SITREP 3/11/24: Patriots Blown Up as Mix-Messaged NATO Fumbles On

Last time we spoke on the sudden upswell of threatening rhetoric booming up from the crumbling sepulcher of Old Europe.

I’m left with no choice but to tie one onto the previous line, as, no sooner had my ink dried on the last report, when new escalatory effluent spilled forth from the encrusted spouts of Old Europe’s lips.

After Macron ignited the firestorm with his batty remarks, a mixed signal farrago of ‘corrections’ and clarifications ensued. First, Macron tried to walk back his words a mite:

But at the same time, on another vector he dropped an even bigger bombshell than before—that France may be forced to intervene if Russian forces began to approach Odessa or Kiev:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29194

https://www.lindependant.fr/2024/03/07/guerre-en-ukraine-une-avancee-du-front-vers-odessa-ou-vers-kiev-emmanuel-macron-annonce-ce-scenario-qui-pourrait-engager-une-intervention-de-la-france-11810700.php

From the Kiev Post article:

Fabien Roussel, a representative of the French Communist Party, said after the meeting that “Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odessa or Kiev.”

He noted that the French President showed parliamentarians maps of the possible directions of strikes by Russian troops in Ukraine.

Following the meeting, Jordan Bardella of the far-right National Rally party noted that “there are no restrictions and no red lines” in Macron’s approach.

Manuel Bompard of the La France Insoumise party expressed increased concern after the meeting. “I came to the meeting worried and left even more worried,” he said.

That’s right, folks. Once again we have confirmation of my longest holding prediction that NATO would draw its red line at Odessa and would potentially intervene if Russian troops are realistically positioned to capture the city. There’s much talk now about how Europe feels that the U.S. has left them in the lurch and they must act unilaterally against Russia, particularly given that U.S. held most of the cards in critical supplies and funding—without it, Ukraine will collapse and Europe is faced with a final choice.

This fact was specifically cited in the new AP article:

https://apnews.com/article/poland-nato-russia-france-abd144aee256a72388c196dae8acaf7f

In this case Rothschild stooge Macron seems intent on leading from the front with a wishful thinking campaign designed to generate solidarity around his ‘bold’ declarations.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-soldiers-under-fire-train-for-what-war-is-like/

To some extent it may have worked in earning approval from the smaller, least consequential chihuahuas:

https://www.rt.com/news/593993-poland-nato-troops-ukraine/

Poland’s foreign minister Sikorsky makes his case for troop deployment:

He even went on to affirm that NATO troops are already in Ukraine anyway:

And France is now even reportedly seeking to round up a coalition:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-builds-alliance-countries-open-153500658.html

As the above Politico byline states, Berlin has been staunchly opposed to such a direction. German Defense Minister Pistorius clarifies:

However, at the same time German Bundestag member Kiesewetter urged to begin attacking Moscow directly before strangely lying and taking back his words:

German politician Kiesewetter wants to attack Moscow! He says the Defense ministry and FSB headquarters in Moscow should be attacked. -> Then he’s asked if Moscow should be attacked and he says no. As I said, Kiesewetter is not smart. He says things cause they sound nice.

And the French Defense Minister countermanded his own boss’s words, which appears to suggest that Macron is making statements not approved by his own military:

The Italian Ministry of Defense likewise seemed to rule it out:

The Minister of Defense of Italy, Guido Crosetto, criticized statements from France and Poland regarding the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine.

"France and Poland cannot speak on behalf of NATO, which from the very beginning formally and voluntarily refrained from intervening in the conflict," he stated in an interview with the newspaper La Stampa.

Crosetto believes that this would be a step towards unilateral escalation, which would deprive the conflict of the possibility of a diplomatic solution.

According to the minister, Italy will continue to support Ukraine, but there is a need to "intensify diplomatic channels."

But of course, Macron continued to seed the ground for future provocations in a quite telegraphed direction:

The most important thing to clarify in all this is that some are misunderstanding NATO’s intent vis a vis the troop deployments. They wouldn’t deploy the troops to immediately start attacking Russian forces and initiate WWIII. The going theory is that, initially, NATO members would seek to free up Ukrainian resources in the west of the country at a time when Ukraine’s frontline troop numbers are depleted to critical lows.

Here’s two analysts’ takes:

In France and the Baltic States, threats are increasingly heard to send their troops to Ukraine if the front of the Armed Forces of Ukraine "crumbles". We will not see the French in amphibious boats under Krynki, but they can take over the rear functions, freeing up units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to be sent to the front - world history already knows such examples.

The enemy is also increasing the production of various types of attack drones. Both for strikes on the territory of Russia, for attacks on the front lines, and naval options. Despite the talk that Russia is starting to get ahead of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in terms of the number of drones produced, in reality the situation is much more complicated, and quantity does not mean quality/functionality. There's a lot of work to do.

And the second:

In the foreign segment of the social network X (ex-Twitter), the first proposals to send foreign troops into the territory of Ukraine began to appear .

Of course, all images of this kind have the status of unofficial, but their meaning is already understood.

The essence of the proposals for the deployment of foreign troops on the territory of Ukraine (at least for now) boils down to the fact that NATO forces would not enter into direct combat with the Russian Armed Forces, but would be deployed along the northern border of Ukraine with Belarus and, although to a lesser extent, nearby with Odessa (apparently to protect the ports).

The deployment of NATO troops along the border with Belarus, according to this idea, should help the Ukrainian Armed Forces free up troops stationed on a line with a length of 1.3 thousand km.

At the moment, this is impossible to do, presumably due to the threat of offensive actions by the Russian Armed Forces from the north.

These are just rumors that some have already ‘debunked’—but it does seem most probable to me that such a thing would be the initial vector. Recall our last discussion about Ukraine having an alleged 700k men “in the rear” taking up various duties and guarding various sites and borders. If NATO troops could relieve them of that, it would not only free up more fodder for the front, it could accomplish a second important goal: blocking off ‘likely’ Russian invasion routes, like areas north of Kiev to dissuade another Russian offensive from the north, as well as bring Belarus into a slowly threatening constrictor squeeze as well.

Another such ‘rumor’ from Ria Novosti’s official TG channel from a couple weeks ago which I posted before, but want to include again for the sake of info consolidation:

A knowledgeable source from RIA Novosti provided details of the British plan for a NATO expeditionary force in Ukraine, the creation of a no-fly zone and “undermining” Russia’s offensive capabilities:

▪️ preparation of such a scenario for implementation in London is expected to be completed by May 2024;

▪️ it is planned to secretly transfer large, highly maneuverable NATO forces to Ukraine from the border regions of Romania and Poland to occupy defensive lines along the right bank of the Dnieper;

▪️ a preventive strike by the armed forces of Moldova and Romania on Transnistria is also not excluded;

▪️ in order to “disperse” the forces and assets of the Russian Armed Forces, it is planned to deploy a contingent of NATO forces and the armies of individual members of the bloc on the territory of Norway and Finland;

▪️ at the same time, strikes may be delivered to strategic infrastructure facilities in the northern regions of Russia;

▪️ after that, according to the British plan, NATO troops would create a “buffer zone” within the occupied positions, including the border with Belarus and the territory around Kyiv, and the released forces of the Ukrainian army should withdraw to the Northwestern Military District zone.

In essence, the ideas seem to outline a potential attempt to force a ‘Korean scenario’ on Russia, were Russia to reject all ceasefire and settlement overtures when the time comes. That time would come when the AFU is finally nearing total collapse, which could be anywhere from a couple months from now until first quarter of 2025.

But while it’s not yet plausible that NATO would dare such a maneuver, make no mistake, if they chose to do so, there is nothing Russia could do to stop them. They would be able to bring their ‘blocking’ detachments to whatever areas they wanted, and Russia would likely be forced into some kind of halting impasse. Forget the puerile comic book tales about Russia striking European capitals or nukes flying. Russia would not start WWIII by attacking NATO assets first in such a way. Why? Because, technically, for NATO forces to do that would not be illegal or out of place in the eyes of international law. After all, if they’re not attacking Russia first, then they are merely traversing the territory of their own ally, with full permission from Ukraine. It’s the same reason the U.S. can’t do anything about Russian forces harassing them in Syria.

So, yes: NATO can move in and put up blocking forces and basically “dare” Russia to go through them knowing Russia can’t do so without attacking them first and giving NATO unprecedented casus belli—and it would all be perfectly legal in the eyes of international law. Russia did the same thing at Pristina in 1999.

But of course, doing so would be very politically risky for NATO leaders, and likely extremely unpopular among constituents so there’s a chance they’re only bluffing in order to shape the psychological domain of the war.

Poland’s Sikorsky may have given some of that game away in his interview above, where he basically implied that these recent moves may be part of a sort of asymmetric destabilizing strategy to make Russia less comfortable in their own moves, second guessing everything. In fact, just about all NATO’s recent actions have apparently been about creating a heightened sense of tension and fear, to make Russia less confident all around. This of course goes back to the days of the infamous RAND report about strangulating Russia with gradually increasing tension.

This strategy was clearly seen this week in the following report:

For the first time since the country joined NATO, a Swedish military aircraft flew near the borders of Russia, reports the portal for monitoring military aircraft flights Itamilradar.

As the portal notes, there is various equipment on board the aircraft that can intercept and analyze messages and other electronic signals.

And of course in general we know NATO countries are slowly attempting to prepare for a much wider European war in the future:

We are informed that in France several previously disused military bases are currently being rehabilitated, but using administrative obfuscations intended to lure the curious.

For example, in Chateaudun the disused base was ceded by the army to the municipality to make it, according to the official version, a private airport intended to receive Falcon type aircraft. The site has a main runway 2,300 m long and a cross runway created by the Germans during the last war which was left abandoned. The main runway was intended for fighter planes.

There are more than 70,000 m2 of warehouses, offices and housing buildings which are therefore being rehabilitated, and an 80 hectare voltaic power plant will be set up. All this to accommodate a few Falcons?

This is just an example, there are several bases in this case. The aim would in fact seem to set up discreet bases for NATO military operations to avoid having everything grouped together in the "main" bases in the event of strikes.

I say “attempting” because I’ve pointed out before the cyclical nature of these escalations. NATO has threatened almost every single one of these actions for years—like the infamous “300k rapid deployment force on Russia’s border!”—without any of it coming to fruition because the actual initiatives turn to vapor under the scrutiny of how much it would all cost, and what titanic effort it would actually take. In reality, NATO can be said to be getting weaker by the year, with constant cuts to forces all across the board. So will the latest threats of buildups pan out? Probably not, as NATO stands slightly better chance to collapse than reinvent itself as a superpower, in my estimations.

https://archive.is/30481

Big Serge, by the way, has a good thread about France’s military capabilities apropos potential Ukraine intervention:

Serge concludes:

The balance of things is that Macron is trying to make it look like he's taking a tough stance on Russia, knowing that the veto from Germany and America will prevent him from actually having to follow through. He can then say "I tried, but the Germans are cowards".

Threating to enter the war if Russia gets to Odessa is basically like saying "you better not beat up my little brother, if you knock him unconscious I'm going to hit you." You wouldn't wait until your kid brother has already been pulverized to step in.

With others chiming in:

But as a reminder that NATO troops have already been in Ukraine, there’s this new note with complementary maps showing American operations since 2014:

As a reminder for those who are seriously discussing that “NATO troops will appear in Ukraine in 2024” or “appear after 2022”.

American regular troops have been operating in Ukraine since the spring of 2014. And this concerned not only the preparation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the NSU, but also various operations on the territory of Ukraine.

But we continue to ask: why these desperate threats from NATO? Let’s examine that some more.

Zelensky just arrived in Turkey, where some believe he may be in secret talks regarding a settlement of the conflict. It’s been pointed out, for instance, that he recently issued a decree of partial de-mobilization for conscripts:

The gist of it is people mobilized during the early period may be released into the reserve, however the “catch”—at least as I understand it—is that they are then prevented from being re-mobilized for 12 months. So it’s—in effect—a ‘rotation’ that would give them a potential 12 month respite. Some have taken this to mean Zelensky is winding down the war, but in reality it seems more a measure to cool the furor on this issue, which has resulted in many protests from soldiers’ families.

However, the pressure on Zelensky is clearly rising. Right Sector leader Yarosh recently appeared to threaten Zelensky:

He in essence states that Zelensky is destroying Ukraine, and that the opposition must soon come together as one patriotic force and spend the entire calendar year of 2024 fashioning a unification of this vanguard to engineer a new maidan.

The general direction was echoed by Aidar’s Mosiychuk, who said that Zelensky’s presidential term has a few months left, and forces are slowly consolidating around Zaluzhny:

As for the rumors of secret peace talks in Turkey, Zelensky issued a statement completely rejecting any peace summit with Russia:

However, he seemed to imply that he will allow the West to take the lead and create some sort of conditions to parley with Russian representatives.

This was after the Pope urged Ukraine to hoist the white flag:

Of course, next we have the fact that the Matron of Maidan—or is that the Maiden of Maidan?—Nuland is getting the boot:

And is being replaced with the guy who was hurriedly ad hoc’d into helming the ‘disastrous’ Afghanistan pullout:

Which of course has led many to naturally conclude the ‘clean up guy’ is being brought in to put the toe tags on the Ukrainian project. However, he’s only the ‘temporary’ replacement, and Biden has in fact nominated Asia-expert Kurt Campbell for the top spot. This further insinuates a Biden administration pivot toward the Chinese theater and away from the disastrous Ukrainian one.

“Kurt Campbell played a key role in developing President Barack Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ into President Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy,” Yuri Tavrovsky, chairman of the expert council of the Russian-Chinese Friendship, Peace and Development Committee, told Kommersant.

“In practical terms, he was particularly active in the creation of the anti-Chinese military bloc AUKUS (Australia, the UK and the US) and in strengthening the military component of the QUAD group (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue - Australia, India, the US and Japan,” Tavrovsky said. “The appointment of Campbell to the second-highest post in the State Department demonstrates the White House’s long-term course of containing China, despite words and gestures that look like a desire for reconciliation.”

Thus, according to Mr Tavrovsky, “the second place in the State Department went not to the greatest hater of Russia, but to the greatest hater of China.”

Some, like Russia’s Zakharova, believe that Nuland’s ouster is a sign that, internally, it’s been recognized within the Biden administration that the neocon course on Ukraine had become a dead end, particularly when Nuland was given such a ‘free hand’ to conduct that theater to her wishes.

Now, in further exploring the question of NATO’s suddenly escalating rhetoric, let’s skim the fecund field of the latest MSM headlines, to get a temperature gauge on where things are at:

“The armed forces of Ukraine will not survive the conflict with Russia without the help of the West. The Russians have more of everything. Tanks, artillery, manpower and aircraft. “We have much less. And they have been preparing for this conflict for a long time. Unfortunately, we didn't do this. We can only survive if the West comes to our aid and gives us more weapons,” said a Ukrainian Armed Forces officer.

The commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces mercilessly compared the Russian President to Machiavelli.

“Putin is deceiving. He wants to achieve results. He believes that the end justifies the means,” he noted. He stated that democratic Kyiv is fighting totalitarian Moscow. He predicted that the outcome of the biggest war in Europe since 1945 would determine which political system or "pole" would dominate the next century."

The above headline, by the way, comes from this fascinating CNN report which details just how badly Russia’s supposedly “destroyed” and “inept” airforce is wrecking the AFU:

Then we have the Abrams, the fourth specimen of which has been destroyed today, with Russian fighters reportedly posing for selfies in front of it:

That’s not to mention reports that Russia captured a fully intact Leopard 2A6:

Russian UN rep Polyanskiy:

Then we have the biggest developments of all:

Russia has been on an absolute killing spree of NATO air defense and other ‘prestige’ systems, with the Patriot reportedly being the latest victim yesterday—confirmed by Forbes:

By the way, isn’t it interesting how Patriots easily “shot down” all those Kinzhals—a far superior, upgraded version of the Iskander—over Kiev, yet here a measly Iskander put the Patriot out to pasture? Just food for thought.

But what is my point here? HIMARS, Abrams, Patriots, and everything in between are now getting obliterated each day. Time is running out, with Ukrainian opposition openly plotting against Zelensky who many expect to be overthrown come May. Meanwhile, Russia continues to only get stronger, with production ramping up all the time.

Thus, it’s only natural that NATO is looking at all the emergency options available to them to save Ukraine at the final hour. The only question is, when will that hour be, exactly? Judging by the sheer urgency of NATO’s recent actions it feels like it’s coming up within months.

One of the reasons for that is there continue to be rumors, now including from the West, that Russia intends to launch a new mass-scale offensive at the start of spring, after Rasputitsa wears off:

From Rezident UA:

MI6 has transmitted new intelligence to the Office of the President and the General Staff that the Russian army is increasing its stockpile of missiles and UAVs for a major counter-offensive, which could begin in May-June this year. British intelligence assumes that the main blow will be made on Selidovo-Pokrovsk, to create a springboard for a future operation to cut the Ukrainian front."

And the recent Bloomberg piece quotes infamously dilatory Michael Kofman with the urgent remark that Ukraine could start losing the war this year for good.

https://archive.is/Nic2s

Polish general Bohuslav Pacek likewise opined that Russia will start breaking through by April:

https://www.kp.ru/online/news/5701275/

Very soon, Russian troops will fully seize the initiative in the free defense zone. Polish General Bohuslav Pacek expressed confidence in this in an interview with RMF FM radio station.

"The turning point of the situation in favor of Russia will occur, in my opinion, at the end of April — in May, when there will be favorable weather conditions for this," the general said.

Bohuslav Pacek noted that the military assistance of American and European allies to Ukraine is clearly not enough.

Couple that with rumors of Russia opening up a new line of attack from the north and it’s easy to see why NATO may be so pressed to scramble for contingencies to save their precious milking goat.

Recall the predictions from U.S. congressmen like Schumer and co. who said Ukraine could start facing a ‘catastrophic’ situation within two or so more months, and would begin having to make critical decisions on “which cities to hold and which to give up”.

But even if that were to become the case by May-June, and Russia were to launch a robust series of offensives, Ukraine’s lines may begin to crumble, but Odessa and Kiev would likely not be at threat for quite a while longer. Even with totally collapsing lines, the most Russia could hope for in the medium term future is to reach the Dnieper River—and the likelihood of even that happening this year is very low.

That’s all to say that NATO still has time before the situation turns so critical as for Odessa to be in the crosshairs. But as one of the earlier rumors said, if things got really bad for Ukraine, there’s a possibility NATO could provide an escape route by positioning its forces at the Dnieper, allowing the AFU to escape behind the river, and drawing the new Korean-style DMZ demarcation at the river.

https://russian.rt.com/world/news/1283282-franciya-armiya-konflikt

That all being said, here’s one recent take from a Ukrainian military account about a potential new Russian incursion from the north—the AFU claims they have everything under control:

Who hasn't called me or written to me about the threat of a Russian invasion from the direction of Sumy.

Yes, there is a group of several tens of thousands of Russian troops there. We, of course, see this and strengthen our forces, they see that we strengthen ours and also become more active. Our soldiers near the borders see activity, call their relatives and that's how rumors are born.

I already wrote that in the era of satellites and UAVs, it is impossible to hide anything (especially the movement of equipment).

Will they go there across the border?

And who knows them. After February 24, 2022, nothing can be surprising.

Given that the West funds Ukraine entirely, the war hasn’t had as much of a disruption on Ukrainian society as would normally be the case. That means as long as Zelensky—or whoever’s in charge a few months down the line—can keep a semblance of control, Ukraine could potentially weather some of the storm and eke out just enough mobilizations to hamper Russian advances.

New packages continue being discussed:

https://www.rt.com/news/594020-republicans-aid-loan-ukraine/

US Republican lawmakers are drafting a bill that would dole out some non-military aid to Ukraine as a loan, rather than a gift, NBC News reported on Friday. While the GOP views the plan as a compromise between the party’s pro- and anti-Kiev factions, Democrats insist that their no-strings-attached $60 billion aid bill is “the only way forward.”

And France is reportedly scrambling to get more equipment to Ukraine by ungifting their stuff from other countries—a very telling move that reveals the depletion of France’s own remaining gear:

France is negotiating with Arab countries about the return of the sold French weapons for their further transfer to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron announced this during a press conference. Macron said his country would no longer supply shells and artillery systems to Qatar and Saudi Arabia to focus on supporting Ukraine.

A Ukrainian fighter writes that even if a new round of mobilization were to occur now, its effects would not be felt for months. He says he leaves it to the reader to conclude what that would mean, relaying an anecdote about how things are so bad on the front AFU commanders are lying about their positions:

Well, judging by his final comment: hope springs eternal—or so they say.

Beyond that, Ukraine has been ratcheting up its stop-and-go attempts at building their version of the Surovikin line. You can see some of the alleged results here:

A few last items:

Leader of Estonia’s ISAMAA party details how the “Democratic” West should treat Russia’s elections:

More humiliations for the Brits:

👀The British Challenger 2 from the 82nd Special Airborne Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces drowned in a hole during demonstrations at the training ground in front of British journalists from The Sun, who filmed the process of evacuating the stuck tank by another Challenger.

👀It should be understood that in difficult conditions all tanks get stuck. However, we have previously stated that the huge weight of the British Challenger 2, starting from 63 tons and capable of reaching 75 tons with the installation of additional armor, will inevitably lead to problems with the maneuverability and evacuation of these tanks due to the lack of a sufficient number of modern Western BREM.

It is also worth noting that modern 120-mm L27A1 CHARM 3 BOPS with a depleted uranium core were seen in the ammunition rack of the stuck tank.

Not to mention half the provided Challengers are already considered out of action according to Ukraine:

And another:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13179229/Briton-25-went-Ukraine-fight-invading-Russians-inspired-Liz-Truss-killed-suffering-PTSD-inquest-told.html

British mercenary in Ukraine hangs himself after returning to the UK.

Speaking after the hearing, his family explained how his decision to go to Ukraine was prompted by controversial comments by Liz Truss - his local MP and foreign secretary at the time.

She said she "absolutely" supported any Britons who wanted to travel to fight the Russians, arguing they would be joining a battle "for democracy".

—

With all the ongoing mobilization rage in Ukraine, this man has a novel idea for women who so cavalierly henpeck men to get to the front:

Next:

Ukrainians are transferring museum pieces erected as monuments to the front:

Next:

Former Ukrainian deputy defense minister Malyar reveals that the West has secret agreements where they don’t want Ukraine to show their crippled equipment:

Lastly:

In light of all the talk of NATO entering the war against Russia, Russian journalist Kharchenko astutely points out that this would open Pandora’s box because Russian society has been so conditioned against the eschatological level ‘Armageddon’ battle against NATO—and are incidentally so united now in solidarity—that the war would be nearly welcomed, taking up the banner of a new Great Patriotic War that would galvanize all Russian society like never before. No one in Europe would know would hit them, as Europeans are at one of their morally lowest points in history. This would be a disaster for the West and likely a replay of 1917, with Europe playing the part of the Russian Empire at the time of revolution—I full agree with the sentiment:

Macron does not even imagine what gift he will make to us by introducing troops to Ukraine. Such a frankly stupid step will not stop the war, but the motivation of the Russian troops will increase many times. The appearance of the Abrams and Leopards did not scare our soldiers, on the contrary, there is a competition for the extermination of outlandish cars. Any anti-tanker wants to get this treasured trophy. Even if the French division takes up a front section, then many kilometers of volunteers will line up in Russian military enlistment offices, who will demand to send them to destroy the French.

The war against NATO will finally unite our society. We have been told about this on TV for too long. And if we see the NATO on the battlefield, then numerous ideological bookmarks in our brains will fire at the same time.

The Russian people harness for a long time. And now Macron can hit the handbrake. The war will finally turn into popular resistance. With such introductory ones, we can easily carry out the second and third waves of mobilization. The war against NATO in the Russian consciousness is not a war with Ukraine at all. And the western "experts" just don't feel it. So dare a descendant of musketeers, or besides loud words, are you no longer capable of anything?

Alexander Kharchenko

---

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

---