Today, let’s talk about some of the specifics of the ongoing offensives and military actions, an area we’ve neglected the last few reports in favor of the ongoing ZNPP developments.
Russians nuking themselves is as plausible as Zelensky impregnating my father via Twitter. I worry that where there's one crazy desperation, there may be another. These aren't leaders. They're not protecting their own people. They've committed to killing them. They're legalised mercenaries. And they know that they're only important whilst the war lasts. What ever madness they commit to, is proof of relevance, sociopathic self-preservation. It disgusts me, but it is ' normal' when looking at history. Wolves are wolves, sheep are sheep. Sheep make me very sad.
All governments are rackets. Maybe Iceland least of all, official dictatorships in between, and the USA most of all. I'm irked by the latter because it kills whilst being sanctimonious. My Government just wears horns.
Glad to see you have your own substack now! You write very well, and I say that as a published author in books and academic journals. Also you are awful wise for someone who's not real old. You're as wise as someone in their 50's and 60's. I've been studying some of your comments and wisdom and using them in my thinking. You've got it down! You also have of summing up a lot of knowledge and wisdom very succinctly in one or two sentences. Sort of like Hemingway, that. Understated and the opposite of pomposity.
That's a way-too generous compliment. I'm not close to being as wise as I will be next year. That's the only direction in which time is not a bastard. In another 20 years, I will challenge Simplicius :)
I just finished reading your article entitled "06 Putin Isn't the Only Monster in Ukraine: Nazis Are Convenient". Very well written and sourced. It's a shame about the title of the blog (and the picture of the dog). Unfortunately, it makes it easy for a non-receptive audience to dismiss your content when that's the first thing they see.
That's a way-too generous compliment. I'm not close to being as wise as I will be next year.
That's the spirit! A lot of people never learn! Sad.
"That's the only direction in which time is not a bastard."
I think you are correct on that one.
If you like young women, it can come in handy. I'm in my 60's and in the last decade I've had relationships with quite young women on the basis of them falling in love with my brain in part and my wisdom in another. You can basically trade wisdom for young pussy if you are interested and up your game enough.
Geez. How lame can you get? And I haven't even read it yet. BTW, I work in mental health.
He's the man in charge of US imperialism, an inherently sociopathic project. The USA is more like a gigantic organized crime gang than a real country. It's like a huge Mafia pretending to be a government. To administer over the US gangster state you must either be a sociopath or act like one for 4-8 years.
There are no good guys in geopolitics! There are bad guys and worse guys and that's it! Non-psychopaths need not apply!
The showrunners want us to think we're in the endgame, but I've heard this song and dance before. Somehow, someway, they'll keep it going for far longer than it should, and we'll be along for the ride. Such is the way of the SMO Show.
The Dagestani girl was rude to disrupt Western stereotyping by describing Putin as " cute" - hilarious. As for Progozhin, whom I would have loved to have seen in a funny wig, reality is that us bald fellows are too recognisable in enemy territory. Wigs make sense even if I don' t like him and UK tabloid media doesn't get that. That video returned the error: " No video with supported format and MIME type found."
Do you know that "bald," "ball," and "white" are all cognates? "Bel" means white in Russian. It's cognate with "bald" and "ball" in English. "Belorussia" = "White Russia."
If you think a bit maybe you can see how "bald" went to "ball" (not hard to figure) and "white" (might have to think a bit).
You need to think about it a bit! Say it is a sunny day. You have a guy with a bald head. The sun shines on his head, and it looks bright and shiny, as in "white." Bald heads of Indo-Europeans are white because our skin is white. A bald-headed Indo-European is a "white head." I'm not kidding. And "ball" of course is the shape of a bald head. It's shaped like and literally looks like a ball, a beach ball for instance.
Ok there is a word called "tik" that means, basically, "one." We call it a global cognate because we think way too many languages have this term, far beyond chance. And words like that are not often borrowed. So we think it goes back to Proto-World, the first language.
Anyway, "tik" was in a language I worked with (as a linguist-anthropologist for an Indian tribe). It was in an old word for "point of a spear." I think it was a cognate. See if you can figure out how.
A lot of people think an English reflex of this term is "teacher." That is, it's a cognate of "tik" for "one." See if you can figure it out.
Putting me to through some intellectual rigueur on a rainy Saturday afternoon? I accept you challenges! I maybe should have paid more attention to the writings of Noam, or are his ltechings applicable to linguistic anthropology?
After 7 minutes of thorough research I have concluded the words: tic, tick and tik are unrelated in meanings and origins. Much like the English word 'what' and the Korean word 'mwhat' have the same meaning and are pronounced the same (minus the 'm' sound in Korean).
I do hold I could be mistaken and am going to dedicate another 15 minutes of thorough research done on Wikipedia learning about Proto World.
You're a smart guy! And you respect another smart guy! I like people like that! To people like us, learning and knowledge is almost a sensual (body) activity the way others experience sports, hobbies, and social behaviors. I like to say that learning for me is like taking an African cruise for somebody else. I can anywhere I want in in the world in time and space and outside the world and time just by reading a book!
The behind the scenes meeting with Lavrov is somewhat of a good step but I have my reservations. We in the west have a habit of pushing for negotiations when the tide is turning. The west used MINSK 1,2 to delay and rearm. I feel Russia should have absolute superiority over the battlefield situation before negotiations can begin. Maybe, but that is just my way of thinking. Great as always Simplicius
You have to negotiate. It is part of the game. The bad guys make the rules. One thief and we all have locks on our houses. 'All's fair in love and war'. Those are the rules. Realists play by them. Putin is a realist by now for sure. Probably always was considering his background. 'We were fooled; we trusted you' doesn't indicate naivete, it's a just a move in the PR game that is part of the whole thing.
Clearly the Russians weren't fooled and are game playing as they used the Minsk agreement to build up ten times more strength than the enfeebled NATO ever could so it was Merkel and the others in the West who were fooled, I get that. I get that Russia is allowing the US regime in Ukraine to murder civilians in the Donbass and elsewhere in order to use those acts as present and futrue proof of how evil the West is, and always was.
But if you have to negotiate with a nurse not to inject poison into your arm you have no freedom, no sovereignty over your own body. If Russia has to negotiate with anyone about anything she has no freedom and no sovereignty. Gunboat diplomacy was what the British empire used and the American empire following them copied killing far more innocents than the British managed and hopefully this time Russia's gunboat diplomacy will take the power to wage war away from these people and lead to the arrests of those that murdered millions of innocents because they were "only following orders". If Russia having rid the world of this evil then goes down the same path as those two empires she will face that exact same fate as they did.
Look at Colonel Douglas MacGregor who talks a lot of sense about the war in Ukraine and he seems to be a nice guy but actually he "was only following orders" as he murdered Iraqis whose only "crime" was to try to defend their country from the oil thefts of Kuwait and the WMDs never existed as surely he must have known as millions around the world did and yet he fought in an illegal war making him a war criminal. These people, nice or not, must be arrested and put on trial for their lives. The US military, as all militaries in the West do, tell their soldiers they have a duty to refuse to follow illegal orders so why did MacGregor and hundreds of thousands of US troops obey their illegal orders and why will the armies of Poland, Germany, the UK, France etc etc etc follow the illegal orders of the dual passport "Americans" in Washington DC to murder Russians whose only crime is defending their homeland against the globalist destruction that is well on the way to destroying western Europoean countries?
You misunderstand me a bit but it doesn't matter. I meant negotiation is always a part of life, you even negotiate with your children. And I also meant it is a part of war: you negotiate as they did recently.
But it doesn't matter. Your post is not about negotiating or not it is about your hatred and desire for revenge.
I'd like to point out all the evils that you're so incensed about on the part of the British Empire as was and the American Empire as perhaps was were practised by all nations throughout all time and still are whenever nations can get away with it.
A bit like the slavery argument. In fact all peoples in the world have all practiced it and often those most incensed about it have the strongest genealogical connection with those that practiced it the most.
Revenge is madness and bad. You take revenge on a man and his family suffer.
And so on.
If you should calm down and care to discuss negotiation and its applicability in the current situation I've no doubt there'd be many people happy to engage with you.
You are about the only entity with USG attached to it that makes any rational sense. I agree its time to finally put the USG in its place and the ONLY way to do that is have them begging for mercy. If Russia can get them to this point they will have broken their (USG) backs. That being said, its hard to judge what may be happening behind the scenes. The USG may imply the willingness to go full nuke unless Russia pulls back. Nothing is off the table with these megalomaniacs hellbent on ruling the world.
Russian journalists tell me that another possible use of the “mutiny” is to quieten Putin’s Russian nationalists critics. As far as I can tell, no one inside or outside Russia, except Putin, knows why he has tolerated a never-ending conflict that ever-widens and becomes more dangerous. Some of my informants say that Putin believes the West cannot stand the continuation of a conflict in which their weapons and money has meant no difference to the outcome and when the Western countries are all suffering economic dislocations from the American sanctions. They say Putin believes that Washington has destroyed its power by undermining the dollar’s role as reserve currency. Consequently, Putin, who does not want to be known as an invader or a conquerer putting the Russian Empire back together, is content to butt-sit and wait on the collapse of the West.
My response is that this is an astute position. However, it overlooks how the American neoconservatives interpret it. They see Putin’s butt-sitting as inability to win, as weakness and a lack of confidence, and this emboldens them to press Putin with more provocations. The danger as I see it is that at some point, possibly very soon, the provocations will ignite nuclear war.
I stick to my point of the past 18 months that to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, Putin must quickly bring the Ukraine conflict to an end in Russia’s favor. Then turn his back on the West and get on, together with China, India, and Iran, building bridges with the nonwestern world.
While I agree in principle, history shows that there is no turning your back on the West. The 200-year ambition of the Atlanticists is the capitulation and exploitation of Russia, and their record of atrocities committed in pursuit of this ambition is long and deep. When that ambition has been crushed, then maybe Russia can safely turn her back on the West.
He can't do as he pleases. The Wagner mutiny shows the emperor has no clothes. The Military stood down. No one tried to stop Prigozhin. Wagner was not greeted in Rostov as mutineers, but rather heroes. Even the Chechens only arrived after the fact. Only the national guard (Mall Cops) were finally scrambled to try and stop Wagner.
Again, please do not misunderstand. No one is calling for Putin to be overthrown. That is not what the Army wants. What they want is a change in direction. For the use of force that Russia is capable of using to be applied in Ukraine to bring an end to the war.
We have the Russian intervention in Syria as a good example. Over eight years now since Russia intervened and it is not resolved. The US still occupies 30% of Syrian land and all the major oil fields. If the US is ever forced to leave Syria, it will be the result of Iranian pressure, not Russian. No one wants to be fighting in Ukraine for the next eight years.
In the long term, I think Shoigu has to go. He doesn't have the confidence of the Army. That however, can be a battle fought for another. day.
Look at this: "..... please do not misunderstand. No one is calling for Putin to be overthrown. That is not what the Army wants. What they want is a change in direction." How do you know what the army wants? What are your sources for making a total bullshit idiot claim like this? Oh, you know? You just happen to know, like, astral projection informed you what the RF General Staff are all thinking & saying. It's funny how, the more one has the misfortune to read these 2D commentaries of the NotaSlavski/Slavsquat variety, you notice that the claims are all identical, the trolling is identical, even the language is the same - makes you wonder where all this is comming from.....
I was in Russia and talked to Army officers that's why. If you don't agree with something that is said, why don't present your arguments as to why? All your posts seem nothing but personal attacks.
So you talked to Army officers in Russia - let me tell you something bullshitter - from someone who comes from that part of the world, local fucking cops don't just talk to your average cunt off the street about anything, much less serious political matters. You talked to army officers. Name them then. How did you get access to them, on what grounds? Are you from some news agency? Which units were these officers serving in? Are they currently on duty or off? And then, after all that, assuming you talked to anyone - which you did not - who do they represent? The bulk of the armed forces. Yeah, personal attacks, I will always attack total cretins like you who lie, & when you get caught out lying you respond like a spoilt child who just got their toy bunny taken off them, fucking rank idiot.
The counterpoint to your point is that going hard in Ukraine also risks escalation by the US. If it looked like Russia might be about to overrun Ukraine, Biden and staff could get spooked and reactively escalate. At a certain point the escalation ladder gets very unpredictable.
The other counterpoint is that Putin does not want to go full mobilization and war footing. He’s said it. He also wants to minimize Russian casualties and Ukrainian civilian casualties. Going hard contradicts all of those. It also might well complicate relations with the RoW.
At the moment he has the moral high ground outside the west. Losing it has danger for Russia. I don’t think he planned to attrit western military capability, but the west left him little choice once the spring 22 negotiations failed.
What you state has merit, however, I wonder in the long run how many lives would have been spared if Russian had gone in with total force, either at the beginning or after the first mobilization. Yes it would have been bloody and destructive, but relatively quick too. Not three days of course, but three weeks to a month would be my estimate.
As to world opinion and Russia's allies, this of course matters, but I also think that Russia's allies want to see an end the fighting. After all the Western provocations Russia has endured, I think it has all the justification it needs to use enough force to bring an end to the war.
In any event, the Russian offensive has not happened and I don't see it ever happening. Russia doesn't have the troops for an offensive. After Ukraine's offensive sputters out, Russia may have enough troops to finally liberate the Donbass, but no more than that.
A "rush to victory" by Russia was what the West anticipated, check the way NATO constructed the Ukraine army, the way it was trained and armed. It was meant to be a powerful, well trained and armed incountry resistance, not a conquering force.
The goal was to create a second Afghanistan for Russia, draining it of its resources, funds, troops. The Sanctions were to be the kill shot. NONE of it went the way the West anticipated and the world is very lucky it didn't.
Yes. Putin has not played the game the way the neocons expected. They projected their own methods onto Putin who stands out as a methodical, practical leader. Nothing he's done so far since the SMO started has been knee-jerk, reactionary as far as I see. I dare say Russia would have had far more casualties with a rush to overwhelm Ukraine, plus he would not have the industrial and troop strengths he has now while Ukraine slowly bleeds to death.
This idea that Russia could just go in and end the war in any time frame it wants is purely Hollywood thinking. Look at the US they captured Baghdad, destroyed Iraq's entire electricity grid and destroyed Iraq's water infrastructure, destroyed the countries infrastructure. They killed and had the Iraqi leadership scatter and go into hiding. Did this win the Iraq War?? No it did not, the war went on for another 5 years and in the end the US could not defeat the Iraqi militias on the battlefield so they resorted to bribing them to no longer fight. Russia capturing Kiev does not mean the war would of ended.
Other things to consider are possible diplomatic deals Russia has with its partners. It is likely India, China, South Africa, and others have told Russia that they have their back and they will continue to keep economic ties and will not apply sanctions. They will also remain neutral and will not contribute to the Ukrainian war machine no matter how much pressure the West applies among many other supportive issues. These things among others have probably been agreed upon by Russia and its partners. Moreover, Russia's partners agreed to these things only if Russia does not behave and conduct war like the US, carpet bombing cities, destroying everything in site, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, etc. Russia says it in no way wants to be like the US so they must prove it by conducting this war in a different, more honorable way than the US and the West conducts their illegal wars. Well, that is my guess as to why Russia does not go all Rambo in Ukraine. They have made diplomatic agreements not to do so. Yes, there are other reasons to, but I believe this is a real possibility.
I think his objective is far greater than a win in Ukraine and that is why the war proceeds at a walk not a run.
I think he hopes to see the fall of the EU member states, brought down by the costs of the war and their leaders blind allegiance to the US. Ideally the downfall of their govts would herald the rise of sane leadership.
That hoped for change will take time, years. But if the fall of the EU destroys the US grip on Europe, it will be time well spent. I think he also hopes to live to see the decimation of the US deep state, but that is a far more deadly and diabolical kettle of fish and may take more than the loss of the EU states and Ukraine.
Has anyone considered the effect of China cutting off the supply of whatever that metal stuff is on the GAE's attempts to rearm? The proxy war in Ukraine has drained the GAE's military resources, but how will it continue and rebuild without that stuff from China?
That "stuff" is known as rare earth metals. Right now, there are plenty left for sale, so any effects from China's export embargo won't be felt for a year or two.
Weirdly, despite the name, "rare earth" metals aren't rare at all. The problem is that they're never found in concentrated form. If you dig up a cubic meter of soil and it is composed of 0.03% rare earth metals, that's considered a "very rich" concentration.
The real issue with "rare earth" metals is that it is a nasty, dirty, and difficult business to extract and purify them. Any country, theoretically, could start producing "rare earth" metals tomorrow, but practically speaking, it would require a colossal investment in processing infrastructure and a high tolerance for producing pollution. That's why everybody just finds it easier to buy from China right now.
Good reply, thank you for laying it all out. So the GAE is vulnerable then as they try to rearm? And there's no quick way for them to suddenly get another supply? Very interesting, thank you again.
"According to a Pentagon spokesperson cited by Reuters, the US Defense Department announced on Friday it is invoking the Defense Production Act to boost the domestic mining and processing capacity of two rare earth metals, gallium and germanium, critical for high-tech chip-making for the US defense industry.
Reuters said the Pentagon has a strategic germanium stockpile but no gallium stockpiles. The move to invoke the Defense Production Act comes after China announced Monday that it will impose export controls on the two metals, citing "safeguard national security and interests."
"The (Defense) Department is proactively taking steps using Defense Production Act Title III authorities to increase domestic mining and processing of critical materials for the microelectronics and space supply chain, including gallium and germanium," the DoD spokesperson said.
As a refresher to our early reporting, gallium is most common in semiconductors, transistors, and small electronic devices. It's also used to make LEDs. As for military-grade Gallium Nitride, it's found in cutting-edge weapon technology that US defense companies produce. Three of the most common uses for germanium are rectifiers, transistors, and weapons-sighting systems."
Oh no, don't think so. They'll swallow whole whatever their "leader" tells them to swallow. Look how rapidly the Greens in the EU suddenly switched support to coal mining again.
I think you're projecting your own abilities of rational thought and critical thinking onto the "environmentalists". Ain't there.
Just to clarify, most of the "regiments, divisions and bases" closed by Serdyukov existed on paper only, a byproduct of legacy soviet approach and subsequent cuts to the force, manned by a skeleton officer crew which were very senior by then without ever seeing any combat or combat training. Think of it as an almost entire soviet era "officer organisation" without the troops. He is hated precisely because he cut that "management overhead". In that, he did much needed work for those who came after him.
Another clarification: there were never any real corruption claims again Serdyukov himself but there were concerns that some people working for him got carried away. In my opinion, the real reason he was fired was the scale of the backlash against him in the armed forces. Putin put Shoigu in place precisely because he was seen as a conciliatory figure. True to the form, Shoigu never challenged the generals, at least those who were left after cuts. Equally important, Putin trusted Shoigu to oversee trillions or roubles they were planning to spend to modernise the military.
As for the divisions vs. brigades, types of weapons, etc - these are questions to the general staff, not the defence minister. Neither Serdyukov nor Shoigu have anything to do with this.
I won't argue with you because there are endless reams of opinion on both sides, however it is a fact that within the circles of Russian military itself, Serdyukov holds far more infamy than 'Shoigu' who most troops don't actually care about one way or another.
There are always two sides to a story, you gave the 2nd side to Serdyukov so perhaps you realize there's also a 2nd side to Shoigu as well.
If you polled the military: "Who is better Serdyukov or Shoigu" -- the Russian military would choose Shoigu. That's a simple fact which you may debate til the cows come home. I personally don't have a horse in the race. I don't represent Shoigu or Serdyukov and don't really care about either one, I'm simply reporting the facts as I see them.
But as you said, Serdyukov reduced divisions to brigades, and Shoigu reduced brigades to BTGs, though he's bringing them back now.
It's hard for us on the sidelines to have opinions so we can only trust the expertise of the troops themselves, and most of the troops say that Serdyukov was a villain.
Not trying to argue in favor or against Shoigu or Serdyukov. I was just highlighting that Serdyukov is hated precisely for doing what was sorely needed back in late 2000s. He was never a "professional" manager in the Western sense and the way he did what he did greatly contributed to the sheer scale of hate against him. This is in support of your point that, against Serdyukov's backdrop, Shoigu is seen by most in the military in positive light. Rather than challenge that, I was just reflecting that Shoigu was in the comfortable position to build on what Serdyukov had created for him. Yes, Serdykov is seen by the military as a villain. But, from the perspective of people outside the military, he cleaned Augean stables. Ironically, much of the criticism of Shoigu comes in the area having to do with procurement: he did not do enough to clean corrupt practices there. Of course, if you are Shoigu, you would want to maintain at least some distance from there, knowing what happened to your predecessor.
There is an argument that to rebuild things, you have to break them first. As an ex CEO and Crisis Manager myself, I always reckoned that a key responsibility was to eliminate the ar*eholes. And slay sacred cows. It is certainly true that the Russian military has come on a long way since the 2000's. I doubt it could have been done without radical surgery, and in that process mistakes will have been made. Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
There is an urban legend that, at the start of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, Putin was looking for someone in Moscow to "run" the war and could not find anyone. Literally, hundreds of generals but none who would be in the position to run combat operations.
If you mean Stalin’s purges then after them Red Army somehow found Zhukov, Rokossovskiy, Konev, Tolobukhin, Vasilevskiy, Vatutin… and the list goes on. Problem is rather overall degradation of army in late USSR and 90s’ Russia with demoralization and corruption that cannot reliably produce good military leaders. Only by chance.
Just because a leader is unpopular with the troops doesn't mean that the leader is wrong.
For example, the Janissaries had a habit of deposing sultans who tried to reform them, even as the Ottoman Empire continued to decline militarily. Something similar could be said about later Qing China. And the Praetorian Guards are proverbial.
Poignant imagery of Serdykov cleaning the Augean Stables as if he were a newfound Heracles, keep them coming!
I don't think Shoigu supposed good polls accounts for anything. Effectiveness as Minister of Defence is not something that can be gauged by popularity contests.
Probably 99.5% of the polled didn't assess Shoigu's competence and track record, they just had nothing to say against or thought absolutely nothing judgemental of him.
And besides, technically to the polled ones he's the boss... hard to dare to bad mouth the boss, even if the pollsters promised anonymity
BTW, I find myself "arguing" over a minor detail of otherwise great write up! As an ex crisis manager, I just wanted to plug for another crisis manager by the name Serdyukov. Looking forward to the next piece!
That's the whole purpose of "кадрированные части". This skeleton crew of officer cadres could be filled with reservists tomorrow and be reasonably functional. It's mobilization tool. Yes, it's not great, but it's much better than creating corps out of thin air and expecting it to work. There were slew of articles in Russian military journals criticizing Serdyukov decision.
I'd like to pose a counter-view. Why exactly does Ukr need to "show results?" All we hear day in and day out is that the West is in it for the long haul, in it to win, in it to "safeguard democracy" and all that. At no point have I ever seen those dots connected, that support is tied to results. Yes, perhaps behind the scenes the ignorant political class in the West believed their own propaganda and urged the Ukrainians on "hurry up and win already"...
Since the Challengers and majority of Leopards/Bradleys/Strykers are still intact, Ukraine has the makings of a potent defensive force. In fact, it would be hardly a chore to pivot the narrative from "taking back lost territory" to "brave Ukrainians holding the line", and there will be the added convenience of those minefields, which go both ways; Ru clearly does NOT intend to attack on those axis if they have mined them to oblivion.
I think the thrust of it is: Ukraine's current attrition rate is so high that without massive/constant Western support, Ukraine would literally run out of armor in the next ~2 months. This is why the current big topic is that Germany announced a massive emergency injection of old Leopard 1s (with laughable 105mm cannon) by "the end of the month" (July) in the amount of 100-200 just to save the AFU because they are taking such massive attrition.
So the point is that, the AFU needs to "show results" because if the West stops massively supplying it with armor, it will literally cavitate and implode in the next 2-3 months at most by way of current attrition rates.
In January of this year--as per the Pentagon leaks--Ukraine had ~800 total tanks. They have now lost an estimated 200-300 in the offensives since early June. At this rate they would literally be out of armor in another month or two and would thus face complete and total collapse. This is the problem.
Right, so as long as the narrative is "Ukraine must WIN" then Ukraine has to attack. Until the narrative changes to "Ukraine must HOLD"... but the moment to do that is NOW, while they still have an army, not after its destroyed in failed offensives...
Seriously?? How? Via elections where over 70% supported a peace president who was later bribed/extorted by Americans?
The only way is for conscripts to comply with training, go to the front and then surrender without getting shot in the back by their own command. Not an easy task.
You don't look for solutions, do you? You find objections to solutions.
It's called negativity.
It could happen that overnight all the soldiers on both sides of this conflict all became enamoured of some pop singer, say. A fashion, a belief an understanding - a 'meme' we say today - could spread through and 'consume' them all overnight.
Such is the nature of today's world. With this new human being that is connected with all others at all times etc.
Hence they could all be of one mind in one day. No one could stop them, then.
Ask yourself: which route would you suggest - one that pushes in that direction? or one that says don't bother it'll never work?
I think Ukie tactics will change dramatically and they will go on the defensive with guerrilla insurgency next. The problem is going on offense for Russians as they go against the same obstacles the Ukies did, plus cluster bombs. The problem is not beating the army. Russ gone through three according to McGregor. It is the NATO pipeline of weapons, supplies, mercenaries, trainers, transportation crews, advisors, and money and everyone knows where they are.
If you look at successful insurgencies in recent history (Zimbabwe, Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.) one thing they all have in common is a young population.
The median age in Yemen is some 20.2 years. The median age in Ukraine was over 40, and that before the war.
To be fair, we also heard a few months ago that Ukraine's air defenses were nearly depleted, but if they are, Russia doesn't seem to be pressing this advantage away from the front.
Personally I think a pivot to holding the line and buying time (until a NATO intervention???) is the correct strategy for the UAF. I never thought they could breakthrough and its might be that Zalugny shared this opinion. However I judge that most western experts had assessed the RF (incorrectly) as the verge of collapse and that one more attack would crush its morale. So the UAF attacked, are getting mauled in the "crumple zones" and are now seeking to reshape the narrative. Theirs is a PR war after all. I'm actually very sad about all those UAF conscripts getting massacred, though not so with all the Azov SS guys and the western mercs who deserve what they get.
Russia may not have been as militarily potent 5 - 10 years ago but 'the West" then, as now, did not have the military strength to attack and win. A direct surprise attack would not have conquered Russia, even if all of NATO and other western allies had joined in. It might even have lead to all out nuclear war. The "west" did not want to conquer Russia, they wanted to "colour revolution" it nd set up a subservient government. I doubt that was ever actually possible.
Why not considering that the West already conquered Russia and has been controlling its governements since at least XVII century?
Also, in early XX century there had been a lot of proxy wars for Russia (Balkans, Far East with Japan, etc), but they only replaced tsar with bolsheviks during WW1. Btw, neither of these governments were Russian.
Because they have to show an ROI, especially as the ability to resupply the VSU becomes more and more costly in terms of western capability. The “in it for the long haul” are empty but public promises from western, particularly American, politicians. The least trustworthy people on the planet. Joe Biden ran for president to destroy Russia. He is a famously impatient and demanding asshole. He’s easily fooled by internal propaganda (he’s never been very smart) but those feeding him information will be blamed if the information turns out to be false.
Having tanks is one thing, having competent operators is another if one wants a potent defense. Not much evidence of that so far, plus they have almost zip of an air force, no way to produce more weapons in quantity except begging ... while Russia continues to be firing on all cylinders.
I juat want to say, that I was right about the lack of Ukraine's high tech component also.
Back around February all the Russian mil sources reportin on the coming offensive decided to ramp up the hysteria that when time comes and the offensive is launched, Ukraine will send upwards of 10 000s drones in a huge swarming strike on the defense line and rear to several cripple or annihilate our armor and ammo depots and other stuff.
I wrote it wouldn't happen - they barely managed to use Switchblades, they don't have a Lancet equivalent that's both small and explody enough, and they also lack communication infrastructure capable to carry out such an attack.
Ammassed numbers of Maviks don't a drone swarm make.
Lo and behold, a month of offensive, still no mega kamikaze drone swarm. Wonder why. All the Russian mil channels soundly shot up about the issue, prolly out of shame that they were playing in the enemy's hand.
Also Britain announced it will be training whole TWENTY pilots in August.
Pukes lost 4 Su/MiG planes in the last week or so.
Compare the numbers and the fact that the F-16 is an old machine of the same gen as the last soviet handdowns from Southern Europe that pukeraine operates, and you'll see where the Plane Coalition is going.
That's true. They did ramp up a new campaign of strikes with drones flown to Belgorod (shot down today), and Moscow last week (shot down), as well as some new promised HIMARs strikes, one of which did work out in Makeevka near Donetsk, but other than that not much happened in that regard.
You know, the continued wasting of drones and expensive western guided munitions on civilian targets instead of actually using them to fight a war is one of the most baffling (out of many) things the AFUcks do and did throughout the SMO.
It's absolutely impossible to shake us (Russians) into some sort of hysteria or retreat just because you're doing terrorist attacks.
If anything, Prigozhins little stunt showed quite evidently how resilient we are to such stuff. If anything we just get more angry and radicalized against the pukes.
So why waste equipment? Why did noone analyze that the foot attacks on Belgorod not only didnt achieve any sort of psychological effect, they wasted their precious tanks and merc troops?
Ukraine is behaving highly irrationally in this war, and it seems a lot of their actions are emotionally predicated, which combined with inadequate US tactics is what allows for this effective force attrition.
We should be, all in all thankful, that the khohol isn't a sound and stable creature. Any other army would've probably used these resources at hand for far more efficient actions, but the pukes still insist fighting what I dub is the First PR War.
Military targets are well protected by air and missile defense. Attacks on civilian targets are undertaken in order to demonstrate something, at least some "victories".
Plus they and their masters are evil, pure and simple, they want to kill anyone opposing their globalist money-grabbing oppressive agenda, be they soldiers or innocent civilians ; like Lindsey Graham said in his discussion with Zelensky : to kill Russians is 'best money we (USA) ever spent'
Those 10k drones are typical GPS only, mostly off-the-shelf commercial drones. Basically EW fodder. It's amazing that Western militaries completely missed notion that GPS/Radio is dud in modern combat environment. Meanwhile hey, look, outdated and dumb Iranians and Russians made their drones EW proof for some reason. Stupid savages, they don't understand brilliance of technology.
One of the reasons this is done is because 'unofficial' people can talk more candidly via 'backchannels' due to the fact that governmental officials can never talk without being recorded as it's government policy in every country for *all* official commentary to be transcripted (it's the law) by way of official notaries, etc. So the only way to ever communicate with another statesmen in an 'unofficial' way that doesn't get logged and transcripted into the official State audit is to use intermediaries who are not official governmental officials. This is why people like Kissinger were so popular for years, or Rabbis from the Chabad-Lubavitch groups, or more recently Alex Soros traveling around with the semi-retired Bill Clinton to meet with global leaders like the Pope last week.
Interesting. Yet on the other side of the table sits Lavrov, an official representative of the Russian government, whose talk, as you have indicated, is by law required to be transcripted? Something does not connect here. But even so, the fact that the CFR is chosen as the US negotiator should remain a matter of deep concern for Americans. Why not a former respected diplomat (if one still exists), or other retired government leader? I think I know why - the CFR guides American foreign policy. Indeed, I suspect that when you are speaking to representatives of the CFR, you are actually going over the heads of the government - otherwise, why would a person of the stature of Lavrov even bother speaking to such people?
Of course, it might also be noted that probably most retired US diplomats of stature are likely former/present members of CFR anyway. But all the more reason for Americans to be concerned, IMO.
Because western sources are now characterizing a simple chat among diplomats as something it isn’t. They’re testing waters and trying to portray themselves as seeking a diplomatic solution.
Yes, that is what I see. If you can't get a meeting, just make stuff up. They are so used to "owning the message" via their control of much of the world's media that truth is now meaningless to them.
Personally I would be surprised if Russia was prepared to negotiate seriously with the situation as it is, maybe more so if things on the ground are in their favour. But peace talks can take a long time and you have to start somewhere. And optics with BRICs and the ROW matter.
Also had a 12 year old girl student who had an instinct for maths that would put to shame some engineering undergrads.
She wanted to be a Fortnite Twitch streamer.
Russians nuking themselves is as plausible as Zelensky impregnating my father via Twitter. I worry that where there's one crazy desperation, there may be another. These aren't leaders. They're not protecting their own people. They've committed to killing them. They're legalised mercenaries. And they know that they're only important whilst the war lasts. What ever madness they commit to, is proof of relevance, sociopathic self-preservation. It disgusts me, but it is ' normal' when looking at history. Wolves are wolves, sheep are sheep. Sheep make me very sad.
Baaaaaa. Sheep are very dumb!
Sadly, I live in a field of them.
It isn't a government. Its a racketeering operation. Unfortunately this describes all Westrn governments these days
All governments are rackets. Maybe Iceland least of all, official dictatorships in between, and the USA most of all. I'm irked by the latter because it kills whilst being sanctimonious. My Government just wears horns.
Glad to see you have your own substack now! You write very well, and I say that as a published author in books and academic journals. Also you are awful wise for someone who's not real old. You're as wise as someone in their 50's and 60's. I've been studying some of your comments and wisdom and using them in my thinking. You've got it down! You also have of summing up a lot of knowledge and wisdom very succinctly in one or two sentences. Sort of like Hemingway, that. Understated and the opposite of pomposity.
That's a way-too generous compliment. I'm not close to being as wise as I will be next year. That's the only direction in which time is not a bastard. In another 20 years, I will challenge Simplicius :)
I just finished reading your article entitled "06 Putin Isn't the Only Monster in Ukraine: Nazis Are Convenient". Very well written and sourced. It's a shame about the title of the blog (and the picture of the dog). Unfortunately, it makes it easy for a non-receptive audience to dismiss your content when that's the first thing they see.
I don' t want to comment in full on someone else's page but 1. Thanks. 2. There is reason for header image and title.
That's a way-too generous compliment. I'm not close to being as wise as I will be next year.
That's the spirit! A lot of people never learn! Sad.
"That's the only direction in which time is not a bastard."
I think you are correct on that one.
If you like young women, it can come in handy. I'm in my 60's and in the last decade I've had relationships with quite young women on the basis of them falling in love with my brain in part and my wisdom in another. You can basically trade wisdom for young pussy if you are interested and up your game enough.
That was very specific. Wonder how dad feels about the reference.
JacksBacks, my Father isn't on Twitter. Propaganda can't change the mind of someone busy gardening.
I meant the part about Zelensky impregnating him..
Perhaps Mike, but for Russia intelligent Putin is the best president Russia ever had and a giant among West’s current dwarfs.
Yep, he sure is popular.
In "The Dark Side: Joe Biden's Journey into Evil," I painted a detailed picture of the guy to better understand the psychology behind him. https://open.substack.com/pub/trygvewighdal/p/the-dark-side-joe-bidens-journey
Geez. How lame can you get? And I haven't even read it yet. BTW, I work in mental health.
He's the man in charge of US imperialism, an inherently sociopathic project. The USA is more like a gigantic organized crime gang than a real country. It's like a huge Mafia pretending to be a government. To administer over the US gangster state you must either be a sociopath or act like one for 4-8 years.
There are no good guys in geopolitics! There are bad guys and worse guys and that's it! Non-psychopaths need not apply!
You totally miassed the main point in Joe”s bio.
Yeah...
"Budanov had just recently claimed that Russia installed explosive devices"
This character should change his name to: "I-Am-A-Pathological-Liar-And-You-Are-A-Fool-For-Believing-Me"
I thought this dude was dead?
Neurolink allows us to live forever.
We'd be so lucky...
thanks simplicius.. excellent coverage and overview with a plethora of links as well..
The showrunners want us to think we're in the endgame, but I've heard this song and dance before. Somehow, someway, they'll keep it going for far longer than it should, and we'll be along for the ride. Such is the way of the SMO Show.
The Dagestani girl was rude to disrupt Western stereotyping by describing Putin as " cute" - hilarious. As for Progozhin, whom I would have loved to have seen in a funny wig, reality is that us bald fellows are too recognisable in enemy territory. Wigs make sense even if I don' t like him and UK tabloid media doesn't get that. That video returned the error: " No video with supported format and MIME type found."
Hmm. Try another browser, seems to be working for me
Ok, for you I will use Microsoft Edge :) Worth it for those funny images.
Be Brave ;-)
Do you know that "bald," "ball," and "white" are all cognates? "Bel" means white in Russian. It's cognate with "bald" and "ball" in English. "Belorussia" = "White Russia."
If you think a bit maybe you can see how "bald" went to "ball" (not hard to figure) and "white" (might have to think a bit).
You deserve more than one upvote. I admit I am not seeing a cognate between white and bald or ball in English.
You need to think about it a bit! Say it is a sunny day. You have a guy with a bald head. The sun shines on his head, and it looks bright and shiny, as in "white." Bald heads of Indo-Europeans are white because our skin is white. A bald-headed Indo-European is a "white head." I'm not kidding. And "ball" of course is the shape of a bald head. It's shaped like and literally looks like a ball, a beach ball for instance.
That's the etymology.
Want to hear some more? LOL.
Please do!
Ok there is a word called "tik" that means, basically, "one." We call it a global cognate because we think way too many languages have this term, far beyond chance. And words like that are not often borrowed. So we think it goes back to Proto-World, the first language.
Anyway, "tik" was in a language I worked with (as a linguist-anthropologist for an Indian tribe). It was in an old word for "point of a spear." I think it was a cognate. See if you can figure out how.
A lot of people think an English reflex of this term is "teacher." That is, it's a cognate of "tik" for "one." See if you can figure it out.
Putting me to through some intellectual rigueur on a rainy Saturday afternoon? I accept you challenges! I maybe should have paid more attention to the writings of Noam, or are his ltechings applicable to linguistic anthropology?
After 7 minutes of thorough research I have concluded the words: tic, tick and tik are unrelated in meanings and origins. Much like the English word 'what' and the Korean word 'mwhat' have the same meaning and are pronounced the same (minus the 'm' sound in Korean).
I do hold I could be mistaken and am going to dedicate another 15 minutes of thorough research done on Wikipedia learning about Proto World.
I get your gist but gave you the like for making me look up " cognates" :)
You're a smart guy! And you respect another smart guy! I like people like that! To people like us, learning and knowledge is almost a sensual (body) activity the way others experience sports, hobbies, and social behaviors. I like to say that learning for me is like taking an African cruise for somebody else. I can anywhere I want in in the world in time and space and outside the world and time just by reading a book!
Good stuff
The behind the scenes meeting with Lavrov is somewhat of a good step but I have my reservations. We in the west have a habit of pushing for negotiations when the tide is turning. The west used MINSK 1,2 to delay and rearm. I feel Russia should have absolute superiority over the battlefield situation before negotiations can begin. Maybe, but that is just my way of thinking. Great as always Simplicius
Negotiating with any Western nation is a fool's game. If Russia wants to be fooled by the West yet again then negotiate with the West yet again.
If Russia wants to be sovereign she must negotiate with no one. The winner takes they do not negotiate.
If Russia takes she will save the people of the West and if Russia negotiates we are all lost including Russia.
Putin does look a bit like Charlie Brown, with Lucy as a young Nuland.
They should make the pretense of negotiating but no more. Negotiations were over about 10 years ago anyway.
You have to negotiate. It is part of the game. The bad guys make the rules. One thief and we all have locks on our houses. 'All's fair in love and war'. Those are the rules. Realists play by them. Putin is a realist by now for sure. Probably always was considering his background. 'We were fooled; we trusted you' doesn't indicate naivete, it's a just a move in the PR game that is part of the whole thing.
Clearly the Russians weren't fooled and are game playing as they used the Minsk agreement to build up ten times more strength than the enfeebled NATO ever could so it was Merkel and the others in the West who were fooled, I get that. I get that Russia is allowing the US regime in Ukraine to murder civilians in the Donbass and elsewhere in order to use those acts as present and futrue proof of how evil the West is, and always was.
But if you have to negotiate with a nurse not to inject poison into your arm you have no freedom, no sovereignty over your own body. If Russia has to negotiate with anyone about anything she has no freedom and no sovereignty. Gunboat diplomacy was what the British empire used and the American empire following them copied killing far more innocents than the British managed and hopefully this time Russia's gunboat diplomacy will take the power to wage war away from these people and lead to the arrests of those that murdered millions of innocents because they were "only following orders". If Russia having rid the world of this evil then goes down the same path as those two empires she will face that exact same fate as they did.
Look at Colonel Douglas MacGregor who talks a lot of sense about the war in Ukraine and he seems to be a nice guy but actually he "was only following orders" as he murdered Iraqis whose only "crime" was to try to defend their country from the oil thefts of Kuwait and the WMDs never existed as surely he must have known as millions around the world did and yet he fought in an illegal war making him a war criminal. These people, nice or not, must be arrested and put on trial for their lives. The US military, as all militaries in the West do, tell their soldiers they have a duty to refuse to follow illegal orders so why did MacGregor and hundreds of thousands of US troops obey their illegal orders and why will the armies of Poland, Germany, the UK, France etc etc etc follow the illegal orders of the dual passport "Americans" in Washington DC to murder Russians whose only crime is defending their homeland against the globalist destruction that is well on the way to destroying western Europoean countries?
No negotiation with evil, ..... period.
You misunderstand me a bit but it doesn't matter. I meant negotiation is always a part of life, you even negotiate with your children. And I also meant it is a part of war: you negotiate as they did recently.
But it doesn't matter. Your post is not about negotiating or not it is about your hatred and desire for revenge.
I'd like to point out all the evils that you're so incensed about on the part of the British Empire as was and the American Empire as perhaps was were practised by all nations throughout all time and still are whenever nations can get away with it.
A bit like the slavery argument. In fact all peoples in the world have all practiced it and often those most incensed about it have the strongest genealogical connection with those that practiced it the most.
Revenge is madness and bad. You take revenge on a man and his family suffer.
And so on.
If you should calm down and care to discuss negotiation and its applicability in the current situation I've no doubt there'd be many people happy to engage with you.
You are about the only entity with USG attached to it that makes any rational sense. I agree its time to finally put the USG in its place and the ONLY way to do that is have them begging for mercy. If Russia can get them to this point they will have broken their (USG) backs. That being said, its hard to judge what may be happening behind the scenes. The USG may imply the willingness to go full nuke unless Russia pulls back. Nothing is off the table with these megalomaniacs hellbent on ruling the world.
Russia has denied in its strongest terms that such negotiations took place.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied the information about the meeting between Lavrov and US representatives
Russian journalists tell me that another possible use of the “mutiny” is to quieten Putin’s Russian nationalists critics. As far as I can tell, no one inside or outside Russia, except Putin, knows why he has tolerated a never-ending conflict that ever-widens and becomes more dangerous. Some of my informants say that Putin believes the West cannot stand the continuation of a conflict in which their weapons and money has meant no difference to the outcome and when the Western countries are all suffering economic dislocations from the American sanctions. They say Putin believes that Washington has destroyed its power by undermining the dollar’s role as reserve currency. Consequently, Putin, who does not want to be known as an invader or a conquerer putting the Russian Empire back together, is content to butt-sit and wait on the collapse of the West.
My response is that this is an astute position. However, it overlooks how the American neoconservatives interpret it. They see Putin’s butt-sitting as inability to win, as weakness and a lack of confidence, and this emboldens them to press Putin with more provocations. The danger as I see it is that at some point, possibly very soon, the provocations will ignite nuclear war.
I stick to my point of the past 18 months that to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, Putin must quickly bring the Ukraine conflict to an end in Russia’s favor. Then turn his back on the West and get on, together with China, India, and Iran, building bridges with the nonwestern world.
While I agree in principle, history shows that there is no turning your back on the West. The 200-year ambition of the Atlanticists is the capitulation and exploitation of Russia, and their record of atrocities committed in pursuit of this ambition is long and deep. When that ambition has been crushed, then maybe Russia can safely turn her back on the West.
Putin is writing history, he can do as he pleases and turning his back on the West is for the good of all.
He can't do as he pleases. The Wagner mutiny shows the emperor has no clothes. The Military stood down. No one tried to stop Prigozhin. Wagner was not greeted in Rostov as mutineers, but rather heroes. Even the Chechens only arrived after the fact. Only the national guard (Mall Cops) were finally scrambled to try and stop Wagner.
Again, please do not misunderstand. No one is calling for Putin to be overthrown. That is not what the Army wants. What they want is a change in direction. For the use of force that Russia is capable of using to be applied in Ukraine to bring an end to the war.
We have the Russian intervention in Syria as a good example. Over eight years now since Russia intervened and it is not resolved. The US still occupies 30% of Syrian land and all the major oil fields. If the US is ever forced to leave Syria, it will be the result of Iranian pressure, not Russian. No one wants to be fighting in Ukraine for the next eight years.
In the long term, I think Shoigu has to go. He doesn't have the confidence of the Army. That however, can be a battle fought for another. day.
Trollish
Look at this: "..... please do not misunderstand. No one is calling for Putin to be overthrown. That is not what the Army wants. What they want is a change in direction." How do you know what the army wants? What are your sources for making a total bullshit idiot claim like this? Oh, you know? You just happen to know, like, astral projection informed you what the RF General Staff are all thinking & saying. It's funny how, the more one has the misfortune to read these 2D commentaries of the NotaSlavski/Slavsquat variety, you notice that the claims are all identical, the trolling is identical, even the language is the same - makes you wonder where all this is comming from.....
I was in Russia and talked to Army officers that's why. If you don't agree with something that is said, why don't present your arguments as to why? All your posts seem nothing but personal attacks.
So you talked to Army officers in Russia - let me tell you something bullshitter - from someone who comes from that part of the world, local fucking cops don't just talk to your average cunt off the street about anything, much less serious political matters. You talked to army officers. Name them then. How did you get access to them, on what grounds? Are you from some news agency? Which units were these officers serving in? Are they currently on duty or off? And then, after all that, assuming you talked to anyone - which you did not - who do they represent? The bulk of the armed forces. Yeah, personal attacks, I will always attack total cretins like you who lie, & when you get caught out lying you respond like a spoilt child who just got their toy bunny taken off them, fucking rank idiot.
The counterpoint to your point is that going hard in Ukraine also risks escalation by the US. If it looked like Russia might be about to overrun Ukraine, Biden and staff could get spooked and reactively escalate. At a certain point the escalation ladder gets very unpredictable.
The other counterpoint is that Putin does not want to go full mobilization and war footing. He’s said it. He also wants to minimize Russian casualties and Ukrainian civilian casualties. Going hard contradicts all of those. It also might well complicate relations with the RoW.
At the moment he has the moral high ground outside the west. Losing it has danger for Russia. I don’t think he planned to attrit western military capability, but the west left him little choice once the spring 22 negotiations failed.
What you state has merit, however, I wonder in the long run how many lives would have been spared if Russian had gone in with total force, either at the beginning or after the first mobilization. Yes it would have been bloody and destructive, but relatively quick too. Not three days of course, but three weeks to a month would be my estimate.
As to world opinion and Russia's allies, this of course matters, but I also think that Russia's allies want to see an end the fighting. After all the Western provocations Russia has endured, I think it has all the justification it needs to use enough force to bring an end to the war.
In any event, the Russian offensive has not happened and I don't see it ever happening. Russia doesn't have the troops for an offensive. After Ukraine's offensive sputters out, Russia may have enough troops to finally liberate the Donbass, but no more than that.
A "rush to victory" by Russia was what the West anticipated, check the way NATO constructed the Ukraine army, the way it was trained and armed. It was meant to be a powerful, well trained and armed incountry resistance, not a conquering force.
The goal was to create a second Afghanistan for Russia, draining it of its resources, funds, troops. The Sanctions were to be the kill shot. NONE of it went the way the West anticipated and the world is very lucky it didn't.
Yes. Putin has not played the game the way the neocons expected. They projected their own methods onto Putin who stands out as a methodical, practical leader. Nothing he's done so far since the SMO started has been knee-jerk, reactionary as far as I see. I dare say Russia would have had far more casualties with a rush to overwhelm Ukraine, plus he would not have the industrial and troop strengths he has now while Ukraine slowly bleeds to death.
"Russia doesn't have the troops for an offensive." Oh my God.
This idea that Russia could just go in and end the war in any time frame it wants is purely Hollywood thinking. Look at the US they captured Baghdad, destroyed Iraq's entire electricity grid and destroyed Iraq's water infrastructure, destroyed the countries infrastructure. They killed and had the Iraqi leadership scatter and go into hiding. Did this win the Iraq War?? No it did not, the war went on for another 5 years and in the end the US could not defeat the Iraqi militias on the battlefield so they resorted to bribing them to no longer fight. Russia capturing Kiev does not mean the war would of ended.
Other things to consider are possible diplomatic deals Russia has with its partners. It is likely India, China, South Africa, and others have told Russia that they have their back and they will continue to keep economic ties and will not apply sanctions. They will also remain neutral and will not contribute to the Ukrainian war machine no matter how much pressure the West applies among many other supportive issues. These things among others have probably been agreed upon by Russia and its partners. Moreover, Russia's partners agreed to these things only if Russia does not behave and conduct war like the US, carpet bombing cities, destroying everything in site, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, etc. Russia says it in no way wants to be like the US so they must prove it by conducting this war in a different, more honorable way than the US and the West conducts their illegal wars. Well, that is my guess as to why Russia does not go all Rambo in Ukraine. They have made diplomatic agreements not to do so. Yes, there are other reasons to, but I believe this is a real possibility.
I think his objective is far greater than a win in Ukraine and that is why the war proceeds at a walk not a run.
I think he hopes to see the fall of the EU member states, brought down by the costs of the war and their leaders blind allegiance to the US. Ideally the downfall of their govts would herald the rise of sane leadership.
That hoped for change will take time, years. But if the fall of the EU destroys the US grip on Europe, it will be time well spent. I think he also hopes to live to see the decimation of the US deep state, but that is a far more deadly and diabolical kettle of fish and may take more than the loss of the EU states and Ukraine.
Has anyone considered the effect of China cutting off the supply of whatever that metal stuff is on the GAE's attempts to rearm? The proxy war in Ukraine has drained the GAE's military resources, but how will it continue and rebuild without that stuff from China?
Simplicius, great article BTW.
Thank ye sir
That "stuff" is known as rare earth metals. Right now, there are plenty left for sale, so any effects from China's export embargo won't be felt for a year or two.
Weirdly, despite the name, "rare earth" metals aren't rare at all. The problem is that they're never found in concentrated form. If you dig up a cubic meter of soil and it is composed of 0.03% rare earth metals, that's considered a "very rich" concentration.
The real issue with "rare earth" metals is that it is a nasty, dirty, and difficult business to extract and purify them. Any country, theoretically, could start producing "rare earth" metals tomorrow, but practically speaking, it would require a colossal investment in processing infrastructure and a high tolerance for producing pollution. That's why everybody just finds it easier to buy from China right now.
Good reply, thank you for laying it all out. So the GAE is vulnerable then as they try to rearm? And there's no quick way for them to suddenly get another supply? Very interesting, thank you again.
Gallium and germanium are not overvalued metals. Titanium from Russia is.
To answer my own post, it looks like the GAE's MIC is in full panic mode:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/dod-invokes-defense-production-act-boost-metals-mining-after-china-export-controls
"According to a Pentagon spokesperson cited by Reuters, the US Defense Department announced on Friday it is invoking the Defense Production Act to boost the domestic mining and processing capacity of two rare earth metals, gallium and germanium, critical for high-tech chip-making for the US defense industry.
Reuters said the Pentagon has a strategic germanium stockpile but no gallium stockpiles. The move to invoke the Defense Production Act comes after China announced Monday that it will impose export controls on the two metals, citing "safeguard national security and interests."
"The (Defense) Department is proactively taking steps using Defense Production Act Title III authorities to increase domestic mining and processing of critical materials for the microelectronics and space supply chain, including gallium and germanium," the DoD spokesperson said.
As a refresher to our early reporting, gallium is most common in semiconductors, transistors, and small electronic devices. It's also used to make LEDs. As for military-grade Gallium Nitride, it's found in cutting-edge weapon technology that US defense companies produce. Three of the most common uses for germanium are rectifiers, transistors, and weapons-sighting systems."
And just like that the Biden cartel will lose the support of the US environmental activists it has groomed so well. Mining is wrong you see.
Oh no, don't think so. They'll swallow whole whatever their "leader" tells them to swallow. Look how rapidly the Greens in the EU suddenly switched support to coal mining again.
I think you're projecting your own abilities of rational thought and critical thinking onto the "environmentalists". Ain't there.
The future president of Russia also speaks well and she has a good smile
She's wise enough to give herself a second option :)
милинки
Just to clarify, most of the "regiments, divisions and bases" closed by Serdyukov existed on paper only, a byproduct of legacy soviet approach and subsequent cuts to the force, manned by a skeleton officer crew which were very senior by then without ever seeing any combat or combat training. Think of it as an almost entire soviet era "officer organisation" without the troops. He is hated precisely because he cut that "management overhead". In that, he did much needed work for those who came after him.
Another clarification: there were never any real corruption claims again Serdyukov himself but there were concerns that some people working for him got carried away. In my opinion, the real reason he was fired was the scale of the backlash against him in the armed forces. Putin put Shoigu in place precisely because he was seen as a conciliatory figure. True to the form, Shoigu never challenged the generals, at least those who were left after cuts. Equally important, Putin trusted Shoigu to oversee trillions or roubles they were planning to spend to modernise the military.
As for the divisions vs. brigades, types of weapons, etc - these are questions to the general staff, not the defence minister. Neither Serdyukov nor Shoigu have anything to do with this.
I won't argue with you because there are endless reams of opinion on both sides, however it is a fact that within the circles of Russian military itself, Serdyukov holds far more infamy than 'Shoigu' who most troops don't actually care about one way or another.
There are always two sides to a story, you gave the 2nd side to Serdyukov so perhaps you realize there's also a 2nd side to Shoigu as well.
If you polled the military: "Who is better Serdyukov or Shoigu" -- the Russian military would choose Shoigu. That's a simple fact which you may debate til the cows come home. I personally don't have a horse in the race. I don't represent Shoigu or Serdyukov and don't really care about either one, I'm simply reporting the facts as I see them.
But as you said, Serdyukov reduced divisions to brigades, and Shoigu reduced brigades to BTGs, though he's bringing them back now.
It's hard for us on the sidelines to have opinions so we can only trust the expertise of the troops themselves, and most of the troops say that Serdyukov was a villain.
Not trying to argue in favor or against Shoigu or Serdyukov. I was just highlighting that Serdyukov is hated precisely for doing what was sorely needed back in late 2000s. He was never a "professional" manager in the Western sense and the way he did what he did greatly contributed to the sheer scale of hate against him. This is in support of your point that, against Serdyukov's backdrop, Shoigu is seen by most in the military in positive light. Rather than challenge that, I was just reflecting that Shoigu was in the comfortable position to build on what Serdyukov had created for him. Yes, Serdykov is seen by the military as a villain. But, from the perspective of people outside the military, he cleaned Augean stables. Ironically, much of the criticism of Shoigu comes in the area having to do with procurement: he did not do enough to clean corrupt practices there. Of course, if you are Shoigu, you would want to maintain at least some distance from there, knowing what happened to your predecessor.
There is an argument that to rebuild things, you have to break them first. As an ex CEO and Crisis Manager myself, I always reckoned that a key responsibility was to eliminate the ar*eholes. And slay sacred cows. It is certainly true that the Russian military has come on a long way since the 2000's. I doubt it could have been done without radical surgery, and in that process mistakes will have been made. Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.
There is an urban legend that, at the start of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, Putin was looking for someone in Moscow to "run" the war and could not find anyone. Literally, hundreds of generals but none who would be in the position to run combat operations.
If you mean Stalin’s purges then after them Red Army somehow found Zhukov, Rokossovskiy, Konev, Tolobukhin, Vasilevskiy, Vatutin… and the list goes on. Problem is rather overall degradation of army in late USSR and 90s’ Russia with demoralization and corruption that cannot reliably produce good military leaders. Only by chance.
Just because a leader is unpopular with the troops doesn't mean that the leader is wrong.
For example, the Janissaries had a habit of deposing sultans who tried to reform them, even as the Ottoman Empire continued to decline militarily. Something similar could be said about later Qing China. And the Praetorian Guards are proverbial.
Poignant imagery of Serdykov cleaning the Augean Stables as if he were a newfound Heracles, keep them coming!
I don't think Shoigu supposed good polls accounts for anything. Effectiveness as Minister of Defence is not something that can be gauged by popularity contests.
Probably 99.5% of the polled didn't assess Shoigu's competence and track record, they just had nothing to say against or thought absolutely nothing judgemental of him.
And besides, technically to the polled ones he's the boss... hard to dare to bad mouth the boss, even if the pollsters promised anonymity
BTW, I find myself "arguing" over a minor detail of otherwise great write up! As an ex crisis manager, I just wanted to plug for another crisis manager by the name Serdyukov. Looking forward to the next piece!
That's the whole purpose of "кадрированные части". This skeleton crew of officer cadres could be filled with reservists tomorrow and be reasonably functional. It's mobilization tool. Yes, it's not great, but it's much better than creating corps out of thin air and expecting it to work. There were slew of articles in Russian military journals criticizing Serdyukov decision.
I'd like to pose a counter-view. Why exactly does Ukr need to "show results?" All we hear day in and day out is that the West is in it for the long haul, in it to win, in it to "safeguard democracy" and all that. At no point have I ever seen those dots connected, that support is tied to results. Yes, perhaps behind the scenes the ignorant political class in the West believed their own propaganda and urged the Ukrainians on "hurry up and win already"...
Since the Challengers and majority of Leopards/Bradleys/Strykers are still intact, Ukraine has the makings of a potent defensive force. In fact, it would be hardly a chore to pivot the narrative from "taking back lost territory" to "brave Ukrainians holding the line", and there will be the added convenience of those minefields, which go both ways; Ru clearly does NOT intend to attack on those axis if they have mined them to oblivion.
Just wondering
I think the thrust of it is: Ukraine's current attrition rate is so high that without massive/constant Western support, Ukraine would literally run out of armor in the next ~2 months. This is why the current big topic is that Germany announced a massive emergency injection of old Leopard 1s (with laughable 105mm cannon) by "the end of the month" (July) in the amount of 100-200 just to save the AFU because they are taking such massive attrition.
So the point is that, the AFU needs to "show results" because if the West stops massively supplying it with armor, it will literally cavitate and implode in the next 2-3 months at most by way of current attrition rates.
In January of this year--as per the Pentagon leaks--Ukraine had ~800 total tanks. They have now lost an estimated 200-300 in the offensives since early June. At this rate they would literally be out of armor in another month or two and would thus face complete and total collapse. This is the problem.
Right, so as long as the narrative is "Ukraine must WIN" then Ukraine has to attack. Until the narrative changes to "Ukraine must HOLD"... but the moment to do that is NOW, while they still have an army, not after its destroyed in failed offensives...
Ukraine wins the minute Ukrainians stop killing each other. Something that is within the power of Ukrainians themselves to decide.
Seriously?? How? Via elections where over 70% supported a peace president who was later bribed/extorted by Americans?
The only way is for conscripts to comply with training, go to the front and then surrender without getting shot in the back by their own command. Not an easy task.
You don't look for solutions, do you? You find objections to solutions.
It's called negativity.
It could happen that overnight all the soldiers on both sides of this conflict all became enamoured of some pop singer, say. A fashion, a belief an understanding - a 'meme' we say today - could spread through and 'consume' them all overnight.
Such is the nature of today's world. With this new human being that is connected with all others at all times etc.
Hence they could all be of one mind in one day. No one could stop them, then.
Ask yourself: which route would you suggest - one that pushes in that direction? or one that says don't bother it'll never work?
Okay, they can rally around this modern icon...
https://youtu.be/FAPwIEWzqJE
Perhaps the imagery of the wheat fields and bluish sky will draw them in.
Russia should put up no littering signs so the West stops sending garbage
I think Ukie tactics will change dramatically and they will go on the defensive with guerrilla insurgency next. The problem is going on offense for Russians as they go against the same obstacles the Ukies did, plus cluster bombs. The problem is not beating the army. Russ gone through three according to McGregor. It is the NATO pipeline of weapons, supplies, mercenaries, trainers, transportation crews, advisors, and money and everyone knows where they are.
If you look at successful insurgencies in recent history (Zimbabwe, Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.) one thing they all have in common is a young population.
The median age in Yemen is some 20.2 years. The median age in Ukraine was over 40, and that before the war.
Guerilla war is a young man's game.
To be fair, we also heard a few months ago that Ukraine's air defenses were nearly depleted, but if they are, Russia doesn't seem to be pressing this advantage away from the front.
Personally I think a pivot to holding the line and buying time (until a NATO intervention???) is the correct strategy for the UAF. I never thought they could breakthrough and its might be that Zalugny shared this opinion. However I judge that most western experts had assessed the RF (incorrectly) as the verge of collapse and that one more attack would crush its morale. So the UAF attacked, are getting mauled in the "crumple zones" and are now seeking to reshape the narrative. Theirs is a PR war after all. I'm actually very sad about all those UAF conscripts getting massacred, though not so with all the Azov SS guys and the western mercs who deserve what they get.
If the West really wanted to conquer Russia, it wouldn’t have launched a proxy war but a direct suprise attack 5-10 year ago.
More like: should have... (Glad they didn't.)
Russia may not have been as militarily potent 5 - 10 years ago but 'the West" then, as now, did not have the military strength to attack and win. A direct surprise attack would not have conquered Russia, even if all of NATO and other western allies had joined in. It might even have lead to all out nuclear war. The "west" did not want to conquer Russia, they wanted to "colour revolution" it nd set up a subservient government. I doubt that was ever actually possible.
Why not considering that the West already conquered Russia and has been controlling its governements since at least XVII century?
Also, in early XX century there had been a lot of proxy wars for Russia (Balkans, Far East with Japan, etc), but they only replaced tsar with bolsheviks during WW1. Btw, neither of these governments were Russian.
Because they have to show an ROI, especially as the ability to resupply the VSU becomes more and more costly in terms of western capability. The “in it for the long haul” are empty but public promises from western, particularly American, politicians. The least trustworthy people on the planet. Joe Biden ran for president to destroy Russia. He is a famously impatient and demanding asshole. He’s easily fooled by internal propaganda (he’s never been very smart) but those feeding him information will be blamed if the information turns out to be false.
Having tanks is one thing, having competent operators is another if one wants a potent defense. Not much evidence of that so far, plus they have almost zip of an air force, no way to produce more weapons in quantity except begging ... while Russia continues to be firing on all cylinders.
I juat want to say, that I was right about the lack of Ukraine's high tech component also.
Back around February all the Russian mil sources reportin on the coming offensive decided to ramp up the hysteria that when time comes and the offensive is launched, Ukraine will send upwards of 10 000s drones in a huge swarming strike on the defense line and rear to several cripple or annihilate our armor and ammo depots and other stuff.
I wrote it wouldn't happen - they barely managed to use Switchblades, they don't have a Lancet equivalent that's both small and explody enough, and they also lack communication infrastructure capable to carry out such an attack.
Ammassed numbers of Maviks don't a drone swarm make.
Lo and behold, a month of offensive, still no mega kamikaze drone swarm. Wonder why. All the Russian mil channels soundly shot up about the issue, prolly out of shame that they were playing in the enemy's hand.
Also Britain announced it will be training whole TWENTY pilots in August.
Pukes lost 4 Su/MiG planes in the last week or so.
Compare the numbers and the fact that the F-16 is an old machine of the same gen as the last soviet handdowns from Southern Europe that pukeraine operates, and you'll see where the Plane Coalition is going.
A little too little, a little too late.
That's true. They did ramp up a new campaign of strikes with drones flown to Belgorod (shot down today), and Moscow last week (shot down), as well as some new promised HIMARs strikes, one of which did work out in Makeevka near Donetsk, but other than that not much happened in that regard.
Yeah, I'm mainly talking bout military targets.
You know, the continued wasting of drones and expensive western guided munitions on civilian targets instead of actually using them to fight a war is one of the most baffling (out of many) things the AFUcks do and did throughout the SMO.
It's absolutely impossible to shake us (Russians) into some sort of hysteria or retreat just because you're doing terrorist attacks.
If anything, Prigozhins little stunt showed quite evidently how resilient we are to such stuff. If anything we just get more angry and radicalized against the pukes.
So why waste equipment? Why did noone analyze that the foot attacks on Belgorod not only didnt achieve any sort of psychological effect, they wasted their precious tanks and merc troops?
Ukraine is behaving highly irrationally in this war, and it seems a lot of their actions are emotionally predicated, which combined with inadequate US tactics is what allows for this effective force attrition.
We should be, all in all thankful, that the khohol isn't a sound and stable creature. Any other army would've probably used these resources at hand for far more efficient actions, but the pukes still insist fighting what I dub is the First PR War.
Military targets are well protected by air and missile defense. Attacks on civilian targets are undertaken in order to demonstrate something, at least some "victories".
Plus they and their masters are evil, pure and simple, they want to kill anyone opposing their globalist money-grabbing oppressive agenda, be they soldiers or innocent civilians ; like Lindsey Graham said in his discussion with Zelensky : to kill Russians is 'best money we (USA) ever spent'
I think they hope the attacks on civilian targets and the death toll will turn public opinion against Putin and the war.
It seems to be galvanizing the Russian citizens if anything
Surprisingly, they achieved the opposite effect. Now most Russians believe that Ukraine should not exist.
Yes, it's a PR war and the Allied side is silent.
I would say that Ukraine is behaving in an entirely rational manner, as they need to do two things:
1. Draw in continued and increasing western support; and
2. Draw down Russian morale.
Both 1 and 2 are not working so we'll.
I won't speak to 2., but 1..seems to be working just fine.
Western support is dwindling, so far, still sending junk and much of what weapons they promise don't even exist yet, years away.
IS/UK provide detailed coordinates of Russian artillery positions in real time to Ukro-Nazis.
For how much longer will Russia tolerated this??
US/UK -- my apology for a typo
For as long as it takes. It's a dance. USSR supported Koreans and Vietnamese not that covertly. US knew and did nothing. It's big boys game.
Those 10k drones are typical GPS only, mostly off-the-shelf commercial drones. Basically EW fodder. It's amazing that Western militaries completely missed notion that GPS/Radio is dud in modern combat environment. Meanwhile hey, look, outdated and dumb Iranians and Russians made their drones EW proof for some reason. Stupid savages, they don't understand brilliance of technology.
The fact that the CFR is deeply involved in state negotiations is extremely revealing. Americans should take special note of this and meditate on it.
One of the reasons this is done is because 'unofficial' people can talk more candidly via 'backchannels' due to the fact that governmental officials can never talk without being recorded as it's government policy in every country for *all* official commentary to be transcripted (it's the law) by way of official notaries, etc. So the only way to ever communicate with another statesmen in an 'unofficial' way that doesn't get logged and transcripted into the official State audit is to use intermediaries who are not official governmental officials. This is why people like Kissinger were so popular for years, or Rabbis from the Chabad-Lubavitch groups, or more recently Alex Soros traveling around with the semi-retired Bill Clinton to meet with global leaders like the Pope last week.
Interesting. Yet on the other side of the table sits Lavrov, an official representative of the Russian government, whose talk, as you have indicated, is by law required to be transcripted? Something does not connect here. But even so, the fact that the CFR is chosen as the US negotiator should remain a matter of deep concern for Americans. Why not a former respected diplomat (if one still exists), or other retired government leader? I think I know why - the CFR guides American foreign policy. Indeed, I suspect that when you are speaking to representatives of the CFR, you are actually going over the heads of the government - otherwise, why would a person of the stature of Lavrov even bother speaking to such people?
Of course, it might also be noted that probably most retired US diplomats of stature are likely former/present members of CFR anyway. But all the more reason for Americans to be concerned, IMO.
Because western sources are now characterizing a simple chat among diplomats as something it isn’t. They’re testing waters and trying to portray themselves as seeking a diplomatic solution.
Yes, that is what I see. If you can't get a meeting, just make stuff up. They are so used to "owning the message" via their control of much of the world's media that truth is now meaningless to them.
Personally I would be surprised if Russia was prepared to negotiate seriously with the situation as it is, maybe more so if things on the ground are in their favour. But peace talks can take a long time and you have to start somewhere. And optics with BRICs and the ROW matter.
Fake news apparently.
"Per Lavrov, no such meeting ever took place and there are no back channels."
https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2023/07/06/fake-news-from-nbc-on-us-russian-talks-about-an-off-ramp-to-the-ukraine-war-in-april-2023-that-never-took-place/
To my knowledge( from russian news) meeting never took place.
I'm pretty sure that's a violation of US law, the Logan Act.
Of course, the rule of law is dead in the US, and this is one more example.
Notice that the MSM didn't point out that it would have been illegal for the CFR to be having these meetings, if they happened.