Macron Again Struts Feathers, NATO Troop Paranoia, & More
The most interesting development surrounds the Kremlin having designated Zelensky himself—as well as several other top Ukrainian officials and generals—as “wanted”, though oddly enough, the precise legal reason is unclear and not listed on the Russian Interior Ministry’s site.
The most immediate repercussions of this are:
Russia may be sending a signal and setting the groundwork for the revocation of any “peace deals” with Zelensky, as placing him on the wanted list ensures that the Russian state cannot legally parley with a wanted criminal.
Even more darkly, it potentially sets the stage for Russia to eliminate him following his total loss of legitimacy on May 21st, when the Ukrainian presidential inauguration would have taken place.
As to the first point, there have been a lot of signals from both the West and Ukraine itself about coming back to another ‘negotiations’ within the Istanbul mode, particularly given the upcoming global ‘Peace Summit’ in Switzerland on June 15th. Russia may be sending the West a message that no matter what they come up with during this summit, it will be impossible to treat with a man considered not only illegitimate but even a wanted criminal at the state level. Recall just last month Peskov himself hinted as much, and Lukashenko was the one to bring up the illegitimacy roadblock.
Here’s what Medvedev had to say about it on his TG:
What is the benefit for Russia from the Swiss “peace conference”?
The benefit is triple.
Firstly, it will be another evidence of the collapse of the so-called peace plan of the idiot Zelensky. At the same time, it would be desirable for Bandera’s bastard to visit her in person and once again sign off on his intellectual worthlessness.
Secondly, it will become visible evidence of the complete impotence of the current Western elites, who have committed a painful self-castration of their capabilities to end the military conflict. Moreover, on the direct orders of a group of senile doctors from Washington.
Thirdly, it will allow our Armed Forces to continue clearing the Little Russian territory of neo-Nazis without interference or regard for anyone’s asshole “peace initiatives”, and for all of us to carry out scrupulous work towards the final collapse of the political regime b. Ukraine and the speedy return of our ancestral territories to the Russian Federation.
Thank you, country of cheese and watches!
Now there have been increased signals from the West and Ukrainian officials themselves that returning to ‘pre-2022’ borders, much less 1991 borders, is no longer even an objective, but rather, at best, Ukraine aims to merely hold what it currently has.
For instance Congressman Adam Smith stated the best Ukraine can hope for is to retain access to the Black Sea and not lose Kiev:
Smith – the top Dem on House Armed Services –said Ukraine must hold onto about 82 % of the country – and not lose access to the Black Sea or have Kyiv threatened – to consider the endgame a success. Biden admin has been reluctant to say that because no one wants concede that might have to give up ground, he added.
And then there’s this:
Deputy head of UA’s military intelligence Skibitsky states quite plainly that:
His claim, though, hinges on the belief that Russia’s arms production will “plateau” in early 2026 due to a “lack of engineers and materials”, and apparently this will cause Russia to preemptively seek peace. I wouldn’t count on that. He further adds:
Maj Gen Skibitsky warned that Russia’s army is no longer the disorganised rabble that Ukraine repelled from some regions with such success in the early stages of the war.
Now, it is a “single body, with a clear plan, and under a single command,” he said.
Given these potential peace overtures, Russia may be kiboshing Zelensky in order to set the legal precedent that it will not entertain negotiations. This will accelerate after Zelensky’s mandate truly runs out at the end of May, at which point Russia may take a far sturdier official stance in not even acknowledging him as the country’s leader; in the worst case scenario, this could potentially even lead to Russia eliminating him in strikes, if necessary, though I think they’ll save that trump card for a rainy day.
The more interesting conclusion general Skibitsky makes in his new Economist interview regards the brewing Kharkov region offensive:
Looking at a wider horizon, the intelligence chief suggests Russia is gearing up for an assault around the Kharkiv and Sumy regions in the north-east. The timing of this depends on the sturdiness of Ukrainian defences in the Donbas, he says. But he assumes Russia’s main push will begin at the “end of May or beginning of June”. Russia has a total of 514,000 land troops committed to the Ukrainian operation, he says, higher than the 470,000 estimate given last month by General Christopher Cavoli, nato’s top commander. The Ukrainian spymaster says Russia’s northern grouping, based across the border from Kharkiv, is currently 35,000-strong but is set to expand to between 50,000 and 70,000 troops. Russia is also “generating a division of reserves” (ie, between 15,000 and 20,000 men) in central Russia, which they can add to the main effort.
This is “not enough” for an operation to take a major city, he says—a judgment shared by Western military officials, but could be enough for a smaller task. “A quick operation to come in and come out: maybe. But an operation to take Kharkiv, or even Sumy city, is of a different order. The Russians know this. And we know this.” In any event, dark days lie ahead for Kharkiv, a city of 1.2m people that rebuffed Russia’s initial assaults in 2022.
As I’ve been writing for a while now, he acknowledges that Russia may be looking to create another fixing operation in the north and then play things by ear depending on where the AFU commits its rundown reserves and forces. Should they overcommit to the potential Kharkov breach, then Russia could slam an offensive through the center front around Donetsk to create breakthroughs.
This has once more been echoed by Ukrainian officers:
Deputy commander of Navoz Zhorin said today that Russia will launch an offensive on Kharkiv and then immediately launch a larger offensive in the south
Another Ukrainian Marine with a popular Twitter account agrees:
Read the highlighted part carefully, “we just don’t have enough brigades to maneuver and react.”
This encapsulates Russia’s potential plans. By introducing a large force in a new direction they can really throw the AFU off balance. However, there’s also a good chance that Russia is merely playing at the possibility of introducing the northern force for the very reason to keep Ukraine guessing and unable to fully deploy reserves in Donbass, as they have to be on standby to be deployed to Kharkov. Just by keeping a large force on the northern border, Russia can keep critical Ukrainian reserves tied down.
How’s this news being taken in Western circles?
Unfortunately, the Biden admin doesn’t seem to be interested because they’ve now admitted that after accomplishing his ‘responsibility’ of throwing Ukraine a bone, Biden intends to totally shift focus on more important things, like the election:
NATO Troop Diversionary Screen
Given the above continued developments, we’re once again being razzled with threats of NATO troop deployment:
In the latest Economist piece, Macron again rekindles bravado-driven boasts of sending troops:
Many were again taken aback when Macron essentially said that if Russia creates a breakthrough in Ukraine, and Ukraine requests aid, then France will consider sending troops. But in truth, he’s merely trotting out the same threats made previously, hoping to spark headline buzz to maintain his ‘strongman of Europe’ facade.
Ukrainian Rada deputy Goncharenko however seized at the opportunity, reinforcing the play by juicing French TV audiences with the possibility Ukraine may in fact invite European troops in said scenario:
“If the situation at the front shows us that Ukraine cannot stop Putin on its own, without European military support and troops, yes, I believe that it is absolutely possible that we can ask for troops...” the politician said.
Amid all this, Italian newspaper Repubblica made waves by revealing the two red lines that would bring a direct NATO intervention into the war.
The article itself is paywalled though you can read commentary on it from Forbes.ru amongst others:
NATO, against the backdrop of Western concern about the failures of the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the front, “in a very confidential form,” “established” two “red lines” for itself, which could be followed by direct intervention of the alliance in the conflict, writes the Italian newspaper Repubblica.
The first "red line," Repubblica argues, "revolves around the possibility of Russian penetration through Kiev's defense lines" and concerns "direct or indirect third party involvement" in the conflict in Ukraine. The publication writes that the Ukrainian Armed Forces “can no longer fully control” the border, which, according to the newspaper, creates conditions for the Russian Armed Forces to break through into the corridor between Ukraine and Belarus. As the newspaper suggests, “then Minsk will be directly involved in the military dispute,” and “its troops and arsenal will be of decisive importance for Moscow.” “And this circumstance can only intensify (NATO’s) defense in favor of Ukraine,” the article states.
The second “red line,” the newspaper writes, “involves a military provocation against the Baltic countries or Poland or a targeted attack on Moldova.” Repubblica also notes the deep concern of Western authorities about the situation at the front and the “unfavorable conditions” for Kiev.
This is extremely interesting because, as always, it telegraphs NATO’s own intentions of provocation. The first red line is unclear, but refers to a Russian breakthrough possibly through Belarus, which they would equate with Belarus’ involvement in the war. In finer terms, this seems just a roundabout way of saying: “If Russia threatens Kiev.”
Why? Because Russian forces potentially aiming to surround Kharkov don’t require Belarusian territory. Only to take Kiev would they need to come from Belarus—so reading between the lines, it means NATO is quietly implying that they would only intervene to save Kiev.
The second red line is more troubling: a provocation on Moldova, Poland, or the Baltics is an easy route for NATO to create falseflags to blame Russia for a casus belli to enter the conflict. Just blow something up with a missile and claim Russia did it. Or, they could of course stoke the Baltics into provoking Russia into taking some action, just as they floated in the Kaliningrad train saga a while back.
As Legitimny channel writes:
That is why the former secretary of the National Security Council of Ukraine Danilov was sent to Moldova now, and Moldovan telegram channels insider about a certain disagreement between Sandu and Zelensky, according to the timing of the defrosting of the conflict in the PMR, where Maya pushes him away for 2025, and Zelensky needs him in the fall of 2024.
And Rezident UA:
Our source in the OP said that Danilov was specifically sent to Moldova as the creator of the CPD for working with cognitive operations. It is important for Bankov to draw Moldova into conflict with Russia in order to play the Transnistrian case in the summer. The former RNBO Secretary was instructed to work with all political actors and escalate the track of the war with the PMR this summer, as well as quickly resolve all issues with Sandu, who does not want to start the operation before the presidential election.
The Italians claim “100,000 NATO troops” could take part in such an intervention; not really much against Russia’s new 500k+ man second army, but certainly enough to at least block off a particular corridor.
In the end though, most of this is just posturing. The game has once again been given away by Macron himself in the earlier interview, and others as well. Macron said:
What I also wanted to reopen on February 26th was this famous strategic ambiguity, which should convince Putin that we are determined and that he will have to count on our determination.
And here is Polish foreign minister Sikorsky again outlining the fact that this coordinated European provocation is merely meant as a smokescreen to “keep Russia guessing” via ‘strategic ambiguity’:
The F-16 figleaf is likewise being used in this game of ambiguity to push Russia’s boundaries and test its limits. They will likely try to deliberately smokescreen where the F-16s can eventually be stationed or come from to give the effect that NATO may be involved in order to maintain a sense of tension they believe will deter Russia. But if you listen to Russian authorities and siloviki, they do not sound very frightened.
For instance, Colonel of the SVR, MGIMO professor Andrei Bezrukov’s comments on Macron’s interview are a must listen:
The Colonel may be right, as the outlook does not appear favorable for Macron and his party for the upcoming European Parliament elections:
Macron LREM/ENS, Le Pen RN:
—
As a final note, a new article by Stephen Bryen has made waves, where he claims that France has already begun officially deploying troops into Ukraine:
I’m only addressing it because it’s getting passed around on social media, but as of yet I see no real evidence of this. Bryen does not tell us where he received this information as far as I could see, but of course, if they did begin deploying troops, it could very well look like this: a quiet injection of units to help in the rears of the most critical fronts. So we can stay alert to possibilities but in this case, there is no evidence to support these new claims as of yet.
But keep in mind, I believe that French troops have already long been in Ukraine anyway. Some may recall as far back as the Mariupol fight, Russian forces kept finding French military berets and pins in the wreckage. Here’s a recent resident of liberated Avdeevka who says he saw French troops firing on civilians (note: 1923 should be 2023):
Georgy Nekrasov, a resident of Avdeevka, said that in 2023, French tanks under the control of French crews from the positions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces shelled peaceful areas of Avdeevka.
Given how detailed his account and good his memory is, I would think he’s a fairly reliable and believable source.
In the end, it’s not about sending troops, which likely have already been there, but rather sending them officially and in large number.
Also, here’s Swiss Colonel of the General Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Chief of the Swiss Armed Forces’ Military-Strategic Staff (MSS), Alexander Vautraver—read the highlighted portion below:
The French army would be “a drop in the bucket” in terms of support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, says retired Swiss colonel and editor-in-chief of the Swiss Military Review (RMS+) Alexander Vautraver.
"This is a drop in the ocean, just a small part of what is needed. The question must be asked: is the French army sufficiently equipped in terms of training and modern weapons to contribute to offensive operations against an enemy that is superior in numbers?" - said the former military man on the French TV channel LCI.
“The forces that we could deploy are two brigades of 5-6 thousand soldiers, with a deployment duration of a maximum of 1-3 months. But if we are talking about a longer period, as, obviously, in the case of Ukraine, this is only 2 battalions that are today in the Baltic countries and Romania. The bad news is that these forces are absolutely not enough to confront the half-million Russian army,” he said. According to Vautraver, these forces, located outside France, are now under NATO command, which is “even more problematic.”
To cap things off, here are two other noteworthy videos from high ranking military officials:
Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis:
And former French army general Dominique Delavard:
—
Now some other important sundry items, as tradition would have it.
Several times I was asked in past mailbags to comment on the state of the Ukrainian disabled veterans. Now, a new Le Monde article covers the topic quite grimly:
It states outright that 70% of disabled Ukrainians are forced to care for themselves with the state having “given up on them.”
Now add this to the new mobilization procedures which allow for the sick and even mentally incapacitated to be called up by Zelensky:
—
I’ve long covered the topic of Ukraine’s prisoner disparity with Russia, which is an obvious analog to the general casualty ratios. Rezident UA now gives their take on the numbers:
#Inside
Our source in the OP said that the process of exchanging prisoners has stalled due to the approach to the lists. Now in Russia there are more than 20 thousand prisoners of military personnel, and we have only 800 and almost 5000 thousand separatists, whom we are trying to exchange in the same way.
According to them, Ukraine holds 800 Russian and 5000 Novorossiyan POWs, while Russia holds over 20,000 Ukrainian ones, which would likewise reflect in the general casualty ratios between the two.
—
Josep Borrell again reiterates that Ukraine would surrender in 2 weeks without aid supplies:
—
After reports last time that the Abrams tanks were withdrawn from the battlefield, Ukraine’s 47th brigade vehemently denied it and said they haven’t gone anywhere. As if to undo the shame they appeared to make a show of it, risking the Abrams once more in defense of areas west of Avdeevka, which resulted in 2 new Abrams being destroyed today, as well as another Bradley. That reportedly now makes upwards of 6-8 Abrams destroyed thus far by most counts:
—
Lastly, as a new update on the Bentley situation:
The lawyer for the widow of the murdered "Texas" said that the killers of Russell Bentley were detained and are confessing. The case is under the control of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.
Below, the lawyer explains that Moscow has reportedly assigned great importance to the case with a special investigator and all things are going accordingly:
And Lyudmila gives some meditative thoughts for the religious occasion:
Your support is invaluable. If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate if you subscribed to a monthly/yearly pledge to support my work, so that I may continue providing you with detailed, incisive reports like this one.
Alternatively, you can tip here: Tip Jar
If just the possibility of Putin "marching West" is a such an existential and imminent threat for NATO, why isn't the actual reality of NATO expanding East an obvious and understandable one for Russia?
All the talk about "Russia sending signals" is nonsense. Russia, including Putin himself, has directly and publicly stated their position and intent -- and the West has consistently ignored it.
The idea that, in this context, Russia is trying to communicate with the West using opaque messages that have to be decoded, when the West is not interested in the clear black and white messages already delivered makes no sense. Especially when Russia completely understands no agreement made by the West will be honoured.
The only reliable outcome for Russia will be one it imposes militarily, so they are not going to be wasting time trying to get some understanding or agreement with the West through convoluted messaging.
People in the West may think they are seeing "smoke signals from Russia for interpretation" when, in reality, all they are seeing is smoke from burning western equipment, with more to come.