Monday, October 31, 2022

NATO v RUSSIA via Ukraine: The Impossible War

   


  Who ever said war was a truthful environment? 

   Of course, nobody. 

   That old aphorism of "truth being the first casualty of war" seems quaint in the modern-day environment post WWII. If only they could have imagined it back in 1943. Modern communications, 24hr news and the Internet. They could have thrown reality out the window. With this power, they could have made war anything they wanted it to be and convinced a population to kill. This has been done throughout history and this is where we are now. But on steroids.

   The current enemy is Russia. 

   Maybe I could go hard with facts (and I will soon) but what I really want to know is why the US and EU have disrupted energy markets, destroyed Germany and the EU's natural gas supply all for a border dispute on Russia's border with Ukraine. It's nobody's business outside of the interested parties.

    I made a prediction that Russia could not win this war in a month. But that they would win this war eventually. I stick by that. That was back in March when Western media was salivating that Russia had already failed. In my previous posts, I got most of it right and some of it wrong. Nobody got this war right. Because this war has changed from an initial border dispute between a minor power versus a larger power which Russia should have won in a month and did not and has now transformed into a conflict involving Western Civilization versus the rise of the East (China + vassal states) and the energy Russia can supply to it overland negating China's weakness.... sea power.

    In simpler terms, a clash of civilizations is being forced.




     Eurasia is a land power. But it is too huge to ever be a unit. Right?

     The idea that China via Russia could build a high-speed Silk Road highway to Europe is terrifying to US strategic planning. If it were ever complete, if you could drive or take a high-speed train from Paris to Beijing, then the US becomes an island far from commerce. This is not the reason for the war in Ukraine, but it is a major geopolitical concern.

     Ukraine is a battlefield.

     It is the open ground where greater powers choose to do battle.

    This war began as Russia v Ukraine.

    And Russia believed they could win quickly. They drove South and reached the outskirts of Kiev. They drove East and captured Mariupol. That alone would be an armistice option. "Let's make a deal". And any logical deal that does not involve losing your own territory is a good deal. But the Ukrainians did not make it.

    Why?

     Because the Ukrainians are not running this war, NATO is. The orders, the money and the weapons are coming from the West. Because the West is afraid. The West is not afraid of the Russian military. The West is afraid of the challenge to their global hegemony via the petrodollar currency. And their governments are willing to blame their rampant inflation and failing economies on a border dispute in Eastern Europe that most citizens could not even point out on a map. 

  There are many reasons why the West has inflated its currency, but they are beyond the scope of this article.

  With this background, let's talk war. 



   "War is a racket," said Smedley Butler and he was not wrong. What defies logic is that the United States has sent 100 billion dollars to keep Ukraine afloat while its own homeless population is in the millions and dollar inflation defies logic. For what reason? After invading Iraq on a fake premise and abandoning Afghanistan on a whim, there is no moral authority here; so, what is this obsession with a border dispute in Europe? It's hard to believe I wrote about it eight years ago.

   It is a geopolitical move to prevent a symbiotic relationship between the Europeans and the Russians based on energy exchange (oil and gas) in exchange for access to the vast EU service economy. With the sabotage of both Nordstream I and II Baltic pipelines by 'mystery actors' (this stuff reads like a cheap spy novel where you already know the culprit after the first chapter).

   So, the question remains... who is winning the Impossible War?

   According to Western media, Ukraine is smashing the Russian Army. Since, I've got no dog in this fight, I'd like it to be true because I love the underdog in every sport or war. But unfortunately, this war is a disaster for Ukraine. NATO is running the war and that means satellite intelligence, logistic support, training of Ukrainian troops by foreign countries, mass conscription (fifth round), 18–50-year Olds and throwing these men into a fodder line. This is good for spotting weaknesses in the Russian line and successful attacks have been made south of Kharkov. But these successes were orchestrated to make your tax dollars feel like they are achieving something.

  I hate maps of war. Especially while a war is ongoing. But I'll go with the Swiss Map. The Swiss are neutral right? They got away with that in WWII so why not now?

  https://uawardata.com/

 

Odessa must be had.
  

    I don't think the Russians will stop until they take Odessa. Not only is Odessa a city by the sea beloved of many Russians, but most of the people who live there despite the Ukrainian Government banning the Russian language in 2014 in the city and since the CIA coup under Nuland in 2014, it exists, despite the apartheid as a Russian city.

   Militarily, it will be a difficult advance. But the Russians have mobilized 300,000 men. The Russian public wants this. Apart from the difficult advance, Odessa's capture will cut Ukraine off from the sea and render it a non-viable state. It must be had.

   War is merciless but never impossible.


This just keeps getting more insane.


   Addendum: I'll add to the following to clarify things. I am not a supporter of Russia or Ukraine. I pick no sides. I view what can be seen. War in its naked interest via Western media already includes enough uncritical propaganda for Ukraine. What is of interest is the geopolitics, motivations, resources and constraints of the prime movers fueling this clusterfuck.


Zelensky himself has thus far done a brilliant job in his presidential and ambassadorial role maintaining western political support, and the Ukranian army are legendary heroes for holding out against Russia with all of their clumsy bludgeoning firepower. Ukraine's savior was both NATO assistance and the halting of modern Russia's military reforms.

 1) I believe Russia made a global INTEL mistake by invading with insufficient data. Who could have known back in February that the US would throw 80 billion dollars into Ukraine's defense and persuade its NATO allies (EU vassal states) to throw in $20 billion more.

2) I think it is clear now what Russia's initial gambit was. Throw 160,000 troops at the Ukrainians, drive a convoy at Kiev and hope that a minimal use of regular army troops could trigger a surrender achieved by a simple demonstration of force. This was a gross miscalculation and did not happen mainly because US war planners took over this war with the full capabilities of NATO satellite intelligence, weapons imports and raw cash injections which basically keeps the Ukrainian civil service and government alive and on a payroll.

3) The US government has gone off reservation. With the sabotaging of the undersea Nord Stream pipelines, it has made sure that there is no profit for the EU (and especially Germany) if they choose detente with Russia either through the realpolitik of dependence on Russian energy supply for their industry or when the riots start in Europe due to cost of living increases. We can already see this as European currencies nosedive while the dollar increases in value despite the fact that 40% of dollars in circulation were printed in the last two years.

4) The game is more now dangerous than ever. With Russia changing its stance to a war footing and the US and its EU vassal states (which Putin correctly pointed out in his speech; the EU is a vassal state of the US since the Post WWII Marshall Plan) persisting in attritional type warfare using the men of Ukraine as pawns in a proxy war versus Russia, supplied and armed and trained by NATO, we are entering new territory.

5) Conclusion: For the first time since the post war Bretton Woods accord, the US is not being viewed as a rational actor by those who should (China, India, Malaysia, SE Asia). Its actions scream of desperation and maintaining dollar reserve status. Also, Russia has not thought out its actions and seriously underestimated the West's response. The price of this miscalculation will echo down the decades. Russia has now permanently married itself to the East and will be gobbled up for its energy by China. It's passing grade in the war has not helped it. The EU is not a serious entity. It's encroaching bureaucracy, insane energy policies and embrace of globalism and mass emigration has weakened it.

   So here we are. Peace seems impossible. The New Cold War I predicted in 2019 is in full effect. And I take no pleasure in this.

   We sit and we watch and witness.

   An impossible war. 


   

93 comments:

  1. The impossible post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are we the bad guys?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "And Russia believed they could win quickly. They drove South and reached the outskirts of Kiev. They drove East and captured Mariupol. That alone would be an armistice option. "Let's make a deal". And any logical deal that does not involve losing your own territory is a good deal. But the Ukrainians did not make it.
    Why?"

    Let me explain an alternative theory (that was brought up by a talking head on Russian TV, of all places, where he was quickly shut up). He reminded the putinite host of Russian's own holding of Leningrad against the Germans. And he told the audience that this is Ukraine's Leningrad.

    In WWII, the Germans believed they would take the Soviet Union quickly. They reached the outskirts of Moscow. They sieged Leningrad for 872 days, during which people starved and died in unimaginable ways. And yet, there's no record of the Soviet Union trying to cut a deal at that time.

    For Ukrainians, there is no armistice option, because they know that any deal with Putin will evaporate as soon as Russia has time to build up its military to take some more of what it wants. It's like trying to make a deal with a grizzly bear that wants to eat you. A large of them are willing to bear their own Leningrad, if it means being rid of Putin's threats once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see what you say. But if you are using the Wehrmacht's invasion of the East (OstFront) and Army Group North's siege of Leningrad as a standard or replica of this war, then you have fallen into a very bad analogy. This War is nothing like the strategic situation of old and neither does it belong to WWII tactical doctrine. Modern warfare is based on area denial via satellite intelligence, MLRS saturation and total AA defense systems. Modern warfare is not what you think it is.

      Delete
    2. Kind of hard to take your analysis (or impartiality for that matter) serious anymore when you refer repeatedly to the mass invasion of a sovereign state as simply "a border dispute".

      Delete
    3. Is Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya mass invasions or border disputes? What exactly do you claim? That war is bad? Then I agree with you.

      Delete
  4. I came here from Twitter. I like your analysis. Are you a CIA whistleblower or are you just fucking with us?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good analysis, very insightful. Read your post from 8 years ago as well. Your prediction at the end was spot on. Did you hit popcorn overdose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been on popcorn overdose for the last 3 years.

      Delete
  6. Good stuff. But serious question. Why would anyone view the belt-road thing as a threat? I'm American and I think a train from Paris to Beijing sounds great. Way more efficient and better for the environment that all those container ships too. I don't buy that part being a threat to anyone, that makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Belt and Road initiative is not simply about a road or rail commuter line from Paris to Shanghai. It's more complicated than that. The Chinese have billions of US dollars as trade surplus from the US offshoring of its industrial manufacturing base. The Chinese are stuck with a warehouse full of paper. However, while this paper has value, they better spend it fast. The Chinese economy, despite what people think is incredibly precarious. Hence the belt and road initiative and the buying up of Africa. The Chinese are using their excess dollars to buy land, resources and mineral deposits in foreign lands. Why? So, they can sell rare earth metals back to the US and Europeans when they become dependent on battery technology. The Chinese weakness is their sea lines and their inability to feed their population. The Belt and Road initiative is the Chinese attempt to corner the market on rare earth metals so you can have a phone before they run out of food.

      Delete
  7. Now wrap your head around this one. Liz Truss was PM for 20 days before the NS1 and NS2 explosion(s). You don't conceptualize and actualize a major geopolitical play in 20 days. It had been in the 'pipeline' long before she came in. The fact she allegedly reported to some US wanker "it's done" means it was at least a joint plan, likely US led. Now, did Boris get ousted for refusing to comply with the Yanks, or did Liz get ousted for complying with the Yanks, or is it both? Assuming any of this is true of course.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >And Russia believed they could win quickly. They drove South and reached the outskirts of Kiev. They drove East and captured Mariupol. That alone would be an armistice option. "Let's make a deal". And any logical deal that does not involve losing your own territory is a good deal. But the Ukrainians did not make it.

    why would they do it? any deal made with russia would be invalidated as soon as russia feels strong enough to take more be it land or political influence in ukraine or whatever, russia cannot be trusted with anything they are a bully and you dont make deals with bullies

    i think what you are missing here is perspective of people that are much closer to the conflict especially those that already experience russian/soviet rule before

    personally as someone from eastern europe i lived under soviet rule (even if not directly, poland technically wasn't part of a soviet republic) soviet army was stationed 10km away from my home and currently russian nukes are as close as 300km

    i heard enough from my parents and grandparents which witnessed first hand soviet "liberation" and post war occupation

    not much has changed with russian mentality since then, if i were ukrainian i would never support any deal
    and cutting (especially energy) ties with russia is extremely important for countries like poland (gas bulling was already thing for decades and got even worse with nordstream project)


    as sad as it is it took war for the western europe to maybe realize that as well

    ReplyDelete
  9. How much significance do you think there is for the western defense industry establishing a revenue stream by infusing their platforms into this? Same profit motives as "incidentally" leaving behind so much US hardware when leaving Afghanistan, but with a more proactive approach. When the dashboard light starts blinking, the nearest repair shop is only a phone call away at 1-800-US-ARMS-4U

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a recycling process. Advanced arms manufacturing is the only native industry that the US has kept. All else has been off shored in a process known as "Financialization". To your point, military aid to Ukraine is an easy way to wash money. You take a portion of the output of the US taxpayer, send some of it to Ukraine as a "loan", have your defense industry produce the weapons, provide the payment for those weapons and loans to buy those weapons via a black hole war zone and now you've got billionaires and wealth transfer. And the wealth being transferred is the taxes on the work of the average US and EU citizen. If the citizenry knew it, they would rebel and stop it. But they can't know it. Because nobody tells them. The lesson of the French Revolution was not to destroy monarchy but to capture power using an ancient Athenian idea called 'democracy'.

      Delete
    2. Evidence of weapon system performance in Ukraine is going straight into the sales brochures. Some arms companies missed the boat, womp womp.

      The coming global military buildup will be very profitable... all with taxpayer money of course.

      Delete
    3. Looks like you were spot on with your description of military and monetary aid to Ukraine as being 'a recycling process' and a money laundering operation. With the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, the transactions of by Ukraine into the Ponzi scheme and the recycling of vast monies back to the Democratic Party, I think we might be witnessing one of the greatest scandals against the US taxpayer in history. Interesting that that bomb landed in Poland today. The mainstream need a story to deflect the news cycle away from a scandal far bigger than Hunter Biden's laptop and the family's Burisma dealings.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

      Delete
  10. So you appear to be a very smart guy from twiiter so tell me what is my way out of this? I got a wife and two kids. I'm 33 years old and I got a decent job but no much savings. I live in a post industrial town in the North East US and its enough to keep the lights on. What should I do to protect my family?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I could give you a straight up answer to this question. But I can't. If you're living outside a city and have some arable land around you, you are ahead of the game. If you have not, then that should be your goal. Western Civilization will not collapse over night. No Empire ever does. Empires collapse slowly, inexorably and worst of all, without you noticing. The darkness is that your children and grandchildren will see this but not notice it. To them. the world will seem like it ever was. Humans adapt to the environment they are born into.
      I fear we are the last generation to know a world our grandchildren will know nothing about.

      Delete
  11. They are lying to you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with most of what you say but I think Odessa is a bridge too far. Everything West of the Dnieper will be taken.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Russians military command just announced the withdrawal of the 30k+ troops defending untenable Kherson back over the Dnieper to fortified positions on the southern bank. If true, a significant loss for Russia and victory for Ukraine.

    One of the most memorable videos of the war is the Antonovsky bridge ringing like a huge concrete bell as it gets hit by multiple precision GMLRS strikes. That was back in August when the front line was much further away. Now most of the inland south will be in range.

    It will be interesting to see how the Russian government and public reacts to one of their de jure cities falling to the enemy. They said they would go to extreme lengths to defend Russian soil. Hopefully nothing leading to a nuclear suntan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, the retreat at Kherson is very significant. That position on the west bank of the river was untenable logistically (due in no small part to Ukrainian pressure). With the bridges down, resupply was difficult. They've already evacuated the civilian population of the city (60,000 people) in an operation 2 weeks ago and the military withdrawal is doubtful as precursor to using a tactical nuke. With Kiev becoming itself untenable with no power or water as winter draws in, and the US signaling a deal, I think the Russians are willing to call it a day or as Lennon might say, 'give peace a chance'.

      Delete
  14. Hey Wartard,
    Wondering if Russians "retreating" back over the river is part of a negotiated peace. Rus does not get what they wanted nor did Ukraine. Putin has his off ramp? Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a great question. It's either one of two things. Consolidation or peace. The Russian position on the West Bank of the river in Kherson is logistically weak (with the bridges down they will need reinforcements and the ground to freeze to allow armor across and mass reinforcements to arrive. The Russians could call it a day here, accept that Odessa is a bridge to far and costly and see if a deal can be made. They already have all the objectives (mostly) of the Special Military Operation. With NATO seemingly fully committed to resupplying Ukraine this might be an honorable way out.
      On the other hand, With Kiev about to be evacuated simply because of its energy and water situation, and the US and NATO possibly seeing that a Winter offensive with the entire Russian Army possible one million men (they haven't stopped mobilizing) and hard frozen ground being conducive to Russian armor, now might be a time for Ukraine to accept reality before they lose Odessa and their access to the sea (rendering them a hopeless, 'sick man of Europe' state for decades.
      There is an opportunity here for peace.
      Ukraine has fought the good fight, and nobody can say they 'lost'.
      Russia has had to go far harder than they ever expected to and the East bank in Kherson might be a place to draw a line. They have lost the information war where it matters and if Western TV screens are filled with images of 2 million women and children abandoning Kiev over Christmas even the Chinese might waver simply from the sheer horror of it all.
      If peace cannot be made here, then where else and how and when?

      Delete
    2. "The surrender of Kherson is the largest geopolitical defeat of Russia since the collapse of the USSR." -Sergei Markov, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/09/russia-withdraws-kherson-ukraine/

      Delete
    3. Are you serious? Do you have any idea of the history of warfare? And especially Russian warfare? No, you don't. All you know is what's trending on twitter right now. Do I have to explain Napoleon's occupation of Moscow. Do I have to explain the Germans' capturing 3 million Russian regular' soldiers in August/September 1941 in operation Ostfront? In Ukraine by the way where they were welcomed with flowers and Edelweiss? Do I have to mention WWI and the total collapse of Tsarist society into depraved Bolshevism which led to five decades of tyranny? No, I don't'. Because if you knew anything about history, you wouldn't have floated the question in the first place.

      Delete
    4. I'm merely quoting Sergei Markov. He seems to be one that should have some insight; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Markov

      Delete
    5. Mate, I honestly think you are a vatnik living in the west. Try living in Russia or under their rule for abit. Or read about what Russia did in liberated countries. I know I would fight against Russian occupation that that part of my motherlands history would not repeat. I'm interested if you would collaborate with with people that try to occupy your country? As far as I understand you are Australian? So most likely it would be China for you.
      However, that out of the way the reason I even started replyingis to mention that even in the quote the guy provided it is written "since the collapse of the USSR." So way are you writing about WWI and Napoleon? God, you are so invested in this.

      Delete
    6. WT is off the rails. Pompous ass. Knows all about history. He knows f***all

      Delete
    7. Instead of the ad hominem attacks against WT, can any of you write a 400 word paragraph detailing why he is wrong? I'd be interested to hear the counter argument.

      Delete
  15. War Tard just like Putin still calling it a Special Military Operation!! FFS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the fuck are you talking about? NATO called the invasion of Iraq "Iraqi Freedom". What is wrong with using the terms designated by the participants? Get the fuck off my screen you biased shill.

      Delete
    2. Sorry bud but we're talking about Ukraine here, not Iraq. So were your leader, V.Putin, to call his WAR an "act of LIBERATION for the oppressed people of Ukraine", then we should describe it as such? There was no Holocaust either, right? Well, Hitler wouldn't have designated it as such. So, I'll gladly fuck off your screen YOU BIASED PIECE OF SHIT!!

      Delete
    3. Yeah. "Ukraine freedom"!! Great designation!!

      Delete
    4. Hey man not the way to react when you're called out for using Putin's description of his invasion of Ukraine. Everyone knows that it's not a Special Military Operation. Why call it as Putin does. Do you agree that's all it is? Seems like it to me.

      Delete
    5. Man, you nailed it there!!!

      Delete
    6. > "They already have all the objectives (mostly) of the Special Military Operation"

      > REEE WT is Putler himself spreading Russian propaganda now that even the Internet Research Agency is mobik carrion having their eyes plucked out by the crows at Bakhmut

      He called it a war already 1000 times. This appeared to be referring to the what collection of war objectives were sold to the Russian public, and whether it's possible for them to draw a line in the sand and do some Bush style "Mission Accomplished" parade to save face, or continue a protracted and risky conflict.

      Delete
    7. I'll just note that the title of the post references an "impossible war." WT is calling it a war. The reference to Special Military Operation he made is precisely what other anon said: "This appeared to be referring to the what collection of war objectives were sold to the Russian public, and whether it's possible for them to draw a line in the sand and do some Bush style "Mission Accomplished" parade to save face, or continue a protracted and risky conflict."

      Delete
  16. I like it more when you get pissed off with commentators WT. I'm from the South and have served 2 tours in Afghanistan. I like it when you get angry. You should do that more. Nobody in a fire team respects the quiet guy. But the asshole NCO was always a problem. In the years since, I've come to respect him. I might not be alive today if he hadn't broken my balls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you. I'm absolutely puzzled by these people claiming WT is in the tank for Putin. WTF are they on about? I don't get that sense at all. WT has been dispassionate when it comes to the morality of the war or taking sides. His analysis is fascinating and educational for me and has been since the old WT days.

      Delete
  17. WT is a fucking Putin bot!! Wake up guy

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I got most of it right and some of it wrong." LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rereading some of your older posts I sometimes wonder if you're the same guy that wrote some brilliant posts 10 years ago. That guy was insightful, thorough, and, most of all, had humor. This WT has none of those, especially the last.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think they initially had planned on taking the eastern half of the country and deposing the Zelensky government. But like you said, they underestimated NATO's response. So, they've had to fall back on what I assume are contingency plans that also don't seem to be working out that well.
    On paper Russia should have been able to win this war in at most a month or two, but they fucked it up.
    For a little bit there I was thinking that it was a ruse to get NATO to spend as much munitions and hardware as possible for a possible larger war when China invades Taiwan. After all there are reports that entire countries were running out, like Canada. But then Putin instituted conscription, which I take as a sign that the war really isn't going great for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree.

      There are some parallels to the geopolitical "Bear trap" Moscow found themselves during Soviet-Afghan war. However if they can keep the state together and Western support wanes, I'd bet they could slowly out-attrition the Ukranians.

      Kyiv and the U.S. don't want a negotiated ceasefire now (unless the U.S. can secretely secure major Cold War 2 concessions). Ukraine are relatively strong now, and that may not last. Moscow considers Ukraine its subject, and peace will just allow Russia to rebuild their mothballed army just enough for round 2.

      The major powers play the long game.

      Delete
  21. It's difficult to read your military analysis when you look so biased.

    For example the thing with the Russian language.
    The whole thing with "banning" the Russian language was an answer to Russia who claimed - you are speaking the Russian language therefore you are Russian, so you should be part of Russia. Same like for example Spain could claim that it should annex Argentina because they speak the Spanish language.

    Because of that, there was a voluntary renouncement of the Russian language in favor of Ukrainian. The so called "banning" is in fact just teaching the kids primarily in Ukraininan; nobody forbid speaking russian and it's impossible to do so since many people speak only russian. But you should have traveled in Ukraine in the last 10 years to see that a general sentiment was that the Ukrainian language is saving them from Russia - even among those Ukrainians who were not speaking any word of Ukraininan language.

    Then about the war run by NATO: you don't mention anything about the fact that all NATO countries (perhaps without the eastern ones) thought Ukraine had no chance. And they advised and even wanted to help Zelensky to flee the country and form a government in exile. It's only when they saw how stubborn the Ukraininas are and how bad the russian army is, that they started helping Ukraine for real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Alongside the ban of primary education in your mother tongue (russian in this case), there was also a ban on russian book import. Additionally, any newspaper printed in russian had to have a version in ukranian (so you could have a ukranian-only paper, but not russian only). As for 'general sentiment' - plz define how it was measured, analyzed and by whom. There was no "voluntary renouncement" as you place it. Even now plenty of ukr use russian. Even in those vids on telegram where they blast russian tanks.
      2) As for nato, they may have not wanted this (at least the europeans), but they are surely invested in this, and are (even if reluctantly) actively participating (intel, training, gear, possibly coordination, etc.). The fact that they initially misjudged ukr resilience does not change anything. So, your nato paragraph is a non-argument (straw man fallacy), and your language part is cherry picked and incomplete.

      Delete
    2. 1. I already said that Russian cannot disappear from Ukraine, not in the short term anyway since lots of people only speak Russian. Compare it if you will with banning of petrol cars - we know they destroy the environment, it's difficult to get rid of them but more and more restrictive laws are taking them out little by little in many places. It makes people unhappy due to making the life more expensive but the general sentiment is that it's a necessary measure for our planet to have a future. Back to Russian in Ukraine: it's unfortunate that such drastic measures have to be taken but even for the most skeptics the war made it clear that speaking Russian is a big liability - the Russians (and I'm not talking about Putin) have this stupid idea that whoever speaks the Russian language must be like them. And if you don't like the Russia Mir (Mir = the Russian people idea of world, not the payment system or the space station) well you have no choice, it will be imposed by force.
      All the laws against the Russian language have been voted in the parliament elected democratically. There was opposition of course but the majority voted out of the Russian Mir. It is infuriating for Russians and sad in general but there is not much Ukrainians can do to change the Russians. They have to change themselves...
      The general sentiment thing I got it from a Russian speaking journalist who worked in Odessa. But it correlates with the elections results where the Russia Mir representatives got less and less votes especially after 2014.

      2. Wartard is convinced that NATO is conducting the war on Ukrainian side. You say that NATO didn't want to do it at first (they advised Zelensky to flee the country) but then when they saw the situation is not so bad they took over control. This is a possibility but it denies any agency to the Ukrainians - this is one of the characteristic of the Russian Mir - only the tsar (US in this case) has absolute power, the small people (Ukrainian) have no power and no will. I think by resisting initially without help (Zelensky: I need ammunition not a ride) Ukrainians have proven they have will so I don't see why they would suddenly cede the control to NATO. They didn't like being controlled by Russia I doubt they want to be controlled by NATO.

      Delete
  22. I bet WT was never near Ukraine in his life

    ReplyDelete
  23. seems a lot of people dont like the fact that Russia is the good guy in this scenario. Must Suck to be you. Butt hurt etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you define "good guy" as the guy who starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, then no, we don't like that guy. And yes, Russia started first the war in 2014 that only killed 20k people, they thought it's not enough so they started the big one...

      Delete
    2. dream on you eat too much propaganda.

      Delete
  24. Today's attack on Ukraine power structure was the largest ever done. Even the backup power won't work in a few days. They said that within one week every single large town and city will go totally black.

    This means either Ukraine has to do some immediate ceasefire or this upcoming two weeks means not just no electricity but also it's gonna be a massive cold spell coming in the region. Russia knew exactly what they were doing. And if Zelensky does not budge they said now that almost the entire population of Ukraine is expected to mass exodus through Poland because of no heat and no food.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I see the Twitter mob is all over you WT! Modern society really doesn't work without power.
    And the ground will freeze soon. Russia might be preparing a massive assault. They've been abandoning positions that took too much troops to defend. This frees up troops for their assault.
    Really not sure what to expect, but if Ukraine actually is losing bigly at some point the "Ukraine is winning" propaganda is going to be hard to maintain. This could make a lot of people realize how much they've been manipulated. Russia is underperforming and it is costing them a lot, but it doesn't mean that they're losing. From what I can tell it's been true thorough the whole war that Ukraine's losses were MUCH higher than Russia's. Every "crushing victory" of Ukraine where they "liberated" territory was at a terrible cost that made it not a good tradeoff. And there's been constant distortions in the way it's been reported.
    And the longer this war lasts, the more Russia is willing to target civilian infrastructure like that. Zelensky has been screaming about war crimes since the beginning, but they've barely even begun.
    All of those people with Ukraine flags on Twatter were really supporting the destruction of Ukraine (and the sacrifice of Ukrainians) just to further geostrategical goals. This was never going to work out for Ukraine but they've been cheering it on like idiots. If they really wanted to save Ukraine, they should have supported negotiations. And realize that you either let Russia keep its sphere of influence, or they wreck the place. This isn't like a fucking super hero movie where the Ghost of Kweef will swoop in and save the day. They're actually going to get wrecked and ordinary people will pay the price.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah and if you let Russia take over Ukraine ordinary people totally won't pay a price

      They are already being tortured and executed in occupied territories

      And this is exactly the same thing that happened when soviet arrmy was "liberating" Eastern Europe in ww2

      Rape, tortures and graves
      Nothing has changed in Russia since then

      Delete
    2. This is what many western people don't understand: we in Easter Europe have been raised with the stories that Russia = "rape, torture and graves" by our grandparents. We thought (or rather hoped) that those times are long past but the war proves without any doubt that indeed nothing has changed in Russia.
      One can read how the russia controlled communist parties have won the elections in all the Eastern Europe to understand how the referendums were organized in Ukraine. It's history repeating all over again.

      Delete
    3. Butt hurt over what?

      Delete
    4. @LondonFalling are you retarded? show me any realistic statistics or any sound theorem that supports the notion that Ukraine has more losses than RF. 1/10 autist post

      Delete
    5. I see you got your fresh talking points from the ISW.
      Sanctions have done fuck all, they've hurt Europe more than they have Russia. The fucking EU is now buying Russian LNG at a fucking premium after the US blew up the pipelines lol.
      Ukraine has been getting fucked by kamikaze drones and cruise missiles for the past 2 months now. As for running out of equipment, either the "open source intelligence" figures are bullshit and Russia hasn't lost nearly as much equipment as claimed or they are not having issues replacing their losses. Or maybe it's both.

      Delete
  26. They Russians never had anywhere close to enough strength to seize the capital against determined opposition. They launched the invasion with ~200,000 soldiers on about 4 widely scattered axes: 1) towards Kiev, 2) around Sumy, 3) around Kharkov, 4) north out of Crimea. Which means that the Kiev thrust had probably only ~50,000 soldiers at very most. There is no realistic way to take a multi-million person giant city the size of Kiev with such a small force against determined opposition that is technologically roughly equivalent and has a similar or larger number of soldiers. I agree with Wartard that they expected a surrender just by a show of force.
    When it became clear that the Ukrainians were not going to surrender, the entire thrust towards Kiev became useless because it had almost no chance of actually taking the city, which means that those ~50,000 soldiers would just indefinitely sit in the wooded terrain north of Kiev accomplishing nothing and burning through supplies.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Great blog as usual. Keep up the great work! Greetings from Denmark!

    ReplyDelete
  28. My thoughts as a Russian (I see your eyes rolling already):

    - Putin's popularity got a massive boost in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea. It then continued to decline with sanctions, economic stagnation, and Covid. So it was decided to wage a "quick victorious war" in Ukraine and get the popularity numbers back up again.

    - "WTF, Putin doesn't need the people's support" you say. It's not the people he cares about. It's the other sharks in the Kremlin. If he looks weak, they smell blood. And someone can then use the people against Putin (weaponize public opinion). This is why his popularity matters - even though Russia is not a democracy.

    - The plan was to roll through Ukraine, show up with a giant convoy outside Kiev, let Zelensky chopper out to Warsaw or Tel Aviv, and quickly take over the capital a la Crimea annexation. That was Plan A (there was no Plan B, in characteristic fashion). They were expecting to be greeted with flowers.

    - "But how could that have been Plan A? Why no Plan B?" you ask. Yes, even Putin is aware of the corruption and inefficiency in the Russian army. They know about the poor morale, the lack of training, the missing Armatas. But they thought that no matter how bad the Russian Army is, Ukraine must be at least 10 times worse. Ukraine wasn't taken seriously as a separate entity by the Soviet generation (it still isn't taken seriously, as the war is presented at home as Russia vs. NATO).

    - After the Blitzkrieg failed, a new plan should have been formed. Yet it took 6+ months for Putin and co. to fully internalize what was happening (i.e. Ukraine is fighting back). That's standard for Soviet bureaucracy. Eventually they realized what was going on, began "partial" mobilization (everyone in Russia knows there is nothing partial about a "partial" mobilization), and put in new management.

    - Comparisons to WW2 are pointless (yes, the names of cities and rivers haven't changed). In a WW2 scenario, Russian soldiers would have defended Kherson to the last man - in the literal sense. The withdrawal confirms the theory that the RF high command is trying to keep casualty numbers down (yes, I know how that sounds to you). They are OK with DNR/LNR and Wagner deaths, as those do not count towards the official KIA count.

    - The Western media has been quite a sight to behold. Russia is supposed to be "out of artillery shells" every week for the past 9 months. It was decided by the Western media on Day 1 of the war that Ukraine is winning. I don't see many reports of the sheer amount of Ukrainian casualties, as the Ukraine high command sends mobilized directly into Russian artillery. It is tragic to watch this go on.

    - Russia has obviously botched this - but they cannot "lose" either. This war is important for the West, but not existential. If Putin loses Crimea to Ukraine, that is the end of his rule. Which means that things will get worse until a deal is signed by Ukraine. All wars end eventually, even if it's a cease fire for decades. DMZ along the Dnieper? I can see that. Kiev, partitioned like Berlin? Unlikely.

    So what does this war mean to regular Americans? Some guy earlier in the comment section was worried about what he should do. I'm not sure why anyone in the US should be worried - you're an ocean away from the war. It's Europe that should be worried about the economy. If you wake up and you're not being shelled in a trench, be thankful. Every day is a gift.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My eyes are not rolling. Quick question, would the Russian people accept a peace deal with the territories already held or does this have to go all the way?

      Delete
    2. My gut feeling: no, no need to go further. It can be frozen along these lines, and still be sold as a victory at home ("we stood up to NATO, saved the people of Donetsk, and established a land bridge to Crimea") Surovikin's missile strikes on Ukrainian substations did a lot to placate the angry minority that was displeased with Putin's limited ROE and unwillingness to "do what's necessary." But that's 15-20% of the population (again, just a guess).

      The rest will accept whatever outcome - anything for some semblance of normalcy. The level of fear is very high right now (fear of speaking out in public).

      Delete
    3. I smell a peace deal. The US and its agencies have signaled this. The Russians have Mariupol and a land bridge to Crimea. Hard won. But there is an off ramp here. Putin can sell victory to his Russian population and NATO can sell Ukraine as a war won because they stopped the Russians crossing the Danube. In a mass media, 24hr news environment where everything is fake and gay, the Dnieper is a fair line. Ukraine keeps Odessa and her access to the sea and Russia 'liberates' its Russian speaking population. Nobody wins. Nobody loses. The wins and losses are accepted as a point of war. (Screencap this prediction).
      If not, 2023 is going to be a bad year.

      Delete
    4. what would be the point of that from nato/ukraine perspective if russia is guaranteed to attack again?

      Delete
    5. The point would be peace. You make a deal when the alternative is annihilation. A perfect deal is when no side gets what it wants but both sides get what they can live with. This war, in stasis, has peace deal written all over it. The US just needs to sign off on it and Putin need to realize the precarity of his position. This war has a built-in end date. Otherwise, we go nuclear and end the human project and return to the Thunderdome.

      Delete
    6. Except you won't get a peace but a ceasefire for at best couple of years

      Delete
    7. What makes you so certain? A ceasefire for a few years would save a lot of lives. And ceasefires have a habit of cooling down hot wars. Are you so certain that a lowering of hostilities could lead to a peace deal? If so, explain. This war has peace deal written all over it and in my next post I'll explain why.

      Delete
  29. Wat Tard now writing under 'Anonymous'. WTF

    ReplyDelete
  30. I was fucking right. It was wat Tard!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you are being funny. Which I like. You get to stay.

      Delete
  31. The Minsk Agreement.

    I just don't understand it. The Minsk Agreement was very clear - stop bombing the Russians in Donetsk/Lugansk. There's a whole Wikipedia page about it. Ukraine clearly and obviously violated the Agreement and continued genociding ethnic Russians in Donbas. But when you bring this up to NPCs, their little sub-40 IQ brains seem to explode. They deny Russians live in Donbas, they deny the Agreement was broken, they even deny the EXISTENCE of the Agreement, despite showing them the aforementioned Wikipedia page.

    I just don't get it. Are they really sub-40 IQ? Or are they being willfully ignorant, on purpose? Why? What do they have to gain from ignoring or lying about the truth? Do they really, actually, truly get their entire marching orders from Hollywood? Are Americans really that pathetic?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Russian volunteer Murz on why Russia is not ready to defend Ukrainian winter offensive"
    Posted on 19 December 2022
    WarTranslated

    > This is perhaps the most critical of his texts and was shared by Igor Girkin as “recommended for reading”.

    ---

    Could be an interesting winter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (While some of WarTranslated's source material could potentially be disinfo (what isn't these days), texts and translations from well known figures should be more verifiable.)

      Delete
  33. Hey WT. Tell Zelensky to go home. Right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, he's the perfect actor for the job. He's got a Miami Beach House and a villa in Nice in the South of France. When the men and women of Ukraine have been destroyed and used up by NATO, Zelensky will flee to paradise. But in the meantime, apart from the billions being funneled through whatever is left of 'his' country, support Ukraine by buying Zelensky's merch. There could be other merch but the actor they've been using banned all political parties except his own six months ago. That's democracy for you...

      Go buy his overpriced gear and virtue signal your way to a Christmas Party.

      https://www.bonfire.com/store/president-zelensky-t-shirt/

      Delete
  34. You call it the way you see it. I like that. The thing I like most though is that you are usually right. Greetings from Arizona. Can you write something about the border crisis?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Where EXACTLY is Zelenskys Beach House in Miami? Like, have you an actual address and PROOF that he owns the place? Now WT, put up or STF up! When you deal thoroughly with that you can move on to the villa in France.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey you are telling WT to STF up on his own website? You must be a serious douche nozzle.

      Delete
    2. Zelensky has enough money for ten villas. And that' just declared income. How much money does a head of state earn? The US President gets around 275k. Even if these lowball figures are true, it's massive corruption and fraud. 596 million dollars for a few years in front of the cameras in a green hoodie? Where's my application form?

      https://caknowledge.com/zelenskyy-net-worth/

      Delete
    3. The villa is in Italy. The best part? He's renting it to Russians for 50k a month! Yoy seriously couldn't make this shit up.
      https://switzerlandtimes.ch/world/zelensky-villa-in-italy-allegedly-rented-to-russians/

      Delete
    4. Owns a gaf in Beverly hills to

      Delete
  36. Ukraine is repeatedly striking airfields deep inside Russian territory. Some of the same airfields launching the cruise missiles.

    How is that possible? One theory is that Russia is short of air defence (S300, etc.) due to HARM SEAD and other factors, and are pulling more from all available theaters, leaving them spread thin. Their radar signatures are also visible from high altitude and satellite, revealing a map of where they are, and where they aren't. Using this intel, Ukraine sneak through drones or guided missiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there is one thing we can learn from this war, it's that drone warfare is the future. I mean the absolute future of war. No more manned fighter planes unless they cruise at 50,000ft monitoring the drones below. You've witnessed in this war and so have I. The cartoonish level of a 90 buck drone I could buy at Walmart, attaching a grenade to it and then flying it two miles East or West using an old iPhone to deliver the payload on a guy taking a piss? We've entered a new paradigm. Like it or not, this is modern warfare.

      Delete
    2. those cheap iranian drones seemed to do the job against artillery pieces- though I think they needed a little more power since the explosions were less than awesome. I guess they did the job.

      Delete