FSB-dismantled call center scheme, for example, it was revealed that the victims included citizens from countries such as the U.S., Canada, and European states—along with nations from the Global South like Brazil and India. Kiev is putting its partners in a problematic situation by maintaining such behaviour, as it is often impossible for Western agents to effectively monitor how these criminal tactics are being implemented.

Crime as a weapon for Ukraine

Ultimately, it must be clarified that the exponential increase in fraud attempts against Russian citizens is deeply connected to the war. Kiev wants to destabilize Russia and plans to profit from such destabilization maneuvers. It benefits the neo-Nazi regime and its Western sponsors to have Russian society fearful and vulnerable, with citizens constantly fearing the possibility of crimes. The use of scam calls represents a double gain for Kiev, which confuses ordinary people in enemy territory and accumulates financial resources to fuel its own war machine.

The use of asymmetric tactics, such as telephone fraud schemes and sabotage, reflects Ukraine’s growing adaptation to hybrid warfare, where the government of Kiev aligns with criminal networks to try to weaken Russia through unconventional means. While Kiev’s military difficulties are evident, the collaboration with organized crime and the use of global fraud networks indicate that Ukraine is willing to go even further to achieve its strategic goals—which are nothing more than pro-NATO agendas.

However, this strategy could have serious consequences both regarding Russia and Kiev’s Western allies. As more evidence emerges about the connection between the Ukrainian government and criminal networks, there is a growing pressure on Western countries to reconsider their unconditional support for Ukraine, especially when the line between legitimate fighters and criminals becomes gradually blurred. Similarly, the fact that many Western citizens are victims of the same criminal maneuvers faced by Russians creates an unstable political atmosphere for NATO, which can no longer maintain the legitimacy of its pro-Kiev agenda.

This is just one of the many ways Ukraine is trying to disguise its military failures with diversionary and terror, psychological tactics against civilians. The wave of mass fraudulent calls is a way to implant fear and insecurity in thousands of Russian citizens simultaneously, as well as to generate untraceable money to replenish Ukraine’s military system. Russia will have to deal with this type of threat—which is likely to become more frequent—by developing more sophisticated strategies to neutralize call centers and foreign agitators without spreading chaos among the Russians.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... l-centers/

*******

And he left....
December 27, 15:00

Image

Briefly about the seizure of power in Ukraine in 2014.

"I called then-Ukrainian President Yanukovych and ordered him to leave his post. I made the last of my urgent calls to Yanukovych in late February 2014, when his snipers were killing Ukrainian citizens.
I had been stressing to him for months that he should exercise restraint, but then I told him it was over, and he left. Control of the state ended up in the hands of a young patriot named Arseniy Yatsenyuk" (c) Biden

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9576086.html

Google Translator

Biden is a complete slimeball, a better liar than Trump(!). Biden to the Hague!
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 12684
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 Dec 28, 2024 1:30 pm

Western missiles and their effect
Posted by @nsanzo

Image

“More than a month ago, Ukraine was given a trumpeted permission to fire Western long-range missiles at Russian military targets. But after initially firing a volley of them, Ukraine has already slowed down its use,” wrote The New York Times yesterday in one of many articles that deal with the military situation of the war, focusing on a single aspect and without providing the slightest context about the situation on the front. As a proxy war between the West and Russia, the effectiveness of weapons from both origins is one of the aspects to be taken into account, especially by the press, which has acted during this time as a transmission belt for the idea of ​​the absolute superiority of Western equipment over Russian equipment.

The Ukrainian government has contributed to this in particular, as it has never hesitated to praise the capabilities of Western weapons above all logic, sometimes granting them successes that, in reality, had been achieved with the use of its own weapons or the combined use of Western and Soviet weapons. This is the case, for example, of the destruction of the Antonovsky Bridge, the only bridge over the Dnieper destroyed in this war and which was key to supplying Russian troops on the right bank of the river, a territory that Moscow was forced to abandon without resistance. The need to praise its suppliers was more important than praising its own capabilities, a further incentive for the West to continue and increase the supply of weapons. In times of greatest need, Ukraine decided to change its discourse to embrace the idea of ​​proxy warfare and offer the country as a laboratory so that its allies could test their weapons against Russian defences in a combat situation.

Each phase of the war has been marked by a miracle weapon , all of them Western: the Javelin anti-tank systems were the main desire in the phase in which Ukraine feared a ground invasion in Donbass; the HIMARS were the most coveted system in the times when Kiev wanted to stop the Russian advance in order to start the process of putting pressure on Russia; the Leopards were the requirement for the preparation of the 2023 counteroffensive and the F-16s, the solution to its failure. The consolidation of the front and the chronic nature of trench warfare made the idea of ​​winning the war by recovering a significant part of the lost territory unviable, forcing Russia to give up even more. Plan B quickly appeared, in the same way as previous versions of the miracle weapons had done. Attacking the Russian rear with Western missiles would achieve what two years of war and the most severe sanctions regime of the moment had not been able to do: prevent Russia from continuing to fight normally.

During the months-long campaign to get Joe Biden to allow the use of ATACMS, Storm Shadow and Scalps on Russian territory beyond Crimea, the main argument was the effect they had on the peninsula, where according to media such as Foreign Policy the attacks have succeeded in limiting Russian control. The effect of the weapons is not measured in destruction or deaths caused, but in their ability to achieve their objectives. There is no metric by which it can be argued that Russian control over Crimea has been reduced, but the time and the need for drastic measures to quickly improve Ukraine's position on the front in the months before the arrival of Donald Trump and his pacifist agenda were enough to guarantee Zelensky what he asked for. Now, the same media that revealed the news that the attacks in Russia were imminent, questions Ukraine's ability to have the desired effect.

Since Kiev got the US president to lift the ban on the use of missiles on Russian territory, the situation on the front has not only not changed, but has even worsened for Ukraine. According to British intelligence, which is not given to publishing news unfavourable to its ally, Kiev has lost around half of the territory captured in its surprise offensive in August. And although retaining any part of that territory by the time Trump takes office on 20 January will be presented as a success – doubly so, since, according to Ukraine, it is not only facing Russia but also the People’s Republic of Korea – the difficulties in Kursk also translate into losses in Donbass, the main front. Despite the good words of The New York Times, which even attributes the reduction in the use of missiles in Russia to an attempt not to alienate Donald Trump, the reality is that the bombings of Russian territory have not undermined the capacity of Russian troops to continue their attacks according to plan.

“Kiev is running out of missiles,” laments the New York Times , adding that “it may be running out of time: President-elect Donald Trump has publicly stated that allowing the use of long-range American-made missiles has been a grave mistake.” “So far, the missiles have been effective in some ways,” the paper continues, only able to name one positive effect achieved by the bombings: forcing Russia to move away part of its military infrastructure, something that, in reality, had already begun from the moment Moscow assumed that Kiev would get the United States to allow the use of the missiles it was already supplying to Ukraine for targets in Crimea and the southern territories. That foresight – logical, since this war has shown that, over time, Kiev tends to get the weapons it demands from its allies – eliminated the surprise effect and limited the damage that the bombings could do. What's more, drones, which are much more abundant, have shown the greatest capacity to cause damage to Russia's infrastructure, such as refineries, which it cannot move to inland regions of the country. The New York Times attributes the limited effect of the bombings to the shortage of missiles and the delay in decision-making.

“In the spring, President Biden relented,” the outlet explains. “The administration sent up to 500 missiles from the Pentagon’s stockpile to Ukraine, US officials say,” it adds, giving a figure of a significant number with which some tangible result would have been expected, which has not occurred. “Although Ukraine could not use them in Russia, they were fired at targets in Russian-controlled eastern Ukraine and Crimea, captured by Russia in 2014, aimed at hardening command and control posts, troop storage points and other bunkers,” the article writes, unable to explain why Russian troops continued to advance in their capture of territory and Kiev has had to raise the stakes to try to maintain a stable front that has faltered in its most fortified parts in the last year. In the end, the only problem The New York Times finds to justify why there are no results in sight is the same one that Ukraine alleges: the slowness in decision-making, which undermines Ukrainian capabilities.

The conclusion is always the same: the latest miracle weapons have not had the desired effect, either because there were not enough of them - although 500 missiles are a respectable number, especially considering that for months they have been mainly aimed at a territory as limited as Crimea - or because they arrived too late, or because they posed a dilemma in the face of the arrival of Donald Trump. In any case, one must always insist on another basic idea: despite the threats, the bombings with Western weapons on Russian territory have not escalated the war.

“Two American officials explained that they believe Russia is trying to avoid an escalation of military operations in Ukraine, especially with the election of Mr. Trump, a long-time skeptic of the war, and given Russia’s recent successes on the battlefield,” the article adds, admitting, de facto , that the bombings have not had the desired effect and that Russia has not escalated the war because it has not needed to. The New York Times mentions the launch of a medium-range ballistic missile, an Oreshnik fired without an explosive charge against a common target but which Moscow knows it cannot easily destroy - the Soviet Union built its strategic industry with the capacity to withstand this type of war - but insists that, in the rest of the cases, it has responded to the attacks using only drones or common missiles.

The exertion of pressure on the authorities to approve the delivery of new weapons or to increase the flow of those already being supplied requires classifying any action by the opponent as an escalation - the presence of North Korean troops in Kursk - while denying that any effect caused by these shipments - such as the use of hypersonic missiles and the announcement of their mass production as a warning - is in fact an escalation. The sequence of events shows that, since Ukraine invaded the Kursk Oblast and missile attacks against Russian territory were authorized, the destruction of civilian infrastructure critical to the survival of the population has increased, an objective example of the escalation of the war in response to Ukrainian and Western action. However, for those who want to continue the spiral and defend an ever faster supply of weapons, any reaction that does not involve a nuclear explosion can easily be used as an argument to claim that Ukraine has invaded Russia or bombed the territory with NATO weapons and Russia has done nothing .

https://slavyangrad.es/2024/12/28/misil ... su-efecto/

Google Translator

******

From Cassad's Telegram account:

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Russian Ministry of Defense on the progress of repelling the attempted invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into the territory of the Russian Federation in the Kursk Region (as of December 28, 2024)

The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation continue to defeat the formations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk Region.

- Units of the North group of forces defeated the formations of four mechanized, heavy mechanized, tank, three airborne assault brigades , a marine brigade and four territorial defense brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the areas of the settlements of Alexandria, Viktorovka, Darino, Kurilovka, Lebedevka, Leonidovka, Martynovka, Nizhny Klin, Nikolayevo-Daryino, Nikolsky, Novoivanovka, Plekhovo and Sverdlikovo.

- Strikes by operational-tactical and army aviation , artillery fire hit enemy manpower and equipment in the areas of the settlements of Ivashkovsky, 1-y Knyazhiy, Kruglenkoye, Kurilovka, Lebedevka, Leonidove, Malaya Loknya, Martynovka, Makhnovka, Nizhny Klin, Nikolayevo-Daryino, Nikolsky, Novoivanovka, Novaya Sorochina, Plekhovo, Sverdlikovo, Cherkasskoye Porechnoye, as well as Basovka, Belovody, Vorozhba, Zhuravka, Malaya Rybitsa and Pavlovka in the Sumy region. - Over the past 24 hours, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost more than 250 servicemen, an infantry fighting vehicle , an armored combat vehicle , six cars and five mortars were destroyed. One Ukrainian serviceman surrendered. - In total, during the military operations in the Kursk direction, the enemy lost more than 44,820 servicemen, 259 tanks, 200 infantry fighting vehicles, 141 armored personnel carriers, 1,346 armored combat vehicles, 1,217 cars, 332 artillery pieces, 42 multiple launch rocket system launchers, including 11 HIMARS and six MLRS made in the USA, 13 anti-aircraft missile system launchers, seven transport and loading vehicles, 82 electronic warfare stations, 13 counter-battery radars, four air defense radars, 28 units of engineering and other equipment, including 13 engineering obstacle clearance vehicles, one UR-77 mine clearing unit , seven armored repair and recovery vehicles and a command and staff vehicle.

The operation to destroy the Ukrainian Armed Forces formations continues.

***

Colonelcassad
Summary of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation (as of December 28, 2024 ) Main:

- Russian air defense systems shot down three HIMARS projectiles and 104 UAVs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in one day;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost two tanks, including one Leopard, three infantry fighting vehicles and up to 450 soldiers in the area of ​​​​the "Center" grouping in one day;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost more than 440 soldiers in one day in the area of ​​​​responsibility of the "West" grouping of forces;

- As a result of the actions of the "North" and "Dnepr" groups, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost more than 160 fighters in one day;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 160 people in one day as a result of the actions of the "East" group;

- The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 260 soldiers in one day in the area of ​​​​responsibility of the "South" grouping.

- The Russian Armed Forces hit the infrastructure of a military airfield and a fuel and lubricants warehouse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in one day.

▫️Units of the "East" group of forces improved their tactical position, defeated the formations of two mechanized , motorized infantry brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and a territorial defense brigade in the areas of the settlements of Constantinople, Perebudova and Zelenoye Pole of the Donetsk People's Republic. They repelled a counterattack by an enemy assault group. The Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 160 servicemen, four vehicles, a 155-mm self-propelled artillery mount "Bogdana" , a 122-mm self-propelled artillery mount "Gvozdika" , a 122-mm howitzer D-30 and a 105-mm howitzer L-119 made in Great Britain.

▫️Units of the Dnepr group of forces defeated the manpower and equipment of the mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and two territorial defense brigades in the areas of the settlements of Antonovka, Prydniprovskoye, Nikolskoye and Veletskoye in the Kherson region. The Armed Forces of Ukraine lost more than 80 servicemen, two vehicles, a 152-mm D-20 gun and an electronic warfare station.

▫️ Operational-tactical aviation , strike unmanned aerial vehicles, missile forces and artillery of the Russian Armed Forces groups damaged the infrastructure of a military airfield, a fuel and lubricants depot of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as concentrations of enemy manpower and military equipment in 148 areas.

▫️Air defense systems shot down three US-made HIMARS multiple launch rockets and 104 aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles, including 57 outside the special military operation zone.

▫️ In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the following have been destroyed: 650 aircraft, 283 helicopters, 38,752 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 anti-aircraft missile systems, 20,072 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,504 multiple launch rocket system combat vehicles, 20,058 field artillery pieces and mortars, and 29,603 units of special military vehicles.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

Ukraine’s Reckless Drone Attacks Are Responsible For The Azerbaijan Airlines Tragedy

Andrew Korybko
Dec 27, 2024

Image

Pandora’s Box of speculation was already opened by the US and Ukraine so there’s no need for Russia to restrain itself from injecting its own speculation, albeit that which is much more reasonable, into the global discourse.

CNN cited an unnamed US official to report that the crash of Azerbaijan Airlines flight J2-8243 in Kazakhstan, which was traveling from Baku to Grozny before suddenly veering off course towards the Caspian Sea, might have been caused by Russian air defenses mistakenly firing on it. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned against indulging in speculation and to wait until the investigation is concluded, but his advice obviously went unheeded by the US, which has an interest in shaping the narrative.

In this case, it wants to absolve Ukraine of responsibility after it turned out that it had launched long-range drone strikes on Grozny around the time of the incident, which could have either led to Russian air defenses mistakenly firing on the plane or the shrapnel from a destroyed drone could have hit it instead. RT reported that the preliminary investigation hypothesized that a bird strike was to blame, but footage of the crashed plane appearing pockmarked prompted speculation that something else happened.

The viral spread of CNN’s report, which carries an air of authority for some since it cites an unnamed US official, necessitates that it be challenged despite Peskov cautioning against any speculation. The sequence of events that unfolded does indeed suggest that something happened in the air on the way to Grozny that resulted in the plane suddenly veering off course towards the Caspian, but the post-crash footage suggests that it might have been hit by drone debris instead of a direct air defense hit.

Regardless of whichever explanation one deems to be more credible, the point is that both were caused by Ukraine’s reckless drone attacks against Grozny, which is far away from the special operation zone. This week’s weren’t the first, and the reason why that city has been targeted likely has to do with Ukraine’s belief that these attacks can spark political unrest in that formerly separatist region, thus opening up a so-called “second front” for diverting Russia’s attention and forces from the primary one.

A supplementary objective can be intuited by what a top Ukrainian official told CNN in their report. Andrey Kovalenko, who’s the head of the “Center for Countering Disinformation” that’s part of the National Security and Defense Council, told them that “Russia should have closed the airspace over Grozny but failed to do so.” In other words, these drone attacks were deliberately meant to create an unsafe environment, which would either coerce Russia into closing its airspace or cause a tragedy.

Closing its entire southern airspace indefinitely as a precaution due to the long range of Ukrainian drones would have objectively been an overreaction with incalculable financial costs just like if the US would have done the same in response to mysterious drone sightings over the East Coast earlier this month. Nevertheless, precisely because Russia didn’t do so, Ukraine and its media allies will now predictably claim that this was irresponsible after what happened even though Kiev is to blame as explained.

What Russia needs to do as soon as possible is push back against this emerging information warfare narrative by maximally emphasizing how reckless it is for Ukraine to carry out drone attacks so far away from the special operation zone, let alone against civilian infrastructure like local airports. Pandora’s Box of speculation was already opened by the US and Ukraine so there’s no need for Russia to restrain itself from injecting its own speculation, albeit that which is much more reasonable, into the global discourse.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/ukraines ... ttacks-are

******

John Varoli – Donetsk Diary – What the White House Doesn’t Want Americans to Know
December 26, 2024
By John Varoli, Substack, 12/4/24

Below is my exclusive interview with a Russian war reporter who grew up in Donetsk and lived in Kiev until 2018. She tells the truth that western regimes are trying to hide.

Svetlana Pikta was born in a mid-size city in the Volgograd Region, but at the age of two, her parents were sent to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, to the city of Donetsk. At first, they lived in the suburbs, in Peski, and later in Donetsk itself. Her childhood and youth were spent there. She was part of the Ukrainian youth Olympic swimming team. Training was mostly in Kurakhove (where battles now rage), and competitions were all across Ukraine. She has visited nearly every city in Ukraine. Later, she moved to Kiev, where she lived for 18 years and her children were born there. During her last pregnancy, she was attacked by two dozen members of C14, a Ukrainian Neo-Nazi group that was angry with her opposition to Kiev’s brutal crackdown on Donbass. In 2018, she and her family fled to the city of Yaroslavl (Russia) where she now works in TV as a war reporter and often travels to the front.

Below is my full and unabridged interview with Svetlana, originally conducted in Russian and which I translated. All her observations are very interesting and insightful. But one of the most important is her confirmation that the Ukrainian Army began a murderous bombing of Donetsk and other cities in Donbass one full week before President Putin sent an expeditionary force to protect the locals and attempt to compel Kiev to sit at the negotiating table, (something that the West mistakenly calls “the Russian invasion”).

Q: What was life like in Donetsk before Kiev began to bomb the city?

In 2013, life in Donetsk was very prosperous. The city competed with Kiev and often surpassed it in terms of both culture and infrastructure. The oligarch Rinat Akhmetov built Ukraine’s finest airport and finest stadium, the “Donbass Arena.” Businesses thrived. Nobody was concerned about language or politics; it seemed like everyone was only interested in making money.
Q: Why did Kiev bomb Donetsk and other places in Donbass in May 2014?

When the so-called “Maidan” occurred in Kiev, Donbass was left with a choice: either die fighting or die without resisting. The illegal insurrection in Kiev saw the rise to power of radical nationalist forces intent on destroying ethnic Russians and all things Russian. Despite the efforts of the Soviet Union and later an independent Ukraine, Donbass never truly became Ukrainian (there had been a policy of forced Ukrainization). It became clear that Donbass was being prepared as a sacrificial pawn, a pretext to entice Moscow into a war with the many years of lawlessness and genocide of the local Russian population.
The pro-western Maidan regime, which unfortunately was recognized by Russia, was entirely subordinate to the West. President Poroshenko promised, while speaking publicly, that “the children of Donbass will sit in basements [under bombs], while our [Ukrainian] children will study.” He made it clear that Kiev was going to continue to devastate Donbass. The Maidan [insurrection in winter 2014] was orchestrated to provoke a war with Russia; but Moscow hesitated and only entered the war in 2022, unfortunately. When I visited Donbass after fighting began, I saw children playing with the shells of bombs, and my hair turned gray.Donetsk boy plays with army projectile
Q: When you lived in Kiev did you protest against the massacres in Donetsk?

At that time, camps were organized for Ukrainian children, encouraging them to collect items for the Neo-Nazis of the Azov regiment who actively destroyed Donbass and murdered civilians. Essentially, all the children of Ukraine were made to become complicit in the bloodshed of their fellow countrymen. In every school, they organized collections of blankets, socks, etc for Azov. Children were involved in training camps for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This is a well-known tactic described by Dostoevsky in Demons — a shared crime binds together a group of people. Ukrainian society at that time lacked solidarity and purpose. Kiev used the war against the people of Donbass to unite the rest of Ukraine.
One day, in a chat group raising funds for Ukrainian soldiers, I posted a photo of a monument commemorating the children of Donbass killed by the Ukrainian army. What happened? I was hounded and persecuted by Ukrainian journalists, the SBU [secret police], and later Neo-Nazis from C14, the youth wing of the “Svoboda” party affiliated with the SBU. My name was added to the Mirotvorets database [Kiev’s list of dissidents marked for assassination]. Ukrainian police ignored my complaints. I was pregnant and forced to hide daily from 9 AM to 6 PM except on weekends. Why only during those hours? We realized that Neo-Nazis appeared only during working hours, meaning they were on someone’s payroll. It was both amusing and sad, but after 6 PM we got a reprieve. They threatened violence when they pounded on my door. Eventually, I couldn’t bear it; I was too frightened. Moreover, I was pregnant. We decided to flee to Russia.
Q: Following Kiev’s bombing of Donbass, to where did most people flee?

During the first bombings [2014-15], the vast majority of people — over a million — fled to Russia. At the time, White House press secretary Jen Psaki callously and cynically remarked that those refugees had gone “to visit their grandmothers” in Russia. Most later returned home, as they tired of living off Russia’s support.
Q: What was life like in Donetsk from 2014-2022?

The years 2014-2016 were dramatic in the intensity of the conflict; later it was less-tense but still the shelling was deadly. The frontline regions didn’t see a single quiet day for eight years. I witnessed Ukrainian and Polish mercenaries, snipers, and nationalist battalions “entertaining” themselves by shooting at locals out of boredom. What struck me most was how locals, even six-year-old children, could identify the caliber, type of shell, and even the country of origin of ammunition by its sound. Over time, I also learned to distinguish “outgoing” and “incoming” fire, silent Polish mines, Grads, and howitzers. I was very cautious about where I stepped, many areas were littered with “Petals,” small mines that blow off a foot when stepped on. I especially pitied the elderly and children.Svetlana in Avdeevka after its liberation earlier this year
Q: Could you please tell us about how events developed in February 2022?

A week before the SMO [Special Military Operation] began [Feb 24, 2022], Donetsk faced the heaviest artillery shelling since 2014. Earlier that month (February) nationalist battalions occupied schools in the Zaporozhya and Kherson regions to prepare for an assault on Crimea, (I made a report about this). The population of Donbass was offered mass evacuation to Russia, but 90% refused, having grown accustomed to life under shelling. On Feb 25, water supply ceased in Donetsk after the “Seversky Donets-Donbass” pumping station was shut down due to an energy disruption caused by Ukrainian sabotage. A distinctive feature of this period was the use of HIMARS and other Western 152-155mm shells targeting the city center, deliberately hitting civilian sites and gatherings. In June 2022, I witnessed a HIMARS strike on the central bus station. I saw firsthand the destruction of U.S. missiles, the many dead civilian bodies and the wounded with severed limbs.
Q: Has life improved in Donetsk since the Russian offensive began this year?

After the liberation of Avdeevka and Krasnogorovka, Donetsk has had a slight sense of relief. There is now a fragile concept of “relatively safe districts of Donetsk,” which did not exist previously. Unfortunately, water issues remain severe, but there are a few hours of water supply daily to each area.
Q: Is Donetsk now able to rebuild itself?

Large-scale reconstruction has begun. As soon as it is possible to build without immediate destruction from nearby fighting, construction firms and road workers are eager to get to work. Progress is slower than desired, but Russian authorities have managed to build highways, hospital clinics, maternity wards, and entire new neighborhoods. Nothing of this scale was achieved during the 30 years of Ukrainian rule.
Q: What is life like now in Donetsk?

In Donetsk, I now have my own “paradise,” with water available for a few hours, and heating. My apartment is now warm! During water supply hours, the pressure is enough to run the washing machine, which is a great joy. Bathing still involves pouring water from a pot with a ladle, as the stream is too weak for a shower. But the main thing is the semblance of regular water supply. Usually, I spend mornings filming in different areas under shelling, and when I return, I’m thrilled to be able to wash in a warm apartment. Just six months ago, this was very difficult. I slept under three blankets in winter and bought water for washing.
Q: Could you please tell us about the people of Donetsk? What are they like?

People in Donbass are mostly fatalists. They’ve lived for a long time prepared to die at any moment. The best depiction of these people comes from the sayings I’ve heard: “You won’t hear the shell that’s yours, so why panic?” or “I wear lace underwear so that I won’t be ashamed on the coroner’s table.” Donetsk residents have learned the value of community, closely interacting with neighbors since survival in war isn’t possible alone. Unfortunately, they’ve also become emotionally reserved — smiles or emotions are rare. Warm words are seldom heard. Actions are what matter. To outsiders, they may seem embittered, but this is simply the strictness and composure necessary for survival in war.Ukraine’s American and German-built tanks burn in the Zaporozhya Region — during the disastrous ‘counteroffensive’ of summer 2023
Q: You were recently on the front lines in Zaporozhya Region — what was it like?

In the Zaporozhya region, I was in the frontline Pology district, in the Orekhov direction. I can confirm that there has been a shift in the front line near Robotino. At the time, it was minor, but the wheel has started turning. Many locals still live in fear of the SBU and the nationalist battalions and international brigades; that they might return. The locals fear being caught on camera. And in personal conversations, you hear things that make your hair stand on end. People refer to NATO military contractors and international brigades as “Germans,” which clearly has connotations of World War 2.
There are also pro-Ukrainian individuals, but oddly enough, they were first in line for Russian passports and for the financial aid that Moscow distributed in the conflict zones. I’ve been visiting this area since 2022. Initially, I was told that the locals were all “waiters” (waiting for Ukraine to return), and to be cautious with them. But this is a complete lie spread by the fifth column and those Russian media magnates with villas in the EU. (Such people don’t want Russian people to reunite; they only care about preserving their money in the West and lifting sanctions, pretending to be patriots). These enemies of Russia are lying. The majority of the people in Zaporozhya were waiting for Russia — about 80%. I never return from Zaporozhya empty-handed. Locals give me honey, milk, and homemade wine; simple but heartfelt gifts from people living in a war zone.
Q: How is the fighting morale of Russian troops on the front?

Regarding the troop’s morale on the front: it’s a unique place, where a sense of brotherhood prevails. The world today is very selfish, where people are isolated, even within families, and people often feel alone. We live in a consumer society where comfort has replaced love. On the front lines, however, it’s very different. You’ll see genuine brotherly love, as one soldier told me. Broken or selfish people can’t comprehend this. It reminds me of what my university professor, a World War 2 veteran, used to say. You go to the front to breathe the air of brotherhood. The world of the front lines and civilian life are as different as a plastic tomato is from a real one.
This brotherhood extends not only among the soldiers but also to the locals. For example, some locals refer to soldiers as “son,” and they respond with “dad” or “mom.” They help one another; soldiers share food with locals, who in turn share their internet connections. They are always helping with repairs. Of course, this warmth is only found among the bravest. Many are still afraid that the Russian army might leave, and that there would be reprisals from the Ukrainian Army and SBU. But the number of such people has declined tenfold compared to 2022.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/12/don ... s-to-know/

******

Medley Report: Bilderberg News, Turkey Sets Court in Syria, Ukraine Grid Strikes

Simplicius
Dec 26, 2024

<snip>

Ukraine
Yesterday Russia unleashed another round of energy infrastructure strikes, successfully hitting myriad targets according to reports: (Video at link.)

Missile strikes against the Ukrainian power system hit three hydroelectric power plants on the Dnepr: at Dneprodzerzhinsk, Svetlovodsk, and Kanev.

In addition, strikes were registered on several thermal power plants: Prydneprovskaya, Ladyzhinskaya, and Burshtynskaya. In addition, Russian aerospace forces launched a missile attack on the Slavyanskaya thermal power plant in the occupied Kramatorsk region of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the DPR


According to some reports the strikes this time specifically targeted the heating and water infrastructure:

Today, the attack was not only energy, but also "heating, water and gas". There are arrivals and injuries:

▪ Kharkov. Mass attack of ballistics and UAR. More than 13 explosions. Heating and water disappeared in the city. There is light.
▪ Dnipro. Mass attack with cruise missiles. About 12 explosions. There is damage to the infrastructure.
▪ Kremenchug. More than 5 explosions.
▪ Crooked Horn. Explosions.
▪ Burshtyn. About 8 explosions. The light is gone.


The latest NYT diagnosis of Ukraine’s energy woes leaves a grim picture:

Image
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/worl ... inter.html

Ukraine has so far weathered the effects of three major Russian strikes over the past month by cutting street lighting and imposing intermittent shutdowns to ease pressure on the power grid. But two years of attacks on power plants and substations have left the country’s energy network on the verge of collapse, experts say.

With power outages slated to last 18 hours a day, the West is relying on desperate measures to save Ukraine, according to the article:

That has forced the Ukrainian authorities to turn to unconventional measures to try to avert an energy crisis. It is bringing an entire aging Lithuanian power plant to Ukraine to scavenge parts for the damaged grid; has moved to lease floating power plants from Turkey; and has even requested a U.N. presence at critical substations, hoping to deter Russian attacks.

Using UN personnel as human shields? Well, if that isn’t daft!

Ukrainian director for the Energy Research Center said that power outages will likely last 2-3 years—and that’s under the assumption Russia does no further damage.



A few last items:

A shocking must-see French report on Ukraine’s Kursk operation—they interview one of the participating officers, who dishes the gritty, nihilistic details of how well Zelensky’s operation is going (both dubbed and subtitled versions in the video below): (Video at link.)

Considering it’s a pro-Western report, one can only wonder how anyone can possibly continue believing Ukraine’s casualty figures.

Next, Lukashenko humorously humiliates Armenia’s Pashinyan for not being present in person at the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) meeting in Minsk: (Video at link.)

Lastly, a new poll shows all of Europe’s population has drastically shifted their support for maximalist pro-Ukrainian outcomes, with the majority now shifting in the direction of people who want the war to end even if it means territorial losses for Ukraine:

Image

(Much more at link.)

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/med ... ews-turkey

******

Dear Russia, it’s Ukraine here: call you later?

Lorenzo Maria Pacini

December 27, 2024

The use of alternative modes of conflict elevates the confrontation to another level, entering the domain of terror.

In the course of 2024, the hybrid modes of warfare adopted by the West and Ukraine have been many, but of all of them, one somewhat ‘vintage’ mode still seems to work: telephone scams. The problem is that the use of these alternative modes of conflict elevates the confrontation to another level, entering the domain of terror.

The idea of call centres and the use of criminality

The NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine has been characterized by unconventional attacks as much as conventional ones, although the West has largely focused only on the means by which Russia is conducting what the mainstream media calls hybrid warfare. Reports continue to circulate that Kiev and its Western backers are using Ukrainian phone hackers as a weapon to orchestrate terrorist attacks inside Russia.

It has happened that in the past few days, a series of arsons have caused much damage and disruption across Russia. But this fact is already known. The situation is as follows: since the beginning of the SMO, Ukrainian call centers have been making phone calls to Russian citizens, mainly targeting the elderly, offering scams of all kinds, but also terrorizing them with threats. Most of the calls involve extortion of money and incitement to commit crimes. For instance, the scammers threaten trouble or even the killing of relatives and friends, then ask in return to send money via online or international transfer platforms, or to set fire to objects of military, transport or banking infrastructure.

The way Ukrainian scammers enthusiastically rob Russian citizens has been regarded by the West as ‘correct information and psychological warfare’ and has even been encouraged. But recently this topic has started to penetrate more and more into the pages of the official Western media. In 2023, Europol issued a press release on the crackdown on the scam activities of Ukrainian call centre groups, pointing out that the turnover was in the tens of millions of Euros. Subsequently, in May 2024, information emerged that security forces in Germany and several Balkan countries had unmasked a large European network of telephone scammers with a volume of approximately EUR 10 million. The same happened in the Czech Republic, where many fraudulent phone calls were used to collect money to be channeled into accounts of illegal Ukrainian businesses. The revenue from the call centres does not go to the development of the Ukrainian economy, but is transferred to offshore companies or converted into cryptocurrency.

Last June, U.S.-based BankInfoSecurity reported that Kiev had cracked down on ‘fake investment scams involving the theft of cryptocurrency and payment card data of European and Central Asian citizens’.

In Russia, it is estimated that around 90% of cybercrimes take place through Ukrainian call centres, with technology provided by the West.

About a fortnight ago, the FSB broke up an entire international network of fraudulent call centres with also branches in Russia, with a very high turnover: about 100,000 people from more than 50 countries, all under the direction of Ukrainian-Israeli citizen Yakov Keselman. The guy and his partners organized fake anonymous calls in 2022 about imminent terrorist attacks in Moscow, Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk. They may also have managed the burning of military registration offices, election offices and polling stations. Keselman was arrested, while his main collaborator, David Tovda, a Georgian-Israeli citizen, is still at large. Among the organisers of this network is the former Georgian defence minister, David Kezerashvili, who is also wanted in Georgia.

As reported by the CBC, the ring is truly international, the criminal ring has even reached Canada: the building on Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard is just one of hundreds of fraudulent call centres that have sprung up in Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe, run by a network of about two dozen criminal groups operating worldwide. Every night, around 150 people enter a building in Kiev to work in a call centre. Their only job: to steal Canadians’ life savings through a series of investment scams, promising victims high, risk-free returns on investment schemes involving cryptocurrencies.

There is a curious fact that also involves Italy: in early January 2024, one of these scams had reached the Chief of Staff of the Carabinieri, General Teo Luzi. The officer had received a message via Facebook Messenger, in which scammers tried to impersonate his daughter: the phone was supposedly broken, she was calling from another phone and needed to transfer money ‘urgently’. The Carabinieri realized the deception and stayed on the line promising to transfer the money, while he himself instructed his subordinates to search for the callers. They were identified within a few hours: a 45-year-old Ukrainian woman and her 21-year-old son were found with 25,000 euro in cash, several mobile phones and sim cards.

This course of action has nothing to do with war, but with a desire to instill terror and create concern in the population. What happened in the call centres goes hand in hand with the attack in Kazan with a UAV drone and a series of simultaneous fires in several shopping centres, bank branches and post offices.

The greatest risk is to see the use of this modality for the organisation of larger terrorist attacks or false flags, in various European or Asian countries.

The whole thing is clearly part of a will to terrorise, employing a well-thought-out strategy. As President Putin said during the lengthy end-of-year Q&A, ‘sabotage against Russian citizens is a clear sign of the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime’.

The delicate but crucial boundary between war and terror

For the problem lies, once again, in the will of the illegitimate leadership of Ukraine and the U.S. imperialist: make war or make terror?

The difference between war and terror can be examined through different lenses of strategic science, including geopolitical, operational, and psychological aspects.

War is a state of armed conflict between nations, states, ethnic or ideological groups, with clearly defined political, territorial or ideological objectives. It takes place according to international rules, such as those outlined in the Geneva treaties, which establish norms of behaviour in war, such as the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians.

Wars typically involve organized armies with a clear chain of command, equipped with military resources such as troops, weapons, and logistics. Military operations are planned, with strategies and tactics aimed at achieving battlefield superiority.

The objectives are generally territorial (conquest of land), political (regime change), or strategic (destruction of enemy military capabilities). War often ends in peace treaties or armistices.

War can have a massive psychological impact, but tends to be more focused on troop morale and the civilian population directly involved in the conflict.

Terror, or terrorism, on the other hand, is the use of violence or the threat of violence to instil fear, especially in civilians, to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. It does not follow the conventions of war and often ignores international laws of conflict.

Terrorist organizations may have less formal structures than traditional armies. They may operate in cells, with decentralized or covert leadership, and use asymmetric tactics to exploit surprise and fear.

The objectives of terror are not necessarily territorial but rather psychological and political. The intent is often to destabilize, demoralize, and manipulate public opinion or government to gain concessions or attention.

Terror specifically aims to create a sense of insecurity and widespread fear in the civilian population. Terror attacks are designed to have a multiplier effect on panic and emotional reaction, often amplified by the media.

The differences between the two concepts are very subtle and can be summarized as:

Legitimacy: war is generally seen as a legitimate means of resolving disputes between states or recognized groups, while terror is considered illegitimate and criminal by the international community.
Methodology: war uses organized armed forces with conventional or unconventional but recognized military tactics, while terror adopts guerrilla tactics, indiscriminate attacks, or targeted attacks against civilians.
Purpose and Impact: while war seeks to achieve tangible objectives on the ground, terror seeks to influence perception and behavior through fear.
International Response: wars, it is known, can lead to international intervention or coalitions, while terror often results in security and counter-terrorism responses, which may include clandestine operations or internal security measures.
While war and terror may share the use of violence for political purposes, their modalities, legitimacy, objectives and psychological impacts are profoundly distinct. War seeks to resolve conflicts through direct confrontation, while terror seeks to erode stability and order through fear and uncertainty.

The Kiev regime in concert with Washington and London promoted a war they knew they could not win. Strategically, Ukraine did not have sufficient resources, neither military nor financial, to face a direct conflict with Russia on its own, so the support of the collective West was indispensable…but it turned out to be a mistake and a deception, which only benefited a few and caused a huge market disaster for all countries involved.

One wonders how willing the Ukrainian population is to live under the aegis of state terror, imposed by an illegitimate government that has erased the word ‘democracy’ from the vocabulary and continues to send many young people to the front to die. How much, we wonder, will it be possible for Ukrainians to accept being afraid every day: afraid of being forced to do something they do not want to do, afraid of ending up in the meat mincer of war, afraid of not being able to choose what kind of future to give their country. A climate of terror never leads to political or military success.

The ancient Romans knew this well. Lucius Anneus Seneca (4 B.C. – 65 A.D.), a philosopher of Stoicism, dealt extensively with the subject of terror and tyranny in several of his works, and deserves to be re-read today.

Tyranny represents a government in which power is exercised in an absolute and arbitrary manner, ignoring the law and the Common Good. A tyrant does not rule for the people but for himself, for his own interests, often using cruel and oppressive methods. The tyrant ruler knows no limits to his authority, terror is his law.

Terror is the instrument of tyranny: violence and fear serve to maintain control and prevent any opposition. It is not only a method of government, but real psychological violence on citizens, creating a mechanism of social control that fuels the self-sabotage and repression of citizens among themselves, because the fear of retaliation and punishment drives people to commit wicked acts.

Seneca understood this well when he wrote that this terror not only degrades human freedom and dignity, but also the morality of the sovereign and his own state. Sooner or later, wrote the Stoic philosopher, every tyrant comes to the end that Emperor Nero did: condemned by his own Senate and forced to flee because he was wanted by the people to be killed, he committed suicide by cutting his own throat.

Once again, the struggle of the rich few against the poor many. It was the people who lost out, not the elites. The Ukrainians were set against the Russians by a puppet government piloted by the Hegemon, establishing a fratricidal war that nobody wanted.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... you-later/

Mr Pacini is out of his depth dragging old Seneca into his opus. Romans of the Senatorial class, the optimates had a peculiar view of these things. 'Tyrants' were anybody who usurped the extant political order. Organizing lynch mobs consisting of retainers, gladiators and common thugs to murder hundreds if not thousands of their opponents was GOOD and RIGHTOUS. While plebeians peacefully striving for their rights and improvement was against nature and instilled 'terror' in those senators. The philosopher doth protest too much. The Roman Senate couldn't care less about 'the common good', until they saw the 'torches and pitchforks'.

Again and again, the US ruling class emulates those toga wearing thugs to a 'T'.

******

Drank money for a terrorist attack
December 28, 15:02

Image

Drank money for a terrorist attack

In Kamchatka, an unemployed resident received a call from scammers promising 200 thousand rubles for setting fire to a police car.

Citing a long-standing dislike for the security forces, he agreed and, as proof of his serious intentions, asked for an advance payment of 50 thousand rubles.

He used the transferred amount to buy alcohol at a nearby store and, in a state of alcoholic intoxication, demanded that the advance payment be doubled. The scammers refused to pay this amount a second time, but agreed to pay another 20 thousand rubles, with which this character again bought alcohol and stopped answering calls.

The most successful counterintelligence radio game since SMERSH.

https://t.me/belarusian_silovik/47010 - zinc

Google Translator

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9578356.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply