Sunday, January 29, 2023

NATO v Russia: WWIII Part II. Tactical Battlefield 15 kiloton nukes.

   In my last post over New Years', I honestly tried to make a case that this war must end, a peace deal must be had or the danger of contagion and escalation is too great to allow this war to continue. Guess what, nobody read it. A border dispute between two neighboring countries has engulfed the planet, drawn factions, split alliances and is on its way to places I can't imagine. I became politically aware in the late '80s and even I knew as a kid that the Berlin Wall crumbling was something. I grew up in a time where nukes were a very real and ever present possibility. And today, the chances of such a war are higher than ever and the kids don't care. Because they don't know. So, since a call for peace gets me nowhere, let me show you war.

   For those of you with a distaste for horror, close this article now because I'm going to show some sick shit just to know what your taxes are paying for. If peace doesn't sell, then at least know what you are buying.

   First off, let's analyze the war.

   Russia should have won it in six months. The feint toward Kiev from the north was supposed to induce a surrender. The other attacks from Sumy, south of Kharkov, north from Crimea and the main armored thrust to the vital rail hub at Mariupol was supposed to overwhelm the Ukrainians. A peace deal then would have ended it. Donbass and Luhansk go to Russia since that's what the people who live there want. Bring in the UN and hold a vote. Ukraine cannot join NATO would be Russia's only stipulation because such a measure puts short range nukes within 200 miles of Moscow. And allows NATO to put bases miles from Moscow which are simply untenable and unfair after the tacit post war agreement that was made by Clinton after the collapse of the Soviet Union; NATO would not encroach on former territories and place once governed by the Soviets. (Cuban missile crisis all over again). In fact, what need of NATO in 1991 since the Warsaw Pact had dissolved? It's whole reason for being had evaporated. If this take makes me a Russian shill go make a case in the comments. 

   Power once accumulated never dissolves by itself. (NAFO) It only gets destroyed by a greater power.

   Yes, the Russians have nukes but so do the US and the idea was lets work together to stop their proliferation and reduce our stockpiles. That was a fair deal in 1997. We were on the cusp of a new age. Each country built modules for the International Space Station and it all worked. And look where we are now? Closer to nuclear war than in all of history. Check the Doomsday Clock. Think about that? How did humanity degrade intellectually and morally and let that happen?

   But that's a philosophical question right?

   I'm here to talk raw war and what's coming will come while you sleep unless something drastically changes.

    The West has gone from sending money, taxpayer money, most of it laundered back to US defense contractors (through Ukrainian banks) and back to US political campaigns to keep the extraction of the work and daily grind of the US and European people as a source of  income that can be skimmed and the use of it in the building of a massive security and surveillance state. The rest is being sold off as soon as if arrives in Lviv. Shoulder mounted missiles that can shoot down  a civilian airliner are being sold on the Dark Web as as I type. All of them supplied to Ukraine officials via the US and EU. Assange is still in jail for saying exactly this. With proof.

Now swap Afghanistan for Ukraine. It's a money laundering operation.

  "The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not victory over Russia or China, but to keep the very structure of society intact."

    With NATO pushing this war beyond what is necessary or logical, sending tanks, artillery, satellite intelligence, targeting information, advanced missiles, advanced jamming tech, high tech radar; at what point does Russia, whose population now see this war, for good or ill, as an existential war for survival, accept a loss?

   Let me give you a battlefield example.

   Let's take the city of Bakhmut. It's a major transport hub with what used to have 70k people living in it. It's the administrative capital of a an Oblast(State) in Donbass.. The Ukrainians have poured at best reckoning 50k troops into defending it. It's a built up area so a nightmare for the Russians to clear building by building without incurring terrible losses against defenders in prepared positions.

In the interest of neutrality, the red  circle shows what the Russians captured last week. Bakhmut, is in danger of encirclement. I rarely show maps on this blog because due to the fog of war, I believe both sides are lying but people I know and trust say it's true.

   Bakhmut is now "operationally surrounded". That means the Russians have the town of Soledar to the North (circled), Wagner forces are in possession of the road and rail from the South West and the only road in from larger towns to the East like Kramatorsk which is a conurbation ( of over 200k people mostly evacuated) along with a string of other towns in token amounts that form a defensive line 40 miles to Bakhmut's rear. There are by NATO estimates 50,00 Ukrainian, Polish, mercenary troops in Bakhmut. That road from Kramatorsk is useless because even though the Russians do not hold it, they can lay down artillery and destroy anything that attempts to move along that road. So Bakhmut is effectively caught in what the Russians call a cauldron and western military call surrounded in effect..

   So here's your horror story.

    The Ukrainians do not surrender. They sit on half rations and wait from a NATO armored brigade to break through and rescue 50,000 Ukrainian troops from a otherwise Russian war winning scenario.

   Is it possible?

    I don't think so. But if the Russians saw that a hard fought war winning end to fighting in Donbass and if foreign forces were rescued by a NATO armored division, would not the temptation be to launch a battlefield small 15 kiloton yield nuke into Bakhmut and airburst it over the town hall and at least fry half the the enemy? After all, the object of war is to win. And since Russia is a a country if 130 million people under attack now by NATO, a billion people, why would they not feel justified in using such a weapon? I am not saying they would be right, I'm saying they could be pushed into a corner where they say, if we go down, then you go down. It is not a moral argument. It is an emotional one. If I were to list the amount of battles fought and lost on emotion, I think I could go 40%

    This is the danger the world is playing with. Worse, a few people are playing with.

This was in the 1950s. Just imagine what they have now. Limited, battlefield nuclear ordinance. Airburst, minimal fallout, follow up attack by armored vehicles. It's coming while you sleep and worry about the gas bill and sausages.

   WWIII is in full effect. Not tomorrow. Not yesterday. Now.

    It's just the average person doesn't even know it yet beyond the cost of heating his home, eggs are expensive and good luck finding a steak you can afford. I don't know what to say but the people in charge lied to you about a bug no more dangerous than the flu and they are lying to you now. Ukraine could surrender in the morning and keep three quarters of its land area. A deal could be made. But it cannot be allowed.

   The West's goal is to attrite Russia because of her vast raw material wealth. Her existence has become too dangerous. Her alliance with China is even more terrifying. This has all been known for a decade. It's a belt and road initiative the US has no answer for. The danger is in the unity of the Eurasian landmass that puts the US an island an isolated block in the sea.

  But now we are on the edge of a hot war.

  And very few, least of all the politicians providing these weapons, know the heat of the fire they are playing with. 

    If we are to die in a war like this, then let us deserve it.

    But not like this. Not in our name. Otherwise, let's stop it.

    This war is over. NATO can throw in some vehicles to prolong it a few weeks. But Ukraine is done. The only question left is how much does Russia want? Donbass will crush the Ukrainian Army. That's already happening.

   In my opinion, the Russian capture of Odessa would destroy Ukraine forever. No access to the sea, I believe the Russians will call a halt here and take the win. They will leave Kiev to the Europeans, a black hole of corruption, money laundering and theft. Let them pour billions into keeping it running.

  Meanwhile, the Russians will relax on the beach and get there sunburn from the sun or the sun NATO fission detonates out of frustration.


  1. Wartard swinging for the fences here. Is it really this fucking bad? Surely Mutually Assured Destruction saves us?

  2. The whole idea is limited nuclear weapons. Weapons smaller than the Hiroshima bomb. Weapons that are designed for area denial, melt people within a kilometer of impact, blind those 2km and render severe burns and on out to a 5km radius. Air burst this, and you will have minimal fallout and radiation and anyone underneath that blast is out of action via burns or blindness. It's evil but it's localized and it's launched by artillery. But worst of all, there are people on both sides of this war considering the use of such weapons. Where the fuck is Bono and U2. They wrote The Unforgettable Fire. But it doesn't apply any more because the're billionaires and Russia is bad now.

  3. How the fock isRussia under attack by NATO. Man you can't be serious

    1. How about the armored division NATO is sending? 31 Abrams, 17 Leopard 2s, 14 Challenger IIs, 50 Marder APCs, 100 Brandley APCS, 300,000 artillery 155mm shells from Israel's arsenal. What fucking planet do you shills live on? You are either ignorant or not paying attention.

    2. But Ukraine does not want to "surrender and keep three quarters of it". They want all of it, including Crimea, and have demonstrated their willingness to fight and die for it.

    3. Okay, so lets torch the Earth and all die in a fireball for one the the most corrupt countries on Earth. You do realize they are the singular producer of child pornography in Europe right?

    4. War Tard, your talking utter drivel. Where the fuck is Bono and U2 you ask! What the fuck does it matter! You've lost the plot.

    5. Well U2 got famous in the US from a song called The Unforgettable Fire. It was about nuclear war. Now that we are closer to nuclear war than ever, as War Tard points out, they have nothing to say. They are the elite now..

  4. You said it mate. You pulled no punches here. This is exactly what everybody feels about this bullshit war. I'm sick of this Zelensky guy. He either fired, murdered via helicopter or purged his top aids. He's Montana at the end of Scarface. Drug addicted, alone, firing or killing his ministers. NATO can't prop this fool up anymore. If Zelensky's own people don't put a bulletin in him then the CIA will.

    1. Zelensky has a few weeks left. He's fired or killed his whole staff. I saw that interview with him the other night and that guy is perma drunk but is snorting enough cocaine to make it seem good for interviews. The whole thing is about to collapse.

  5. >Russia is a a country (...) under attack now by NATO
    there is a very simple solution for that, Russia withdraws from Ukraine territory and they are no longer under attack

    1. You skipped the intro bro.

    2. Russia withdrew from Germany. Russia withdrew from Poland. Russia left the Baltic states. What did these withdrawals get Russia? Certainly not security. NATO will only be satisfied when there is a puppet regime in Moscow taking orders from the State Department.

    3. Have you ever thought of doing a little history mate? I'm no fan of Russkis but even I can see they were being surrounded. You didn't answer what I thought was WTs best question in the whole article. Why did NATO not just disappear by 1991. Their whole reason for being was gone and yet here they are about to start WWIIII over a border dispute on Russia's backdoor.
      WT I sometimes wonder why you even bother trying to explain things to idiots.
      Love from Brisbane.

    4. >Certainly not security.

      are you for real? whos fault is that? Russia trying to rebuild soviet union or, for example, Baltic states that were being raped for 50 years of Soviet occupation and were not stupid enough to believe that just because country changed its name it is now a good and peaceful neighbor

      its the same naive and out of touch thinking like the line from main article
      " In fact, what need of NATO in 1991 since the Warsaw Pact had dissolved?"

      because soviet union under different name is the same aggressor and bully in the region, nothing has changed except the size and some borders

    5. >Have you ever thought of doing a little history mate?
      >Why did NATO not just disappear by 1991. Their whole reason for being was gone

      another one lol, you are posting from Australia and trying to teach history?

      my personal life was affected by soviet occupation
      i had soviet division stationed 10km away from my home, there are still russian nukes aimed here just 300km away
      members of my family were forced to life in exile after ww2 or they would be arrested and executed
      my grandad lost family business and home my father was arrested and you are really asking a question why i have trust issues with literally the same people that invaded in 1920, in 1939, occupied and oppressed my country for 45 years in 1945??
      noting has changed when soviet union collapsed, the same people were in charge just under a slightly different banner
      and its not even just people in charge, you can see the same soviet era mentality in majority of Russian citizens
      Tho to be fair, they were, as a nation, skullfucked for centuries first by tsars and then by communists which were "totally different we promise" so its not like they even had a chance to think differently in last 10+ generations

      why would NATO disappear if soviet union is still there, just under different name?
      why would any country previously occupied directly or indirectly by soviet union trust "new" Russia?
      why wouldn't they want an actual security from country that oppressed them for 50 or so years?

    6. Your personal life was affected so lets all have a cry and launch the nukes and end humanity. Why the fuck do you entertain these people Wartard?

    7. i have a policy of not deleting comments in the interest of free speech and all that stuff that used to exist 10 years ago. Still though, this is fucking entertaining. I believe I laid out a fair assessment. In 14 years of doing this blog thing, I've never seen such rhetoric and I've never got death threats in my email or death threats I've had to delete here. This war really is a tipping point in human sanity.

    8. Where did I said that?

      I'm explaining to you why people who were actually affected by soviet and then Russian politics are not so keen on making any deal with them and why NATO was/is definitely needed after soviet union collapse

      Also, should we let Russia do whatever the fuck they want, let them occupy baltics again etc just because they have nukes?

      What kind of logic is that?

    9. >That's what you're doing but now it's cold and who are you going to blame?

      But its not? I literally did not have to turn my heating yet and gas prices are below pre war levels

      Blowing up nord stream was a miracle for Poland, we were against construction since the beginning
      Even if it would cost more to become independent of Russian resources it is 100% worth it in the long run

  6. Oh, we have a Pole here. Poles will never be at peace with Russia. Never have, never will.

  7. Poles along with Churchill started WWII. Why didn't they just give Danzig back? It was a German city for 1000 years. Why the did the UK not declare war on Russia at the same time as Germany? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact implicated both countries in dividing Poland? Why, if the UK cared so much for Polish sovereignty, didn't they declare war on Russia? Because it's all lies and the winners write history.

    1. Well, the post World War I settlement was certainly a powder keg that was bound to explode one way or another, but Polish-Russian animosity goes way back before then, at least to the Russian suppression of Warsaw uprising in 1863 (you could go back further but who cares). The point is that asking Poles about Russia/Ukraine is like asking Greeks about Turkey/Cyprus. Don't expect a dispassionate response. The wounds are too deep.

    2. That makes sense. I think we're all equally fucked.

    3. "Poles along with Churchill started WWII. Why didn't they just give Danzig back? It was a German city for 1000 years."

      you have to be trolling, this is just not true
      it was founded as polish city and remained polish for the most part of 8 centuries since its founding until partition of Poland in 1800s when well there was no more Poland to which it could belong to
      in interwar period it was neutral city so what exactly Poland was supposed to give back?
      and how exactly Poland started ww2? after the invasion of Poland "nothing" happened until Germany attacked again, if all they wanted was Danzig why invade Norway or France or USSR?

      "Why the did the UK not declare war on Russia at the same time as Germany? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact implicated both countries in dividing Poland?"

      because UK-Polish pact said noting about any help in case of invasion from anyone but Nazi Germany
      UK simply didn't have to do anything, and given that Germany and Soviet Union spend half a decade before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact denouncing each other anyone with half a brain knew that it was just a matter of time before they turn on each other again (which didnt even took 2 years)
      Given the History of UK and Germany it also made a lot more sense to focus on victory over them even at the cost of Poland

  8. The main asset in wars since ever is the communication between high ranking commanders from both sides. This happens much more than we know, and Putin can of course be sidelined. Who knows, this may have happened already and leadership position changes may have occured within the russian military due to a denial to follow up a nuclear attack order by the russian president.

    1. At least Putin is well dressed , hasn't had 80% of his staff fired or died in mysterious helicopter crashes and banned all political parties in the government except his own. Zelensky snorts so much coke per day he can't even keep it together for the daily media cycle. His wife wearing Prada at Davos last week says it all. They are fucking muppets, and the world is sick of them. They've got a new viila in Italy waiting for them once Ukraine runs out of men to die for them. And Zelensky's parents are safe in a beachfront property in Tel Aviv.

    2. >hasn't had 80% of his staff fired or died in mysterious helicopter crashes

      except for high ranking oligarchs that are getting a weird case of falling out of the window at random resorts you mean?

      >banned all political parties in the government except his own

      soo pretty much exactly how Russian parliament works

      maybe get your facts straight before you post some dumb shit next time

  9. Very plausible. No doubt nukes would be a key point in all the behind the scenes negotiations.

    We are returning to an era of hard power moves.

    The competition with China will make the U.S. and possibly NATO pull all kinds of maneouvers to contain and weaken their allies ahead off any major conflict.

    Whatever about before and no matter what way the war ends today, over the next 20 years its very possible to the Russians that Ukraine could become a NATO spearhead to neutralize them, in the same way Russia sought to pre-emptively neutralize Ukraine. The current invasion would be the casus belli.

    The Russian forces are degenerate, and even though they would still be enough to defend the state in case of your every day "invasion of liberation", they are losing credibility as a major power deterrent at home or overseas. An unrestricted NATO conventional-weapon conflict would, as this war is showing the world, cut them to shreds.

    So its entirely possible that the nuclear sabre rattling will be pushed to the next level. Nukes are a wildcard.

    1. I agree and have stated in previous posts that Russia lost the information war very quickly. The interesting question for me is that when Russia "wins", whatever shape that inevitable victory takes, how will the West and NATO explain the loss to its populations? The saddest reality, after all the weapons and NATO money spent, is that Western media will blame the Ukrainians for not fighting hard enough. That will be the greatest injustice considering the Ukrainian defense should go down in history as one of the most courageous in military history.

  10. I must say that War Tard provokes some very deep, reasoned and highly intellectual debate and analysis as evidenced in the comment section hereinabove. Some wonderful contributions.

    1. Hear hear. There is no place for vulgar language in these discourses either. It's downright rude.

    2. And for all you sceptics and Luddites here I leave you to ponder on the wise words of Marcus Aurelius, "The secret of all victory lies in the organisation of the non-obvious"

    3. How is an author responsible for the opinions and comments of the people who read him?

    4. The WarTard comment sections have always been as interesting as the articles themselves. Since War Tard came back and began writing about his view of the Ukrainian/Russia war, this blog has attracted the worst kind of people. People who know nothing about war and just spout their own ideology without regard to a study of what is happening in the war. I fell sorry for WarTard. He always spoke his mind. His old audience have moved on and these new people know little beyond Western propaganda.

  11. Russia is unde attack by the decadent west. War Tard is right. Zelensky is a clown

  12. This fucking place is full of fucked up people who haven't a fucking clue what their fucking talking about or what this fucking war is all about and that includes War Tard in particular who writes all this fucking bull shit

  13. Sorry old boy but no one to the best of my knowledge is actually attacking the Russian Federation

    1. What are Nato doing. What about Poland. There lined up to invade Russia. Same with the Rumanians

    2. Get a fukink life dude

  14. War Tard was right when he said the Poles were itchin to invade. I believe him so fuck you

  15. If this little border dispute is resolved, will Ward Tard give assurance that every other country in eastern Europe has no reason to fear any incursions by the Russian Federation?

  16. NATO shud've disbanded in 91! No reason for it anymore? Did I miss a Russian invasion of a fellow European sovereign nation?

    1. Not only did you miss the battle, you missed the war.

  17. War Tard is a Putin luvin piece of dirt

    1. Easy man. WT is a man of peace. So that he's not caught up in contagion then there should be peace, piece by piece man. The UN will have to tell Zelensky to go away. Sit on the beach. Enjoy the sun

    2. Please provide proof? You cannot state as fact because your emotions tilt one way because you've got nothing true. If you can provide proof, then the comment section is wide open .Show a reasoned argument that offers a counter argument? You can or cannot answer it. All opinions are welcome here. WT has allowed me to allow all opinions here even shills. I don't believe you are a shill and I do believe
      shills exist to derail conversation.. My idea is that if you are going to express an idea that you feel here then go ahead. So long as you can express it beyond a single sentence snark.

  18. This is hard shill work, so making the case in the comments as requested. The position put by Putin all the way down to his bloggers: if you dont back down, what choice is there for Russia but the final choice? YOU, the WEST are periling the world, forcing Russian hands to escalate to nuclear war! It is preposterous that defending yourself from aggression, and those defending you, are to blame for escalation in that aggression. You do not get to claim self-defence after punching someone in the head.

    And, in my view, we are not at risk of nuclear war. It is a feint, as all has been proven with Russia time and time again. Are we to believe that Putin is also a Mad King? Which is he: savvy defender of Russian interests or a lunatic? Putin will never launch nukes. He may as well try and kill Zelensky by shooting him through his own temple. It wont happen. Failing total annihilation of Russia, even China, India and Iran would turn their backs. It's a lose lose play.

    So what of the argument for Russia's self-defence? The shilliest of shill points is the alleged casus belli of the war - the existence of NATO on Russia's door stop; to stop the conversion of a former USSR State to the West's orbit. What the hell is Latvia and Estonia then, via Poland? Literal steps away from St Petersburg and just as close to Moscow as Ukraine. NATO has no intention to invade Russia, nor has there ever been any indication of that in the last 20 years. They could not care less about that rouge petrol station. And no, Ukraine is not special in this regard because of geography. NATO does not have to worry about Kaliningrad or Belarus. Russia can barely supply their war in Ukraine. St Petersburg wont get supply ships even as far as Gotland. Lukashenko cannot afford to deploy troops elsewhere lest pro-democracy western forces commence their own Orange Revolution. Nor would he want to dance tête-à-tête with Nato.

    The war was a stupid gamble that Putin thought he could win. It was hubris. It worked so many times before. Now he fights for his political life at home. He interfered and played games with the West's elections; a sacred process to them. The West has every intention of teaching Russia a lesson and bleeding it dry - slowly. Putin is like a frog in boiling water, committing more and more as he has less and less yet doesnt notice as he over extends his forces over and over again.

    1. The Rand Corporation and the Pentagon agrees with War Tard.

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

    2. Thats a nice twisting of that report and its findings. Not helping the good guys because they might lose isn't a winning mantra though.

      BUT I dont think it matters to the West if Ukraine eventually loses. Russia's pockets are not as deep as the West's. It's the Cold War all over again. The only question is can Russia kill enough Ukrainians to win the war before their economy throws a spanner and we see the dissolution of Russia? (USSR Breakin' 2 - Electric Boogaloo.) That is the West's pitch to win this war.

    3. This is my reply to Anon on Feb 1, 4:20pm

      Let's have some fun. To quote you...

      "This is hard shill work, so making the case in the comments as requested. The position put by Putin all the way down to his bloggers: if you dont back down, what choice is there for Russia but the final choice? YOU, the WEST are periling the world, forcing Russian hands to escalate to nuclear war! It is preposterous that defending yourself from aggression, and those defending you, are to blame for escalation in that aggression. You do not get to claim self-defence after punching someone in the head."

      I've been writing this blog for 12 years. I write about current conflict and historical conflict. It's a side hobby of mine. I've neglected the blog for years. But this war is interesting to me as was the US abandonment of Afghanistan, major events which drag me back to my keyboard. Are you suggesting that my tiny blog is for sale? I never took a penny from Adsense, put up a donation button or ever asked for support from readers. My writing and opinion have always been free. I am not for sale.

      Next you say,

      "And, in my view, we are not at risk of nuclear war."

      That may very well be true "in your view". But not to the sources I quoted, and I am merely reporting on what they said.
      I am reporting on facts others say not stating facts I say. Your next logical fallacy is...

      "So what of the argument for Russia's self-defence? The shilliest of shill points is the alleged casus belli of the war - the existence of NATO on Russia's door stop; to stop the conversion of a former USSR State to the West's orbit."

      Yes. That's why this war happened. Half of Ukraine is Russian speakers. I have no side in this war (why would I?) but apparently independent analysis is pro-Russian in your view which reveals you as the shill, not me.
      And finally, quoting you again...

      "The war was a stupid gamble that Putin thought he could win."

      You must be from a different planet. This war is already over. Ukraine's Army is being actively crushed without mercy. Putin's popularity rating in Russia is at an all-time high. The only question is how NATO will respond? That is the context of the nuclear battlefield nuke option in the above article.

      Finally, when I am proven right, and the tragedy of Ukraine is made clear will you come back here and admit you were wrong and taken in by propaganda? All sides have propaganda. I don't believe most of what the Russians say either. But will you? My email is listed to the side.

      I think not.

  19. We in the Rand Corporation agree with War Tard! Can you fucking imagine that.

  20. You're right my brother. Really, at this point the only way I see this ending is with a Ukrainian defeat or with WW3.
    Because Russia thinks Ukraine joining NATO is an existential threat to Russia (and rightly so) they have no other alternative but to destroy Ukraine. Because, as the Russians see it, either they lose fighting or they lose when Ukraine joins NATO and USA puts missiles in better to fight.
    and a negotiated settlement seems out of the question as well because USA/Ukraine will never give Russia all their requests (which honestly seem reasonable). And even if they did Russia at this point wouldn't even want to accept an agreement because they had one with Minsk 1 and 2 and USA/Ukraine broke it and now they even admitted that the agreement was never signed in good faith and was only a means to buy time to militarize Ukraine, so there's no more trust between both sides.

    1. As commenter above notes. There are no NATO missiles pointed at Russia from Latvia and or Estonia, so Ukraine is not the risk Russia says it is. As for Minsk 1 and 2, bloody hell. Russian backed rebels in the east who never settled down after both agreements, which was escalated into an actual Russian invasion...and you blame Ukraine for that?? It's so bloody obvious that Russia was stoking that discontent as a pretext for war.

  21. The point of this whole conflict was NATO wanting Ukraine in the alliance, and Russia keeping that from happening at all costs. Crimea was always a red line for the Russians, under no circumstances will they give up Sevastopol. Donbass was useful in the sense that it kept the Ukrainians from joining NATO, but it was always a temporary solution to the bigger problem of the Ukrainian government becoming closer and closer with the West. That problem was supposed to be solved in the first week of the invasion. That's why it was called a SMO because it was supposed to be short and sweet. The Russians underestimated the professional Ukrainian military and the amount of support from the West. Now the conflict has devolved into a massive meat grinder that is designed to deplete the Ukrainian military until they have no choice but to seek terms. Those terms will likely require Ukrainian neutrality and Russia keeps the Donbass and Crimea. How many men die before we get there is debatable, but I think that's the end game for Putin at this point.

    1. Dugin's Dead DaughterFebruary 2, 2023 at 6:13 PM

      Yep, this is simply one empire gobbling up the remnants of another.

      "Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia have been offered by both the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union to join their integration unions. All three countries signed Association Agreements with the EU on 21 March 2014."

      2008: "NATO leaders promised Ukraine and Georgia on Thursday they would one day join the Western defense alliance after rebuffing U.S. demands to put the former Soviet republics on an immediate path to membership."

      The Kremlin weren't about to just sit back as their economic and geopolitical interests were taken beyond their reach. Ukraine was a major one. So they acted as best they could, leading to this shitshow.

      Simple as.

  22. Replies
    1. Revenge of you and meFebruary 4, 2023 at 6:57 AM

      Semi Chuckle: Not so sensible. All state media is propaganda. Stay away. If you must watch it, watch it for free. I cannot provide links here because War Tard will ban me immediately.

    2. If you provide an argument, a counter argument or any reasoned opinion, even if it makes me look like a fool, you will never get banned. The only comments banned here are "War Tard is an asshole". "War Tard is an idiot," etc. because these are not serious. Ironically, if those posters had the ability to construct a reasoned argument contrary to my own, they would be welcomed. Explain why I am an idiot/asshole? I have never deleted a comment especially when I have lost the argument.

  23. The legacy of generations, values and traditions- this is what makes Russia different, what makes them strong and confident in themselves , in their righteousness and in their victory.

  24. Sounds ominously like War Tard himself wrote that

  25. Told you he's Putin's guy.

  26. From the fuckin start!

  27. I dont see the Ukranians ever agreeing to neutrality again. They did that after the fall and handed back their nukes. They took a hiding with the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements. All that got them was more invasions.

    1. My God. Please only comment here after you've read some history and know what you're talking about.

  28. Colonel MacGregor's latest take. Very much the same as WT's take and recorded two days after this article.

    1. Wow! So WT is McGregor's source for what's happening on the ground. Holy shit man!

    2. Wartard's post is 2 days before MacGregor's. I do agree they are on the same page. If Wartard is a Russian shill then so is the best US tank commander of Desert Storm.

  29. Not so my friend. McGregor is a patriot, War Tard is the Russian shill. He's based in St Petersburg

  30. PMC "Mozart" failed in Ukraine due to addiction to alcohol and Kiev strip clubs -
    Villages of Sakko and Vancetti were entirely taken by the PMC Wagner. The house on the photo is the only one still standing in the village -
    Wagner has captured Blagodatnoye - /
    Ukraine will receive Abrams no earlier than the end of 2023 -

    It's a fucking shitshow.

    All of these probing attacks by the Russians are designed to test the Ukrainian front line, shape it, find the weaknesses in it before deploying the massive 300,000 - 500,000 man army ready and waiting to go in. (100,000 will be support troops, drivers, mechanics, specialists, tech personnel, radar operators, Anti AA defense techs). But it still leaves 200k combat mechanized infantry going up against Ukraine's 5th recruitment drive which includes men from 16-60 which is all they have left out side of a few elite battalions.

    1. This is the real tragedy nobody is talking about. Thousands of men and boys being rounded up at gunpoint with zero aptitude for war of interest in war, being rounded up and bring press ganged at gunpoint into a uniform to go serve as fodder for an unstoppable meatgrinder hundreds of miles from home. A deal should have been made a year ago. It was mostly through hubris and orders from Washington that it wasn't. When the true facts of this war come out (when it's all over), people will be sickened by what was done to the Ukrainian people from both East and West.

  31. 1. This war comes at an awfully convenient time for the US, to distract us and prevent a civil war.
    2. NATO has known all along that surrounding Russia with NATO members would cause Russia to start something. I am surprised that Russia didn't go to war when the Baltics were accessioned into NATO. NATO was even given a warning by the Russian invasion in Nagorno-Karabakh when Georgia wanted to enter NATO.
    3. When Ukraine's manpower starts to run dry, miraculously, more volunteers will show up from western countries with the skills to run Abrams, Challengers, LeoII, F-16s, and all the other complicated equipment we just shipped to Poland. NATO is, quite obviously, boiling the lobster slowly to keep Putin from getting uncomfortable and dropping a tactical nuke.
    4. When the Russian army revolts at 500k kias, NATO will negotiate with Putin's successor or successors if it fragments more. This is the end game that, I'm guessing, has been wargamed out. A war with China won't use many 155 arty shells, so depleting the west's stocks of them won't embolden China to grab Taiwan.
    These are my predictions. Humans are the worst. Especially those who rise to the apex of heirarchical systems. Go ahead and poke holes in my predictions, please.

  32. Where the fuck is the humanity in all of this military shitspeak of yours?

  33. Until humans can expand Dunbar's number, there will be little humanity. War is a waste of human potential. It will be the downfall of our species.

  34. Are there any comparisons to be made from the Bakhmut situation to the Battle of Verdun in World War I? For example, Germany's intent of inflicting significant casualties on the French Army, with Germany having a larger manpower reserve and thus able to accept more losses than France.

  35. Turkish newspaper leak. The actual casualties in this war for Ukrainian forces.

    157,00 dead
    234,000 injured
    17, 230 Ukrainians captured
    6,320 tanks and armored vehicles destroyed.
    7,369 artillery systems destroyed
    497 Anti Air systems destroyed
    Entire Airforce destroyed
    The list goes on...

    In comparison to this, the Russians have lost 18, 500 men
    This is a massacre that needs to be stopped. When there existed a credible United Nations this war would have been stopped last August. But there's nothing to end this. The Russians are seal clubbing but it's allokay because NATO is sending them 100 tanks maybe by August.

    Ukraine will not exist by August. How will the mainstream media in the West explain this to their vast audience who they have manipulated into thinking that Ukraine is winning this war when it was impossible from the start?

    1. Source:

      Remember, Turkey is a NATO member and supplied hundreds of drones to Ukraine. This is an accurate assessment in line with US Colonel MacGregor's assessment.

    2. Such accurate comparative reporting. Russia lost 18500 men, 0 injured, 0, captured, 0 tanks and armoured vehicles lost, 0 artillery systems destroyed, 0 aircraft destroyed and the list doesn't go on. This is not fog of war stuff, it's downright Russian propaganda, deliberate falsehoods perpetrated by War Tard on behalf of his Russian masters.

    3. Read the full report. The Russians lost since you're tool azy to even bother studying the report...

      Russian losses...

      23 Aircraft
      56 Helicopters
      889 Tanks and Armored vehicles
      427 Artillery pieces
      12 AA systems
      18,400 men dead.
      44,500 injured
      325 captured.

      So there are the figures you were too lazy to read.

      Who's winning?

    4. Only a fool would believe those Russian losses. Typical War Tard fantasy

    5. So the Moskva has not been sunk? Zero losses for the Russian navy?

    6. Nobody ever claimed the Moskva wasn't sunk; not even the Russians. Was that supposed to be an analogy?

    7. Nope, just questioning the accuracy of the Russian losses you mentioned above. As they make no mention of naval losses, it stands to reason, that the other numbers are incorrect as well.

    8. The Moskva sank. There was a a long salvage attempt. 98% of the crew were off loaded and saved. It was a major loss and embarrassment for the Russian Navy. But in hindsight, it galvanized the Russian people behind a war effort they were not sure about from the beginning.

  36. Dugin's Dead DaughterFebruary 6, 2023 at 5:20 PM

    On the economic front, the Russians have adapted and continue to trade with half the world, including Turkey, China and India.

    RUSI says the Russian Forces have many problems preventing them from performing at full capacity, and doubt they can correct all these for the current conflict. However they are still formidable.

    Girkin is pessimistic about any large-scale Russian offensive, due to much of the same problems as RUSI mentions, and the Kremlin's unwillingness to commit enough resources upfront for a decisive victory (likely for political stability reasons).

    However quietly in the background mobilization continues at a steady pace. The 300k-500k incoming conscripts will be close in quality to WW1/WW2 infantry (still dangerous), but may continue to suffer command issues.

    Russian citizens still "support" the war and Putin, but most no longer follow it. Those that do, do so via Telegram etc, as the mainstream media talking heads have long since lost credibility by claiming they have destroyed the Ukranian army 5x over while losing little themselves, despite many MIA, conscription continuing and being visibly bogged down in the east.

    The Ukranians have lost the initiative since Kherson and Kharkiv counter-offensive and rare glimpes in western reporting reveal heavy attrition.

    Despite reinforcements of equipment and personel on both sides, many observers predict a stalemate close to the current lines of the 4 annexed territories, with maybe one or two minor territorial exchanges.

  37. Bakhmut is practically surrounded. Once it falls, it's mostly open country all the way to the Dnieper.

  38. Sad part is that refusing to fight on the Ukrainian side is getting harder each day. You just have got to hope civilians band together and get sick of this shit and start sabotaging the vehicles of recruiters and paying their families unannounced visits. Those are the ultimate kin slaying scum. Driving around in their vans far away from enemy lines, probably laughing their asses off about young men crying about wanting to see Mamma one more time as they dropped them off at the barracks to be sent into a meatgrinder, gloating about how they have the most awesome job ever, the living embodiment of cowardice, while somehow believing they are doing a patriotic duty.

  39. I have a question for War Tard, what do you think of the CCP? Are you going to post about the China v Taiwan situation. On one hand, my contempt for the West has reached the point where I support Russia against NATO, on the other hand, I dislike the CCP even more. I understand why Russia is allied with them, but I can't help but feel the Chinese are an inherently untrustworthy people, not to mention they have set the precedent for horrible shit like eating bats and dogs and draconian lockdowns that don't work. It makes me wonder had the West not been so hostile towards Russia and expanded NATO up to their borders after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they wouldn't have driven Russia into working with China and giving them cheap oil they used to have to import by sea?

  40. Please don't ask for comments on CCP

    1. Why? The commenter is entitled to ask for anything, especially if he well reasons out his question sincerely, which he did. My question is who are you to ask or refute any discourse here? If you don't like it, why comment or even be here? Just go read The New York Times or The Guardian and be happy. I don't think they even allow comments anymore and most of what they write.

  41. I remember something WT said before about the 2006 Israeli incursion into Lebanon and how Hezbollah were basically ushering in the new supremacy of heavy infantry armed with modern shoulder mounted weapons after they destroyed some Israeli tanks and held the IDF back. I would go further and say I don't think large operations like this war are possible against a near peer opponent in the 21 century.
    It is very complex and if your enemy keeps harassing your supply depots, maintenance with mid range missiles and ambushing you with ATGMs its just going to become a nightmare. Most of the breakthrough weapons got a huge nerf in the late 21 century.
    Tanks gets defeated by drone assisted artillery(precision ammo is even more effective) and ATGMs.
    Airplanes gets defeated by large availability of modern anti air missiles.
    So what remains is a grind with infantry backed up by artillery and drones and tanks and airplanes are relegated into a secondary support role.

    1. It's a good point to revisit. Thank you for reminding me!

      I think piloted aircraft are a thing of the past due to the sophistication of modern air defenses. This war has proved this. The Russians are not using their considerable air force and have lost a significant number of helos. For me, helicopters are not worth their cost on the modern battlefield. Vietnam was their time and even then they were valued for their air transport role to remote locations rather than anything else.

      Likewise, tanks are losing prestige. They are World War II remnants just like aircraft carriers.

      I think that the Russians have stumbled upon a new paradigm not by design but by brutal and fatal experience. And that is the realization that modern warfare falls back into WWI warfare. Artillery plus heavy infantry with IFVs as cavalry to exploit breakthroughs but never straying too deep beyond artillery cover.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same. You can bet every military on the planet watching this war and taking note. Neither NATO nor Russia was fully prepared for drone surveillance, precise targeting, total air denial and the ancient stiffness of well prepared dug in defense lines.

    2. Back in 2006, Hezbollah didn't only hold the IDF back. In several battles they even flat-out defeated them. We studied it during officer cadet training and we found out that this non-state actor tore this modern army a new asshole in like three weeks. Alas, offence is a lot harder than defence, but considering how outnumbered and out-technologied Hezbollah was in that war, it shouldn't have mattered. They literally used an understrength brigade of 1000 troops and beat an enemy of a maximum of 30,000. In some battles you'd even see a company-strength unit of Hezbollah engaging two Israeli brigades and still defeating them.

      It is a pity that this war is seldomly studied, because it is one of the most outstanding examples of the evolution of modern warfare. Afghanistan and Iraq isn't even comparable to this.

      Shows, considering how little the Israelis want to talk about that war and how much Hezbollah likes talking about it.

    3. Offense is definitely harder than defense. And I agree, WT was right on calling modern heavy infantry the "new reality". It's why the Russian's have been having so much trouble in a war they should have won months ago,

  42. I pretty much agree with your estimation of this particular fuckfest, it is definitely WW3. The funny thing is that everybody should have seen this coming, because, long story short, the US policy towards Russia has been very autocratic; if they meekly play ball and make no moves to maintain or extend their power, they can continue to exist, otherwise they need to be broken up and their power eroded.
    Europe is the US back yard, there should be no competition. And God forbid Russia entering the EU, the entire Anglosphere trembles at this thought. It is very interesting nearly nobody will speak of this, even as there is tremendous US pressure on castrated Germany and a France that sees the EU ship slowly sinking, since Makron wanted to add Russia to the fold.
    The way this is going, Ukraine will lose badly and probably die as a sacrifice to US external policy, Russia and the EU will take very long time to ever recover and Russia entering the EU is probably a writeoff. Not that the US is getting off much better. Even if they decide to withdraw from providing support for rebuilding and stabilization, there is still China to handle and much internal strife, not to mention reorganization of the industrial sector if they step off the Emperors throne.
    If Ukraine loses in any way like you said and the US is so involved with China that they cannot exert sufficient pressure, it is more likely that it will be left a desolate place with little help. It is unlikely the EU will be as enthusiastic to provide restructuring aid after a loss when the economy is as bad as it is and getting worse.
    This timeline sucks.

  43. War Tard, if you need some help moderating your comment sections (I see you have been overcome by a blizzard of shills) just let me know. I have the time.

  44. "The Ukrainian Army has been bled to death". (New Col MacGregor assessment)

    The podcast also addresses this balloon bullshit. Such an obvious media psy-op, you wonder what the purpose of the diversion is? Obviously to deflect attention away from the Ukrainian military collapse but nobody really cares about Ukraine anymore. I think it's more. And it ain't UFOs.

  45. Yes, it's PR to refocus the U.S. public's attention towards China.

    We have entered a global arms race.

    However the U.S. MIC is geriatric, over-consolidated at the corporate level and very inefficient at manufacturing. They can't even produce munitions at the rate of consumption in Ukraine. They are worried they won't be prepared in time (< 5 years) and focused enough to contain, deter and fight a rapidly growing China, their main competitor for 21st century hegemony.

    Asia will become half of the worlds economy and China are in position to be its leader. The U.S. fears if they don't box in China now, down the road they could end up being the ones boxed in. Classic hegemon paranoia.

    (Ironically, it was the U.S. who made their previous enemy the P.R.C. rich through Cold War trade concessions that went too far and resulted in the offshoring of everyones manufacturing bases for a quick buck).

    So the U.S. are beating the war drums now to get all that lovely taxpayer money for the MIC and boost their recruiting, and as you say to prime the public that Ukraine is not their main focus.

    For Ukraine, this means either Europe must pick up more slack, or it's getting near time to negotiate with the Russians. Good luck on getting anyone in Europe to agree on anything. The U.K. are the most bellicose and like their U.S. Anglosphere cousins they fear a resurgent Russia. The Germans want to cool things down and resume trade with Russia. France wants a centralized EU army with themselves front and center.

    1. Indeed:

      "U.S. warns Ukraine it faces a pivotal moment in war."
      Washington Post, 13th Feb 2023

      "As first anniversary nears, White House fears flow of arms may be harder to come by.
      The frank discussions in Kyiv last month reflected an effort by the Biden administration to bring Ukraine’s goals in line with what the West can sustain as the war approaches its one-year mark.
      ""We impress upon [Ukraine] that we can’t do anything and everything forever"
      But some analysts warned that neither Russia nor Ukraine is likely to seize a decisive military advantage in the foreseeable future."


      The US are telling Ukraine they better show results while the getting is good. They also did this last year before the successful Ukranian counteroffensives near Kherson and Kharkiv.

      This time the Russians are less overextended and should be better positioned. Even with their deep flaws, in the long run time and resources are on their side, and they are slowly adapting.

      Even now, if Russia can keep the annexed territories, its minor victory to them.

    2. As it stands, i agree with you 100%. For Russia right now, this qualifies as a "minor victory". If rational heads ruled, the war could end here. But for Russia, who shall they negotiate peace with? Certainly not NATO and it's puppet Zelensky. So war it must be. If there were a negotiating table, I think a deal could still be made.

      But in absence of such a deal, and there is no sign of one, Russia will push her interest West once the Donbass falls and it's a clear road to the Dnieper.

      I do not think the Russians want Kiev or are prepared to fight for it.

      Odessa, I believe is the bargaining chip. When Bakhmut falls and Russia has cleared out enough AA systems as it can find, I think close air support comes into play and (just like the Russians did in Syria), they'll bomb the Ukrainians into peace. One third of the population of Ukraine has already fled the country. They are drafting 16 year old's and 50 year old's. But the engine of their population is dead or fled.

      I wish it would end.

      But it cannot. This useless loss of human life cannot end until Ukraine waves a white flag of surrender. How long this will take is anybody's guess, but it is a date coming in the future. How many must die before that flag is raised or must the total annihilation of Ukraine be the only end point?

      Either way, after the NATO supplies, Nordstream destruction, advanced weapon supply, US satellite intelligence data and NATO contractors and military and billions of dollars keeping Ukraine afloat, it must end in horror. For me, when the Russians find themselves king of the rubble, will the victory by a Pyrrhic one?

  46. Yeah, the national language laws play into Putin's claims of Russian Genocide. They are like a lighter version of the Chinese erasure of independent Uygher culture, but many countries have historically had them, including Russia itself! Its part of an overall strategy by the West-Ukrainian government to culturally homogenize and unite the demographically divided country, which means no more 10-15m Russia-sympathetic populace.

    Sadly what the Ukrainians themselves want is of lesser concern to Russian and Western interests.

    To expand on the point above about why Russia are invading now, even if it's not a smooth operation:

    From the Russian security perspective, they see:
    • The 2014 Maidan "coup"
    • Hostile Ukrainian government which is pro-West anti-Russia anti-East-Ukrainian
    • Cultural erasure and political disenfranchisement of 10-15m pro-Russian eastern Ukraine
    • Escalating civil/proxy war
    • Failure of Minsk agreements
    • Declaration of independence of the pro-Russian separatists who (in coordination with them) sent a defence request to Russia
    • Ukraine quickly joining EU instead of EAEU
    • NATO expansion to beside the belly of Russia despite (non-written) post-Cold-War assurances they wouldn't expand eastwards. Russia says this poses an existential threat to them. NATO might not attack today, but they might tomorrow, with some pre-emptive "Iraq WMD" type justification. Look at the media hype about "insane Putin" and thermobaric weapons which everyone else uses. NATO can fill Ukraine with artillery, long range missiles and nuke interceptors, which the current Ukrainian government would gladly accept).
    • Western arms and training for Ukrainian government turning them into de-facto military ally (Russia is doing this too with the separatists)
    • A West/US that is continuing to chip away at Russia by stripping away allies, and trying to sanction, contain, and neutralize them.
    • The risk of losing Crimea and secure access to the Black Sea. This is a major geostrategic concern for them.
    • A decade+ of fruitless diplomacy with the West for Russian security concerns

    All of this compels Russia to act now before all of Ukraine was absorbed into the West, using the defence of the Donbass separatists as a causus belli.

    Massing their army at the border was the last step in negotiations with Ukraine/The West - if they had backed down after being rebuffed, it would have told the world "Ignore Russian diplomacy and military threats, they will just give up". They had no real alternative.

    IMHO this conflict was 100% predictable and preventable 10+ years ago, and was fuelled by NATO who dangled the promise of a military alliance in front of a historically neutral Ukraine, even though it would clearly lead to a serious confrontation like this. The question is whether they have a plan (e.g. Russia, China, Taiwan etc), or whether they are just institutionally naïve.

    From history, Great Powers don't want to directly fight each other because they know it will be a total mess and both will lose, but a conflict involving a third party can steadily escalate out of control and drag them both into a major war. The only way to prevent it is with painful compromise.

  47. This does seem to have greatly accelerated the threat to the Russian state, but I don't think it changes the outcome, which is why they acted now before it got worse.

    Checkout "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin".

    The only diplomatic options being offered to Russia from the West are to become a weakened client state of the US. Russia refuses and wants to maintain its "Imperial" independence and safety (just like the US and many other powers throughout history), but for the West it's too dangerous to let our old Cold War rival grow strong again, so the U.S. wants to decapitate the state.

    There are US PNAC/CNAS "Wolfowitz Doctrine" neo-conservatives all over US-Ukraine relations.

    What's worrying is where all this could be headed.

    • Relations return back to what they were before through peace negotiations/diplomacy. (How likely is this now?)
    • What the west "say" they want: The entire Russian executive government is permanently overthrown, deeply purged and replaced with a malleable client state (doubtful as Putin still has public support, and he is too seasoned in statecraft to be at risk of a coup. Could another autocrat rise? Would it have a destabilizing effect on the state and region?)
    • We get a new Iron Curtain between Russia and the West, parallel global monetary systems, and Russia allying with China, the new Cold War competitor in the 21st century. Could this be what NATO/US/EU actully want for some sound strategic/economic reason? Or is this another classic American Foreign Policy total misadventure that will end in disaster?

    Why make a gamble this huge over Ukraine staying out of NATO and letting Russia have Russian majority Crimea and eastern Donbass.

    Don't get me wrong, Putin is a ruthless anti-democratic autocrat, and I love democracy and the Pax-Americana, but sometimes we can be led into absolute folly that could have been easily prevented.

  48. So War Tard, on the year anniversary of the "Special Military Operation", I would have expected a post today. Either way, your insights are always appreciated. We are entering new territory and it'd be nice to know when exactly I should make a run for a remote location.

  49. Stupki in the north of Artemovsk came under the control of Wagner, they also entered Ilyinovka -

    Explosions reported near Minsk, most likely drone attacks on military infrastructure -

    The Musicians took the villages of Berkhovka & Yagodnoye -

    Russia suspends participation in START III nuclear arms treaty –

    Biden visited Kiev, Ukraine will receive a new $500 million military aid package -

    Air raid alarms all over Ukraine (20.02.2023 — 12:43(MSC)) –

    US accuses Russia of Crimes Against Humanity, Zelensky: "Give us cluster bombs. We are not party to the convention on the prohibition of cluster ammunition" -

    Kiev announced the beginning of the formation of the first Pshek special forces subordinate to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine -

    Energy infrastructure once again calibrated, emergency shutdowns in many regions -

    Paraskovievka has been liberated by Wagner -

  50. After fertilizing the soil around Bakhmut, Russia looks finally set to liberate its carcass with much fanfare. Elsewhere they grind forward with cannon fodder.

    Some RU milbloggers fear a swift Ukranian counteroffensive with better (NATO) training and intel that could overshadow the success of Bakhmut in the news. Western arms continue to trickle in.

    China is weighing up supplying war material to Russia. This would help keep Russia as a strong piece on the chessboard against a burgeoning Chinese-containment alliance. Retaliatory sanctions from the U.S. would hurt them in the short term, but those are already building up anyway. Russia would slide deeper into their debt.

    The question for China is whether its worth taking all that early heat only to see Russia blunder it away. Maybe they should also run the war for them, their generals do have way more medals on their chests.

  51. Prigozhin or Putin. That's the game now

  52. What happens after Bakhmut now that the Russians have taken it?

    1. Fake news. As of today, the Russians haven't taken Bakhmut.

    2. Glory to Ukraine!

    3. It's true Russia has taken Bakhmut yet. It seems they have taken everything east of the river which cuts the city in half. It is operationally surrounded and would require a large Ukrainian assault from the East to relieve. It's hard to see that happening so its fall seems inevitable. Its loss will be a bad PR hit for Ukraine and NATO. Bakhmut was a central transport hub that was essentially a very defensible area for the Ukrainians. The reason it's so important is that the next 150 or so km west and northwest of Bakhmut is indefensible flatlands. Russia owns the South and can now coordinate mechanized units on the roads to head further westward. The Russians have committed a lot of forces and artillery to this point on the front and the Ukrainians have some significant brigades to the West and may have options for a counterattack elsewhere (Melitopol)? That remains to be seen. Either way, the loss of Bakhmut particularly due to the forces the Ukrainians invested in its defense, is a significant strategic and major propaganda loss for Ukraine.

  53. Next up Georgia. Anyone care?

    1. Vlad needs to get in there and fix their voting machines.

  54. Great work WT. It's been a long time. It's so refreshing to rediscover you again!

  55. KhanCloud, you can't be serious or are you WT

  56. Trump now a declared Putin ally!