Subscriber Mailbag: Answers - 12/4/23 [Part 2]
Welcome back to Round 2 of paid subscriber’s mailbag answers!
Boy, they are getting exhaustive, but I still enjoy answering them. I just don’t know how we’ll deal with it in the more distant future when the subscriber count potentially grows even higher. I simply can’t bring myself to gloss over important questions in a trivial or superficial manner, as it feels like I owe it to the truth to treat each subject with some sense of thoroughness.
One quick note:
I noticed several people emailing me their questions, but some of them were either not paid or had once been paid subs, but are no longer. So this is a reminder and clarification: to ask a question you have to be a currently paid subscriber. Furthermore, while I will try to include emailed questions, I can no longer guarantee it simply because they are liable to get lost in the shuffle as my email is overloaded. So preferably in the future, if you have a really important question for the mailbag, try to ask it in the appropriate subscriber’s mailbag questions thread when it comes up.
Without further ado, enjoy the answers, and stay tuned for the Part 3 finale later this week.
21.
I have been following the situation in Ukraine since 2014, but not too closely. I have been following very closely since the end of February 2022. Because of the latter, I think I know the general trends related to the development of SMO since it started. However, what I missed was the year before SMO, i.e., since let' say early 2021. Why did Russia start moving its forces towards Ukraine almost a year before SMO (or was it less?), was it affected by the Biden admin, or was it a natural development logically following from slow and steady arming of Ukraine (e.g., Lindsey Graham visits when he was talking to various Ukrainian military people)? Would you give a time line of the build up, focusing perhaps on reasons why the year of 2021 was so special? For example, what did Biden do what Trump did not? Or was it more some internal logic within Russia and/or Donbass (or Ukraine) that led to it? Or was it just sleepwalking, and both sides slowly escalating, that finally resulted in the whole thing switching to the hot phase, and the Biden admin just got "lucky"?
In early 2021, Ukraine itself began to move heavy equipment east toward the line of contact as well as, at some point throughout the year, began to equip their troops with Javelins and even use the Bayraktar TB2 drone in Donbass. Seen on March 12, 2021:
This caused the Kremlin to begin issuing various warnings and threats to Ukraine.
What’s interesting is to examine what the big pro-Russian analysts were writing at the time. Here’s Martyanov:
He notes the movement of heavy equipment and that a U.S. general had come to Ukraine amidst the escalations.
Pro-Western Carnegie Moscow Center admitted to it, but tried to downplay it:
In February, Zelensky ordered troops (as part of the rotation process) and heavy weapons (as a show of force) to go near to the conflict zone in Donbas. He did not venture out as far as Poroshenko, who dispatched small Ukrainian naval vessels through the Russian-controlled waters near the Kerch Strait in late 2018, but it was enough to get him noticed in Moscow. The fact of the matter is that even if Ukraine cannot seriously hope to win the war in Donbas, it can successfully provoke Russia into action. This, in turn, would produce a knee-jerk reaction from Ukraine’s Western supporters and further aggravate Moscow’s relations, particularly with Europe. One way or another, the fate of Nord Stream II will directly affect Ukraine’s interests. Being seen as a victim of Russian aggression and presenting itself as a frontline state checking Russia’s further advance toward Europe is a major asset of Kyiv’s foreign policy.
The Saker had this headline:
He wrote:
Besides tanks, there are many reports of other heavy military equipment, including MLRS and tactical ballistic missiles, being moved east towards the line of contact. Needless to say, the Russian General Staff is tracking all these movements very carefully, as are the intelligence services of the LDNR.
This Donbass Insider article from March 3rd reports that Ukraine had intensely increased shelling of Donbass:
On 8 March 2021, at 8 a.m., the Ukrainian army fired with infantry fighting vehicles, automatic grenade launchers and anti-tank rocket launchers against the village of Staromikhaylovka, located on the south-western outskirts of Donetsk.
Initial reports of eight damaged houses have been revised upwards to a total of 10 houses in two streets of the village, mainly damaged in roofs and walls.
The article provides photos of the damage as proof. They post another video from March showing mass Ukrainian armor movements by rail to the east.
“Ukraine is gathering heavy weapons and preparing for an offensive against the Donbass
As the Ukrainian army’s shelling of Donbass civilians increases, more and more videos show that Ukraine continues to gather heavy weapons and is clearly preparing for a future offensive.”
It quotes a Ukrainian advisor stating that Ukraine was “done with soft solutions.”
From March 7th, Ria Novosti:
Then around April, Ukraine attempted to officially extend the ceasefire, which the Russian side believed to be a ploy to cover their own military buildup, so Russia rejected it. Ukraine then escalated by imprisoning Medvedchuk, the pro-Russian politician, and freezing all his funds. It seemed to be after this event that Russia began a buildup on Ukraine’s borders as a show of force.
I believe this was Russia’s way of giving a ‘final warning’ to Ukraine, given all the above escalations. Russia then removed its forces, but considered the warning given.
Many pro-Russian observers at that time, like MoA and Saker, believed that one of the key reasons for these escalations was that Zelensky was rapidly losing power and confidence at home, because he had failed to pacify any of the different sides, and Ukraine was slipping into a ‘constitutional crisis.’
[T]he Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) recently plunged the country into one of its deepest crises in its 30-year history. Specifically, on October 27, 2020, the Court declared that the main elements of Ukraine’s anti-corruption legislation, adopted between 2014 and 2020, were unconstitutional. In response, President Zelensky introduced legislation calling for the early termination of all Constitutional Court judges. Later, in December, he suspended the chairman of the Court for two months.
The result was widespread chaos in Ukraine’s political system. Zelensky’s actions were of questionable legality and provoked harsh criticism from all political sides. The ramifications of the Court’s decision include the cancellation of over 100 pending corruption investigations, a development that potentially could endanger future EU-Ukraine trade and economic cooperation Ukraine under the 2014 Association Agreement.
Zelensky’s polling numbers crashed—the majority of people no longer supported his re-election:
The Covid ‘pandemic’ at the time also greatly exacerbated all the societal ills and dissatisfaction. It seemed like the walls were closing in on Zelensky and he was likely being driven by internal hardliners into action in order to save himself. That of course happened to coincide with the cabal’s need for a great destabilizing war or black swan event in order to float the global financial system some more by flushing it with cash. So the two interests overlapped and I believe the U.S. pushed Zelensky into intentionally provoking the war.
As seen above, all this time the West continued upping the pressure of confrontation and provocations. In June of 2021, the British navy sailed a warship past Crimea in what was later revealed to be an intentional provocation and stunt.
This stunt came after another major Ukrainian provocation, after which Russia locked down the Black Sea, which is likely why Britain wanted to ‘break the blockade’ as a show of force:
On the night of 14 to 15 April 2021, a naval confrontation took place in the Sea of Azov, 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the Kerch Strait, between three Ukrainian Gyurza-M-class artillery boats and six vessels from the Coast Guard of the Border Service of the FSB.The Ukrainian artillery boats were escorting civilian ships when the incident occurred. It was reported that Ukrainian ships threatened to use airborne weapons to deter provocations from FSB vessels. The incident ended without any casualties
Russia likely took all these build ups and provocations very seriously, and saw the writing on the wall that if it didn’t ‘cure’ the Ukrainian sickness once and for all, it would only escalate until Russia was totally surrounded by NATO aggression.
But guess what? The West only continued to escalate. In November the U.S. brought warships into the Black Sea.
On November 12, the flagship of the US Navy's Sixth Fleet, USS Mount Whitney, and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Porter arrived at the Black Sea port of Constanta in Romania after visiting Batumi, Georgia.
It was a clear show of force and attempt to intimidate Russia. Given all the endless escalations from the Ukrainian side in Donbass, and the increasing rhetoric and ‘shows of force’ of NATO in the Black Sea and elsewhere, Russia began to see the writing on the wall and, as I said before, likely decided that the conflict had to be ended once and for all.
Of course Russia still refused to be the one to pull the trigger first, so after a force build up, they waited. It is then well known that Ukraine began massively shelling Donbass in January and February 2022, as recorded by the OSCE:
And as they say, the rest is history.
22.
On December 15, 2021, the Russian Federation delivered a draft treaty to the USA and a draft agreement to NATO concerning the "security guarantees" the Federation deems of sufficient importance to require treaties.
Presuming the contents of these documents is of sufficient import that the issues constitute an existential threat to the Russian Federation…
And, in light of the Russian Federation's present build-up of its armed forces to 1.5 million members—a force level significantly greater than necessary to complete operations in the Ukraine theater…
How do you envision the Russian Federation's pursuit of the "security guarantees" enumerated in the two documents referenced above.
And the related:
Taking as read that the main purpose of the SMO was to push America/NATO to sign the damned security guarantee treaty they had laughed at, as well as stop the slaughter in eastern Ukraine and force denazification (IE, kick the CIA stooges out) - what will/can Russia do further once they've defeated Ukraine/NATO on the battlefield to get that security guarantee if the 'West' just ignores the defeat and carries on?
Accepting that the last thing Russia wants again is having bolshy Europeans under its wings, but also bearing in mind the USA appears to be planning to demilitarise Europe while poking the Russian bear quite determinedly - with no doubt the WW2 old plan to drop atomics upon the Russian columns as they entered major Continental capitals in reserve, if thats the way matters go.
But apart from such apocalytic visions, is there any way for Russia to achieve that previously hoped-for European peace with the 'Agreement Incapable' West, if the West continues on its blithe path?
This question naturally segues from the previous because the events of 2021 I described led to Russia issuing a final ultimatum to NATO in the form of these documents you speak of. The ultimatum basically was a last ditch effort by Russia to ease tensions and prevent war.
Russia’s demands included a guarantee that NATO would not admit Ukraine or Georgia to the alliance, as well as a recognition of Russia’s ‘special interest’ in its post-Soviet spaces, amongst other things. For anyone interested the full proposals can be read here.
NATO categorically rejected the proposals, steering events inevitably to war. Thus, in light of your question, given that NATO rejected what Russia viewed as its fundamental, existential rights, the only alternative Russia has left is to win those rights through force. In Russia’s eyes, these base existential demands are an absolute non-negotiable component of relations with NATO. So, lacking any other modality by which to force NATO to respect these interests, Russia now understands that NATO will never “respect” it but, rather, can only be brought to fear it.
Thus Russia has commenced buildings its most powerful armed forces ever, and in light of NATO’s absolute state of decay, this will eventually be the deterring gavel to force NATO into a mutual understanding.
Those security guarantees revolve around the general concept of the old established Westphalian system of sovereignty. Russia merely wants NATO to get out of its backyard and sphere of immediate influence, and stop its perennial plan of encircling and destabilizing it. It now sees this can only be done by force and not through negotiations with the current crop of abject, compromised factotums of the NATO bureaucratic class.
The vast expansion of the armed forces, of course, in reality, is a reaction to the now-understood plan for total 5GW war and destabilization against Russia. Putin knows that NATO plans to “activate” Poland and the Baltics next, as well as others. Russia therefore has no choice but to increase its armed forces to defend against further NATO provocations on other axes.
Now as to the second question, if Russia wins decisively in Ukraine but still fails to get NATO’s respect apropos those security guarantees. I believe it’s likely that the conflicts will continue on, with the next batch of countries being ‘activated’, and Russia may have to fight the Baltics, or even Moldova over the PMR/Transnistria issue. Some resist the idea because the Baltics are in NATO, but Article 5 is more ‘malleable’ than people think—it merely represents an “optional” call for members to assist their partner, which can be with mere material aid. In that way, Ukraine can already be viewed as embodying Article 5, since it’s virtually a part of NATO in all but name.
However, it seems probable that at a certain point, Europe will have degraded socially and economically such that its politicians will lose the ability to warmonger and push the autocratic EU line with no accountability like before. I think once Russia defeats Ukraine decisively, there will be a reckoning in Europe, as the citizens were outright promised by their leaders to endure cruel hardships for the grand ‘victory’ over Russia. Once they realize all those years of barren privation, cold nights, skyrocketing prices, gutted industries, etc., were all for naught, a sweeping revolutionary spirit may inflame Europe—not necessarily leading to outright overthrows, but at least scaring the leaders enough to ward them off the war footing with Russia.
Compound that with the rise of Right/conservative parties, which will then be peaking, and I think the scene is set for some major pushback against the elite agenda—maybe on a 3-5 year timescale.
Also, I think after a decisive victory in Ukraine, Russia could make some new overtures, extending an olive branch for another try at talks amongst equals. Russia will have proven its seriousness and capability by then, and internal sentiment will heavily pressure European leaders to accept the invitation, lest they end up revealing themselves as warmongers. This could lead to some basic understandings to usher in a new detente of sorts. But that’s only if the blowback from the conflict is such that a certain generation of leaders is flushed out and replaced with a crop of semi-reasonable ones. If the same warhawks remain, then Russia’s crushing of Ukraine may only radicalize them even further, resulting in the complete antithesis of what I just described—i.e. fullblown Iron Curtain 2.0 and warfooting on both sides.
23.
I’m going to roll these next few related questions into one because they represent a broad topic that requires some abstraction and generalizing that will touch on all points.
Spin as you will on the end game.
How will everyone play his cards in the this war between Russia and the United States? and with what likely results? Can there be a real lasting result or will it be just another chapter in this centuries old rivalry? How will history judge who won and who lost both the war and the peace?
Assume you have secret agents in the Kremlin, and in the back rooms of all the realistic competitors for the US presidency, and the resulting administration. What are they saying, what are they hoping for? ……
Beyond the election, how do the US and NATO under any administration handle yet another obvious military defeat and a failure to negotiate anything halfway soothing in the peace? (Neither Trump nor Blinken strike me as modern day Tallyrands).
For extra credit😸: what would be the best overall result for all the parties?
And:
Does Washington have a long term geopolitical strategy, or are they just winging it? They seem to have goaded the Russians into Ukraine, but don't seem to have had alternative scenarios, other than regime change, which given Russians experience under Yelstin in the 1990s had very very low probability of success.
I get the sense they believe their own BS far too much, even at this point, and don't realize the sheer, almost daily, loss of geopolitical influence. I was wondering how you assess this systemic failure? Decades of hiring 'group think' and failing forward in leadership? I struggle to understand the 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results' approach: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc all are clear-cut failures, and yet the same failed strategies get rehashed. Many times with the same people, or an underling. I've heard the war = profit as an explanation, and that makes sense, but I don't think its the whole story. Eg. Massively alienating your traditional recruiting base for the US military, then the scratching of heads when faced with shortages while seemingly trying to simulations start war with Russia and China, perhaps even Iran? Perhaps chaos is the strategy and they assume they can bunker down in fortress USA ala WW2?
Perhaps you see it differently ?
Many thanks!
A corollary to the above:
"I've heard the war = profit as an explanation, and that makes sense, but I don't think its the whole story."
Simplicius. Isn't this just a canard? The same resources for war could be used for other activities of Profit. Ergo, the question is, into whose pockets do the Profits go?
And:
After a lot of thinking, I propose this question, which is not mandatory to answer 😘. In MoA, Bernard published Arnaud Bertrand’s review of the book by the Australian author, Clinton Fernandes. One of his points is really interesting - the illogicality of the rules based order. I am just curious what would be your take on this claim: “ point is that there’s something unique about US geopolitics, and that of Western colonial states before it, in that they have these extremely aggressive characteristics - the impulse to subjugate and pillage others - that actually often harm their security rather than safeguard it”. Thank you!
Ever since the unification of Germany in 1871, the chief vector of all great power politics revolved around keeping the naturally compatible and mutually advantageous German and Russian states from allying, as their union would represent the only combined power in the world that could dethrone the British Empire and its fledgling American accomplice from their place atop the Western world order, and by extension the entire world.
Every global conflict since then has mostly revolved around this pursuit, as George Friedman of Stratfor so eloquently elocuted:
To understand why Russia and the U.S. can never have peace, one must first understand this basic precept.
Next, one must grasp that the U.S., and by extension the entire Atlanticist West, relies entirely on its ability to dominate the global financial scape and set economic conditions for other countries, in order to advantage themselves. But this means that their entire empire is built on an outwardly formidable, but quite vulnerable system—in the sense that it’s rooted to just one pillar underpinning everything, and if you destroy that, the entire house of cards crumbles.
Most people aren’t aware of the fact that in the 1800s, China had the largest economy in the world.
It was artificially crushed by various means of terrorism, subversion, and subjugation from the West, most notably the Opium Wars of the mid-1800s. Lesser known is that Russia too was always one of the top economic superpowers. Their ascendancy was always predetermined owing to the unique historical positions the countries occupied.
But Russia has been artificially gimped by the U.S. for over 100 years, through a variety of economic terrorism in the form of endless sanctions, embargoes, and everything in between. They continually try to keep it “down and out” and marginalized like they did to the Chinese in the 1800s, primarily because without such artificial restrictions, Russia’s vector is always to emerge at the top of the economic heap.
The point is that, only such an oppressive regimen of subversion and sabotage can keep Russia “down and out,” as Lord Ismay once said. If this were to cease, it would mean the end of the West, because the entire financial ‘house of cards’ the West relies on is in some ways a fragile mirage which relies on this constant “unfair play.” Were the other superpowers allowed to spread their wings, the laws of the zero-sum-game would necessitate the loss of every advantage of the West, leading to its unraveling.
To understand how exactly that would happen, one must understand the infamous ‘exorbitant privilege’ of the U.S. dollar, and how it relies on the artificial suppression of other competing currencies. And most importantly, how it’s responsible for the entirety of American exceptionalism, military and economic profligacy, etc. It grants the overpowering ability to print infinite money without incurring inflation, which makes the U.S. nearly invulnerable.
This is why Russia can never be allowed to have its say or ‘freedom’ to act as it wants, be it economic or otherwise. For instance, the freedom to have economic sovereignty in regard to Europe—i.e. Nord Stream, etc.
That’s why no “understanding” can ever really be reached. It would not be allowed by the global financial elite which controls the West.
Europe has now become the battleground for this clash of differing world systems. Everything the U.S. has hangs by a deceptively thin thread. The moment they let their foot off the necks of European citizens, removing their blindfolds in the process, a cascade effect would unleash across Europe. No one in their right mind would allow the continued stationing of American troops in occupied Europe, which would have rolling consequences on virtually everything.
This is what awaits if the U.S. allows any sort of rapprochement between Europe and Russia. U.S.’s dominion relies on a vast Gladio network of occupation and control of all Western nations, NGOs and ‘transnationalist’ Bilderbergers controlling all media, etc. However, the control’s vastness belies its fragility. If the wool is pulled from people’s eyes, the unraveling of the entire system could come calamitously fast. The reason for this is, the U.S. is really a faraway island nation completely locked off from its most critical resources and interests, with maritime supply lines exposed and vulnerable; it’s a major geostrategic disadvantage in many ways. To make up for this it must lord over its enterprises afar, keeping its occupied lands under strict and careful overwatch. For anyone interested, I cover this aspect much more in depth here:
Now to the second part: does U.S. have a long term plan and how to reconcile that with its seemingly irrational escalations, which appear to do more harm to the U.S. itself. This correlates with the Arnaud Bertrand’s review, which attempts to puzzle out why the U.S. seems to harm its own self-interests in such a way.
The main answer relates to the first part. The U.S.’s only real “long term” plan is all about preserving this global system, which is why its actions often appear so irrational. In Ukraine, for instance, thinking of the chessboard on a micro rather than macro scale only leads to confusion, as it incorrectly seems to attribute U.S. actions to mere material gains, or resource enrichment of some sort.
But the grand scheme is that the Atlanticist Empire’s real drive is simply to continue undermining Russia in every way possible—economically, geopolitically, geostrategically, etc., to make sure it stays down and out, and cannot connect with Europe, particularly Germany for that long-feared collaboration that would upend the entire global order.
So the West coerced Russia into the war precisely to ruin and cut off its relations with Europe and Germany, and to make sure the Russian economy continues to stay artificially suppressed.
I believe that U.S. motivations still fully comport with Mearsheimer’s famed “offensive realism” approach, it’s simply—to me—a different way of thinking of it. The objection states that the U.S.’s actions clash with their self-interest because they bring short term gain for long term harm, like in Iraq, which goes against the precepts of the ‘neorealist’ school that dictates states act in their rational self-interests and with self-preservation in mind.
But to me, this view is mired in the micro-scale analysis, and doesn’t consider the broader macro implications. Yes, actions like Iraq, or even the seemingly foolhardy Ukrainian proxy war, appear to harm the U.S. in the short term, but given the earlier analysis, they represent the absolutely necessary self-preserving calculations for a long-term outlook.
The way this gets messy is when we ask whose interests, exactly, are we talking about here. The overall schema of the theory centers on the “interests of states”—but ‘state’ is a very idealized and notional abstraction. When we think of the interests of states, we assume an idealized form where the government acts in accordance with the people’s—or national—interest.
But the problem is, the U.S. is a totally captured state. Its elite do not serve the people whatsoever, and in fact are a treasonous class of actual definitional traitors who serve other transnational interests first, particularly Israel. So there’s this clear discrepancy between what’s in the people’s “national interest” and the interest of these elites who have no connection to the actual people or country.
This complicates the whole matter further. If you actually analyze the situation from the perspective of, let’s say, Israel’s national interest, then suddenly all the Middle East wars begin to make sense. In Ukraine’s situation, I think it reverts a bit back to the classical self-preservation described earlier, and much more closely accords with standard theory, as the elites are forced to take actions they believe will stave off the entire future disintegration of the ‘American Empire.’
24.
Now that the Ukraine project is winding down, and poorly, what do you think of the possibility of that USA using "limited nuclear escalation" in potential conflicts, such as over Taiwan?
There’s always some possibility depending on the types of neocons that are in charge at the time. However the chance over Taiwan may not be high due to the fact that the primary reason U.S. so fiercely defends Taiwan is the TSMC chip powerhouse, and they can deprive China of this without resorting to nukes, simply by destroying TSMC with conventional bombs and sabotage.
In fact that’s what they’ve openly stated they would do—here’s U.S. congressman Seth Moulton:
In the past I’ve espoused the view that U.S. engaging in any nuclear exchange with China or Russia is in some ways very unlikely due to the fact that it would almost necessitate that it engages with them both at the same time. That’s because any attack on one or the other will most likely result in nuclear radiation drifting over the border, i.e. an attack on Russia, may kill a lot of Chinese with nuclear radiation drifting to China and vice versa.
So if the U.S. ever dared nuke China, it may face nuclear annihilation by Russia—the premiere strategic nuclear power of the globe. Would U.S. dare risk such a thing? I doubt it.
Of course you said “limited” nuclear escalation, which parlance typically refers to tactical nuclear exchanges. However, I only note the above because the chain of escalation is usually modeled as going from tactical to strategic and full nuclear exchange as a natural evolution.
There’s some chance that to limit the above scenarios, U.S. could use nuclear strikes on the water, i.e. torpedos and such, to hit Chinese ships, which should not affect Russia too much and would not trigger a full exchange. However, in that case the U.S. is at far greater threat of the same tactic against them because it’s the U.S. supply lines which are most vulnerable in that region. China using a few sea-based nukes could wipe out the U.S. fleets and completely sever their ability to operate in the region. China on the other hand, would not be completely cut-off from Taiwan with sea-based attacks because they still have many other vectors to hit Taiwan from land, including landing on it by air, etc.
Of course if the entire U.S. regional fleet were to be wiped out by retaliatory sea-borne nukes of some sort, the famous U.S. exceptionalism would likely push for some “non-tactical” escalation, at which point we revert back to my opening points.
Either way, though I think there’s always some possibility of this when it comes to the rogue U.S. regime, the chance is still fairly low. We’ve seen U.S. and NATO cower in Ukraine, respectful of Russia’s red lines and that could inform the Taiwan scenario. If China called their bluff and invaded, U.S. may be forced to merely resort to depriving China of its prized possession of TSMC.
25.
Very long questions which I’ll truncate down as best I can:
With the possibility that all these wars and military might just fade away and revert to trade and other peaceful means of existence, I wonder what thoughts you might have on this?
So in the absence of a major catastrophe and escalation what do you feel the future holds?
My question is when the US and The West is spending billions of dollars on the information war of mis, dis and mal information just why Russia and China are not spending a few million targeting and supporting the independent sector in the same manner? This could be done both overtly and covertly.
I don’t see see any peaceful existences happening in the near future, but all things ebb and flow, and right now we’re in a big waxing period which will culminate in a few years. After all the excess ‘steam’ is blown away, perhaps by a hotter global conflict, then afterwards could be another golden era, perhaps with some de Gaulle style figures emerging to unhitch Europe from the U.S. to gain some semblance of independence that could flower into a rapprochement between Europe and Russia.
The other big catalyst which could spur that is the decline or total collapse of the EU, which would revive independence of nation-states that will allow them to once more resume trade and normal relations with Russia. This is a very real possibility. However, since I think you mentioned being in the UK, I’ve read some recent news that the majority in the UK now want to exit Brexit, and rejoin the EU. I have a feeling such polls may be fake or skewed by the establishment, but if it represents the real sentiment then that’s a clear problem.
There’s always the chance things can go the opposite way—for instance I’ve seen some minor European apparatchiks/politicians on Twitter calling for the full “federalization” of Europe as that—in their view—is the “only thing” that can stop Russia. I can hardly imagine how much more federalized Europe can get considering the individual nations already have zero sovereignty on their own.
You mentioned things like Hyperloop and high speed trains reviving America, in particular. One issue I’ve seen some experts note which attempts to explain why America has lagged so far behind in high-speed rail, is that if you look at how the U.S. is laid out, it’s not very economical or profitable to invest huge amounts of money for highspeed rail to crisscross the country in the way it does Germany or China. That’s because much of the U.S. is completely empty, and no one will invest billions getting futuristic rail to service the Mid-West, where hardly anybody lives. At least that’s the argument I’ve heard from some experts.
As to your other question, I’ll answer briefly. The West has gone full totalitarian under one of the operative definitions of fascism, which is the merger of state and corporate power. This allows them to create a vast network of corporate and private-interest NGOs, shell companies, and news/media purveyors to act as propaganda organs, amplifying unprecedented levels of propaganda across the globe. Since Russia and China are decidedly not Fascist, their governments don’t quite have the same power and financial backing to effect such measures.
You see, in an actual real government which operates under fiscal responsibility and a real obligation toward citizens, everything has to be accounted for, including vast budgets for subversive activities. That’s just not how it works in real democratic or non-fascist states. The West functions on a total corporate-state merger which allows the endless corporate-bankster funds to flow through State-sanctioned initiatives and vice versa, which gives them a major advantage in this type of technology.
That means there are some limitations to being an actual responsible non-fascist state, unfortunately, but the greater pay off means you don’t lose your state to the total control of corporate-bankster interests as is so common in the West.
26.
Is there a Russian 5th column? If so who are they and their influence on Russian Israel relations.
To be honest, Russia has come down so hard on Western-funded movements like NGOs and ‘extremist groups’ that now a 6th column is far more common there than the 5th.
For those who don’t know, the 5th column are the secretly subversive groups who operate in your society, whereas the 6th column are the devious people who pretend to be patriotic and for your cause, but in actuality furtively work toward destabilizing the country with things like “concern trolling,” pessimism, and defeatism, etc. In any society thoroughly purged of the more easily-found 5th column, the 6th ends up persisting as a difficult to root out problem, as they often smoothly dissemble into the ostensibly ‘patriotic’ crowd, often becoming what’s called ‘turbo-patriots.’
To clarify: Russia has done a pretty thorough job of labeling, tar-and-feathering, or outright banning Western organizations, which includes media ones, who operate as destabilization and propaganda outlets. NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, rags like Moscow Times were all banned in Russia last year. Now the LGBT movement has been declared an extremist organization and likewise banned in Russia because it acts as conduit toward Western infiltration in subverting and destabilizing the pillars of Russian society by creating deliberate provocations against Churches, traditionalism, etc.
Another big example was the Moscow Carnegie Center, one of the most powerful Western thinktanks, which was shut down just last year. According to wiki, it was ranked as the “number one thinktank in all of central and eastern Europe.”
The thing with Russia is, most of its ‘dissidents’ of higher stature have long fled. So they remain as 5th columns but outside the borders of Russia. For instance just yesterday Khodorkovsky issued another screed about the ever-imminent collapse of “Putin’s regime” and things of that nature—from the comfort of his London estate.
Particularly apropos the Israeli question you ask, most Russian high profile 5th column figures who support Israel have actually already fled there, like the various CEOS (of Yandex, for instance) or music artists. Sure, they continue to agitate against Russia but from the safety of their new abodes. The Jewish Yandex CEO famously fled from Russia, citing: “I refuse to live in any country which ruthlessly attacks its neighbors” but finding no issue whatsoever in living in Israel, which does precisely that.
The city of Yekaterinburg, Russia has long been considered a hive or capital of 5th column neoliberal infestation. As an example, this article from a few years ago described how a British Parliament delegation met with various NGO reps in Yekaterinburg, as the city was a ‘free for all’ for Western curators to deliver their instructions to local organizers and subversives.
The infamous ‘Yeltsin [appreciation] Center’ was established in Yekaterinburg a few years ago, which not surprisingly was used as the premises to host the Yekaterinburg Jewish Film Festival. In fact, at the time of the Yeltsin center and festival’s founding, Yekaterinburg’s mayor was Jewish Yevgeny Roizman, who describes himself as an “opposition figure”:
Roizman was outspoken against the Russian invasion of Ukraine and called it the "betrayal of Russians". In regards to the threat of being arrested at any moment, he told Agence France-Presse in July 2022: "I have no illusions. But I also have no fear"
Well, it turns out he was in fact arrested after that and as of last hearing, he’s still on trial and faces years in prison:
On 26 April 2023, Roizman went on trial. He formally plead not guilty to the charge; the charge carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.
This is just a small snapshot of the type of activities taking place in what’s considered Russia’s 5th column HQ. One can only assume that the film festival there will soon host various pro-Israeli propaganda items, but we’ll see.
Like I said, most pro-Israel/Ukraine supporters have already fled, particularly the high profile ones. I’ve seen a recent Western report which wrote that Russia has cracked down on the neoliberal 5th/6th column so much recently that even the oligarchs and liberals are forced to reluctantly work toward Russian interests, particularly vis a vis Ukraine, as they simply now have no choice. That’s because the sentiment in society is so strong that the only other option for them is to flee. And those who can’t flee for whatever reason are now forced to work toward actual Russian interests. In short: there’s very little breathing room in current Russian society for pro-Western liberals or 5th/6th columns who want to support the enemy.
Maybe someone can think up of some that I’ve missed, but at this point they’re likely the exception to the rule.
27.
With Ukraine clearly losing the war, what do you think the probablity of NATO actually delivering on recent political rhetorc and doubling down on their involvement? What are the actual capabilities that NATO could bring to bear on the conflict within Ukraine? What do you consider might occur if any Russia - NATO war was not localised and escalated to other theatres? I realise a very long set of 3 questions, but possibly simple to answer.
I suppose it can come in different stages of ‘doubling down.’ The most obvious being a vast increase of financial aid and supplies, with a more escalatory one being sending more NATO advisors and outright NATO detachments, like Polish troops into the conflict under false pretenses, i.e. wearing AFU markings.
But most of the latter would not have much appreciable effect. I agree with the views of one commentator I read who said that right now by far the biggest thing NATO can do is massively increase supplies of various drones to Ukraine. To some extents, drone production lines can be set up faster and more easily than that of traditional shells and other military weapons, and they have a real multiplicative effect on the front.
Beyond that, there’s not much more NATO can “bring to bear” without outright entering the conflict. There are perhaps some “gray areas”, for instance Rheinmetall continues to claim they’re setting up a production line for new tanks and IFVs on Ukrainian territory. Another would be flying F-16s from NATO territory, but with Ukrainian pilots, though Russia has informally conveyed this being a red line.
Most of that is negligible stuff. The only real “meat” of the doubling down argument would be an actual fullblown direct NATO entry into the conflict, which most likely won’t happen, though rumors continue to persist that Ukraine is planning various ‘provocations’ like another missile attack on Poland to blame Russia, precisely to instigate this. The PMR/Transnistria pressure point remains as well, but Moldova’s not in NATO.
The only other thing I can think of is them trying to goad Russia into striking some Polish base like Rzeszow to give NATO a casus belli. However, even if NATO were given a greenlight to “bring their capabilities to bear” against Russia in a non-nuclear way, in the Ukrainian theater itself, there’s very little they could do.
That’s because Ukraine is so vast in size, particularly west to east, that NATO has very few options for launching any types of substantive strikes against Russia from NATO territory or even west Ukraine. For their planes to get to an area where they could reach Russian assets would mean a prohibitively unwieldy logistical operation requiring multiple air refuels. In short, it’s very problematic. They don’t have land based missiles that can reach, as almost every system maxes out at 300-500km at most, and from western Ukraine to Russian positions in let’s say the Donbass is 1200-1500km.
This Dr. Karber West Point talk mentions the unfeasibility of U.S. stealth bomber fleets doing sorties against Russia at the 27:30 mark—my understanding is U.S. stealth bombers can really only operate out of England, as there are no other European bases that are built to regularly work with them:
How else are they going to deliver munitions? NATO ships won’t be able to get into the Black Sea, whether by Montreaux convention or simply the fact that Russian long range coastal defense batteries would be far too dangerous a deterrence. It’s just too disadvantageous a chokepoint for them.
Now keep in mind, we’re talking about a certain level of escalation. Sure, if NATO were to declare total war on Russia, they could mobilize entirely and then try to move their divisions into western Ukraine and slowly collide with Russia. But that’s almost entirely out of the realm of possibility, so we’re discussing this only on the terms of a more offhand and realistically localized sort of engagement.
As you implied, the only real damage NATO could realistically do in my mind are the various types of blockades they could successfully impose at key chokepoints, particularly vis a vis Kaliningrad and the Gulf of Finland, etc. This is certainly the most realistic option and presents a real threat and difficult problem for Russia.
But since I had another question specifically on that topic, let me take it more in depth there on the next one.
28.
In the following articles, they paint a gloomy picture about Kaliningrad related to the recent Finland border closings, as well as the Black Sea situation. You have great skills and knowledge to refute pessimistic writeups. I would love to hear your points about these. Thank you in advance!
https://topcor.ru/41481-nad-kaliningradskoj-oblastju-navisla-realnaja-voennaja-ugroza-so-storony-nato.html
https://topcor.ru/41438-chto-nuzhno-dlja-vozvraschenija-rossii-iniciativy-na-chernom-more.html
As I just wrote above, the Kaliningrad axis most certainly presents the gravest threat of all, and I believe full-heartedly that NATO is in fact planning the complete capture and destruction of the isolated region just as the first article above outlines.
However, that’s not to say they are definitively planning to actually carry it out. There’s a huge difference between making plans to have everything gamed out and ready—for instance, for the purposes of simply threats, deterrence, and destabilization—and actually doing it. The plan is a contingency for now, but it remains a very real threat for the medium term future.
In fact, I believe that Russia’s new vast, hastily-constructed reserve army is likely aimed almost primarily at this threat. Shoigu raised what is now 500k+ new men this year for what is to be a series of new reserve armies stationed precisely in the two new military districts, one of which is the ‘Leningrad’. Notably, the Leningrad district was previously re-established in the Cold War specifically to guard the Estonian SSR and the Karelian Isthmus, which are precisely the areas in question now.
Think about it, you have the blue area below, which is besieged Kaliningrad threatened by NATO; then you have the red area that will house a massive new 500k-man Russian army:
I believe this is a deterrence meant precisely to keep NATO from making a fatal mistake in regard to its designs for Kaliningrad.
But to break it down more specifically: we’ve seen their trial-balloons floated before, with Lithuania blocking Russian rail transit to Kaliningrad, just to see how Moscow would react. This was followed by provocative statements about Estonia and Finland jointly closing the Gulf of Finland to Russian transit. They can do this by playing games with the EEZs (Economic Exclusive Zones) of their maritime borders. Not to mention Germany making provocations about changing the name to Königsberg on their official maps. These are all signs.
With Finland and soon Sweden to join NATO, it would represent a potential checkmate on Kaliningrad. Despite Russia’s Baltic Sea Fleet being based there, it likely can’t stand a chance against all of NATO combined completely surrounding and blockading it.
However, you must understand how much of an existential mistake this could be for the nations who might attempt this. The entire combined armies of the Baltic states, as an example, is something like 50,000 or less men, at least in active service. A 500k man Russian army would steam-roll them. And as penalty for pulling such a stunt on Kaliningrad, they would risk losing their entire statehood forever. Think they’re up for that gamble?
Of course it’s far more complicated than that—Poland would be involved from the west, etc. However, it takes the participation of all for them to mutually arrive at the confidence to ever dare attempt such a thing, and thus Russia’s new 500k man sword of Damocles hanging over the Baltics should be enough to keep them grounded.
All in all though, it represents a very real future threat, as I believe these are contingencies being developed by NATO for later. One possibility is to use this as a pressure point to coax Russia into ceasefire once the West is ready to really urgently offer it, i.e. Spring 2024 most likely. Once Russia rejects it, certain unspoken threats will be ‘implied’ towards Kaliningrad, but as I said, Russia is preparing for them.
As to the article on the Black Sea fleet and its putative shortcomings.
I’m not one to blanketly defend the Black Sea Fleet, as Ukraine has clearly scored some notable victories there. However, it seems to me many of the points are a bit exaggerated or misstated.
For instance, they harp on the small Russian ships’ lack of air defense—but this has never been presented as an issue. None of the ships have been hit by any drones or anything from the air for that matter, at least not when in operation. Sure they were hit in the docks by cruise missiles, like the Askold recently, but that would’ve made no difference given that the ship was not in operation nor manned at the time so it’s not like its AD would have mattered. When a ship is in dock, it’s the local ground-based AD of the region that is supposed to protect it.
They mention Bayraktars, which have had zero success against Russian ships apart from hitting a few small boats, i.e. of the Raptor class variety. These aren’t even ships and don’t count as per the argument. In terms of ships, the Russian Admiral Essen frigate in fact shot down several Bayraktar drones.
Furthermore, out at sea, aerial drones are not really any type of threat because apart from the very rare long range ones like the Bayraktar, they don’t have the range to reach Russian ships. Naval drones of course are a whole other issue, but in my reckoning, Russian ships have accounted themselves very well against those.
Barring that, many of the arguments in the article are good ones. I agree that Russia certainly needs to strengthen a variety of factors they name, such as BSF aviation and long range drones that can operate over the sea. I just don’t think the situation is quite as critical as their tone implies.
Further, in regard to Odessa and Zelensky’s statements, if you check the current maritime map, as of this writing I see a grand total of about 4 ships near Odessa, compared to dozens or hundreds near the Danube ports and Romania region in general. One or two of the ones in Odessa appears headed to Turkey, which could be agreed upon between Russia-Turkey. In the article, Zelensky claims reaching the 4M tons milestone—that’s as little as 10 large bulk carrier ships. That would represent nearly 2 ships per month sneaking past since the grain deal’s collapse months ago. That’s really a negligible amount, even if we trust Zelensky’s likely inflated figures.
And the most important part is, when Russia withdrew, they never said “you can’t export any grain”, because that would technically be against international law, and Russia is still playing ‘soft ball’ militarily in this SMO. Instead, Russia said we can no longer guarantee the corridor’s safety. That means the miniscule amount of grain exported doesn’t represent Russia’s inability to stop it. If Russia wanted to hit those ships, they could easily do that in a million ways and drop the export to 0 instantly—but that would amount to attacking civilian targets.
No, Russia was merely hoping various threats and other tricks like the destruction of port facilities themselves under the guise of hitting military targets would complete the objective, which it has for the most part.
The article implied the Russian navy has performed the worst of all in the SMO. I disagree, I think one can argue it has the best record of any of the branches thus far, in the SMO. Not only has it withstood massive swarm attacks and completely sank its own counterpart Ukrainian navy—which no other branch can say to have done—it has taken very few total losses. I noted previously how only two real major surface ships have been totally confirmed as destroyed in the entire SMO, the Moskva and the Saratov landing ship in Berdiansk. Everything else that was struck has either been repaired, or is currently under repair as of last notice.
That leads me to conclude that despite the weaknesses, the Black Sea Fleet has arguably performed best. What has weakened it is the poor performance of attendant aviation, which as the article rightfully suggests, has not adequately established control of the Black Sea. This falls on the VVS air force stationed in Crimea, not the BSF. Better AWACS support and other ELINT planes, regular patrols, etc., is required and has not been done as well as it could be.
29.
This may be outside the scope but do you have any insight on the riots which took place two days ago in Dublin? ….
My question is this - this type of violent protest is so out of character for the Irish (leave aside the terrorism of the IRA who considered themselves fighting a war for independence from the UK) - that I can’t help but wonder was this egged on by NGO/intelligence operatives to create chaos and social strife - social media was used by ‘leaders’ to rally the troops so to speak and attack all immigrants etc.
Do real protesters actually declare such atrocities - incitement to violence is against the law here (My view is the looters - like their BLM cousins are simply opportunistic thugs but over here are branded by the politicians and media as ‘alt-right’) - a term heretofore unused and without a cohort in Ireland. Varadkar is a WEF darling - but broach this subject and be damned as a conspiracy theorist.
The real damage is now we cannot have a healthy, and honest debate about what the people want in terms of an Immigration policy as to raise the issue is to be branded racist. Irony here. I am an immigrant in Ireland (but from America) LOL.
To be honest, this area is not really my bailiwick and I haven’t followed it too closely just yet, but I am familiar with all the details you described above.
In general, I can’t say for certain whether the actual igniting event itself was a falseflag of some sort—and by that I don’t mean “fake”, but rather spurred on by some intelligence controller, as is usually the case—or whether it’s an ‘organic’ occurrence. But what’s almost a definite is that the appropriate globalist forces have immediately glommed onto the event in order to do the expected: push the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan forward, as always.
The speed with which authorities have capitalized on events to push their ever-restrictive WEF tyranny was remarkable to behold. As was how quickly the ‘dialogue’—or narrative—shifted from the legitimate one, about immigration and the erasure of native culture, to the “correct” one favored by the elites: that of Irish racism against migrants, refugees, the usual white nationalism and ‘right wing extremism’ dogwhistles, etc.
I don’t have a close enough ear on the ground in Ireland to really judge how authentic the protests themselves were—and whether they were ‘flavored’ with the type of glowing ‘Ray Epps’ characters as the Feds love to subvert protests with in the U.S., but I will say it’s probably likely. However, it also wouldn’t surprise me if it was simply pent up fury and frustration finally unleashing itself over the increasingly draconian captured government’s anti-Irish policies.
I won’t say much more without studying events more closely and seeing how things develop from here, but those are my immediate, raw thoughts on it.
30.
I have long wondered how involved Western money and the Pentagon were behind the construction of the massive fortifications that were built from 2014 to 2022 in the Donbass. They rank with the most formidable defences anywhere, in strength and length. Their construction must have been hugely expensive and required extensive planning and supervision, something the tottering economy of Ukraine with its feeble military of 2014 could hardly have done by itself. Was this wall as much the West's work as I think it is?
For the most part, a lot of the areas where hostilities have taken place all over Donbass were industrial zones which were already heavily fortified from the Soviet era. I’m talking areas like Avdeevka, Mariupol, Soledar, Balakleya/Izyum, etc. Even Bakhmut had those huge underground tunnels and networks, wine cellars, etc., which were used to great effect by the AFU.
However, the U.S. and allies did have a project called ‘Resistance Operating Concept’ which, as CNN writes, ‘created a blueprint for smaller nations to fight larger ones.’ My understanding is that as part of this framework, the West invested a lot of money to give Ukraine that sort of hybrid and unconventional war edge against Russia, which includes things like various fortifications. But I’m not familiar with any specific funds toward Donbass fortifications.
The closest I’m aware of is the Russia-Ukrainian barrier, which was a sort of megaproject to create barricades all across the Russian border, and was funded in part by Poland, as—I assume—a conduit for the West. Given that the project also included anti-tank ditches and possibly other types of fortifications, this is the only clear and direct link I could establish to Western funding being responsible for Ukrainian fortifications specifically, as opposed to all the billions of general military funds, training, etc., they disbursed.
Also, as an interesting spotlight I found this video of some of the earliest buildups, in this case being Mariupol:
However this consists of volunteers having built these, but it’s still an interesting early look.
Later on, both sides resorted to using huge pre-fab concrete structures which were built outside then trucked in, lowered into a hole in the ground, to create readymade underground fortifications. Ukraine even allegedly began to use old subway cars from Kiev metro, inserting them into the ground to create tunnels and dugouts.
One can only assume that such pre-fab structures could be shipped en masse from the West, with Ukraine merely having to “drop them in” to the hole that a big digger has excavated.
31.
random question: how find out putin or his govnt's approach to university education? colleagues in conversation in the west have said putin is no friend of universities - without back up; the only academics quoted here all have a hate putin credential - and now even thinking about connecting with russian scholars is effectively a thought crime. this question may be off your patch but any pointers appreciated as standard search gets nowhere.
meanwhile thanks for the long reads - treasures.
You rightly guessed this isn’t really an area I follow too closely. I find the assertion that Putin is ‘no friend of universities’ a little strange as I’ve never heard of such a thing. And “friend” in what way, exactly? I’m not sure what they’re suggesting by that—that he’s against higher education, or perhaps he’s against the leftist/liberal leanings of universities in general?
Without knowing more info, I can only assume you’re referring to Western academics who believe the standard lie that Putin is some type of dictator and as such, skew and misrepresent all his true beliefs to the complete opposite. For instance, the fact that Putin wants children to actually be cultured and educated with real traditional values rather than indoctrinated like they are in the Western education systems. He wants kids and young adults to actually study subjects with real depth and usefulness for society, etc.—these things are misrepresented in the West as: “Putin wants to brainwash children with rightwing/extremist views” and the usual yarn.
In fact just the other day I came across this interesting quote from a Ukrainian-born, now-Russian artist and musician:
💥💥💥"I was shocked, because I had never seen anything like this in Ukraine," artist and musician Yuri Bardash explained, how the work of the Russian state and the Ukrainian state with youth differs. Serious investments are being made in this area on both sides of the border. But if in our country there is an education of the individual, then in Ukraine a cult of hatred towards the “Slavic brothers” is being implanted.💥💥💥
In general, I know of nothing whatsoever that can even be construed as some sort of unfriendly approach from Putin or the Russian government toward education at large. If anything, it’s the complete opposite—they favor and support education to a far higher degree than in the West, which has basically given up on STEM and promotes only the social engineering hive of the Humanities and Social Sciences. In Russia it’s the opposite. I can only assume that the comments from Western academics you refer to are the typical bad faith projections and cognitive distortions of a spiteful, self-hating and jealous West, as usual.
32.
I have come across a number of interesting Ukrainian opinion polls in the run up to maidan that debunk all claims to it being a widely supported revolution. Some polls show the population evenly split on joining the EU versus joining the Russian equivalent. They all show large majorities against violent insurrection.
There is also a 2010 poll showing a 2-1 majority against joining nato. This one references another poll showing 93% of Ukrainians have a positive opinion of Russia. That one seems to have been memory holed.
Could I suggest you do a full article looking at opinion, polling and election results in Ukraine. Your ability to dig up interesting information might find some interesting data that may have been memory holed would make for a good article.
See these references
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/
https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/geography-of-the-presidential-elections-in-ukraine/
Thanks, I’ll file it away as a possibility in the future.
Since this was more of a comment and suggestion rather than a question, I’ll just say a brief word on it, which is that, firstly, I agree and think most of this is accurate.
But one aspect of this angle which I’ve covered before is how pro-Ukrainian and Western sources use the famous election maps of Zelensky’s 2019 victory over Poroshenko to argue certain points, like that of the marginalized pro-Russian side being diminished compared to previous years, or most commonly that even the pro-Russian segment supports Zelensky, which is further used to make various insinuations or attempted extrapolations to what’s happening presently. For instance, it’s used to “debunk Russian myths” and to push the narrative that Ukrainian citizens of the Donbass and other ethnic Russian areas do not support the Kremlin, but actually seek reunification with Ukraine.
I’m talking about maps like this, which shows Zelensky getting even higher support in the Russian-speaking areas than in the Ukrainian areas of the west and north:
This relates to your angle of deception and deliberate memory-holing of certain inconvenient facts.
But the obvious explanation is that Zelensky based his entire platform around reconciling with the Russian speakers and ending the Donbass war. So of course the ethnically Russian lands would support him, because they thought he was finally going to be the one to end all the misery and rehabilitate the regions. They hated the viper Poroshenko as they saw through all his guile and constant deceit surrounding the Minsk accords.
Now this charming young man came on the scene and very publicly ‘confronted’ the nationalist goon squads, telling them to put down their arms and get away from the contact line. Zelensky was viewed as a savior that could “unite and heal.”
Instead he turned into the greatest backstabber of all. But the problem is, this portion of his rise is being memory-holed in favor of the narrative that says: “See, these election maps prove that the Donbass supports Ukraine and never wanted to stand with the Kremlin and its invasion!”
No, it proves the exact opposite. They stood against the ‘establishment figure’ of Poroshenko who betrayed them, and fell for the cheap lies of a charismatic clown actor who promised to end the war. It’s that simple.
33.
Regarding the attack on Hroza on 5th October which an official UN OHCHR report, mostly based on interviews, blames on Russia: was it another false flag from Ukraine, as in Kostyantynivka in September? After all, it happened during the 3rd European Political Community Summit in Granada. Do we have any clues? If not, what is your take?
See also this article by Finian Cunningham on Strategic Culture:
and this other one:
Firstly, let’s establish the fact that no one is disputing that the event was a funeral for a Ukrainian military servicemen. This is stated by the official Ukrainian account themselves posting one of the relatives openly admitting this.
So it’s not in question that a funeral of a soldier, likely attended by a lot of other soldiers, was hit, rather than just a “civilian gathering”. However, there were presumably civilians present there, which I’m not discounting.
The only real question is, who did it?
The Russian side claims there were some important Aidar members there. To my knowledge there’s no real way of confirming this, so I can only take their word over the much less trustworthy word of the Ukrainian side, who actually did 100% verifiably stage multiple massacre falseflags, including Bucha and Kramatorsk, amongst others, while lying about many others like the Konstantinovka hit, that was later proven by NYTimes to have been a Ukrainian missile.
The official Russian reaction to the Groza strike seemed to me to be a quiet admission of it. That’s because Peskov said “only military targets are hit” which appeared to imply that Russia did the strike, but under the auspices of it being a military target.
Then UN rep Nebenzya seemed to further clarify it by reiterating that a “high ranking Ukrainian nationalist” was being buried, with many “Neo-Nazi accomplices” in attendance. This appears as a quiet admission of carrying out the strike on Russia’s behalf, though they never overtly said it.
The videos of the aftermath I saw appeared to show male, fighting age bodies—for the most part—though it’s hard to say as they were all blurred.
I’m aware of the ‘eyewitnesses’ that later spoke on video claiming only civilians died, but in my view this would easily be the ‘falseflag’ part of Ukraine’s interference as they would have paid or blackmailed someone to lie on camera, as they have done many times in the past.
Furthermore, the strike happened at a time when Russia had likewise struck several high-ranking members of Azov/Aidar/Kraken, etc., as I believe they also struck them inside Kharkov not far away somewhere around a week apart from that one. This seems to imply a campaign of hitting them at that time, which would seem to suggest this one was part of it.
So while we can’t know for certain, if I had to guess I’d say it was a genuine Russian strike which was authorized only on the pretext that a high-ranking member(s) of one of the most insidious and wanted organizations, i.e. Aidar, was present, which would have overrode the consideration for civilian casualties/collateral damage. Most likely, most of the casualties were in fact military acquaintances, but that some civilian family members were also present and perished in the attack is reasonable to assume.
Afterwards, Ukrainian intelligence organs likely jumped in to utilize the event for propaganda purposes and probably dressed everything up, creating some fake testimonies, exaggerating civilian victims, while downplaying the legitimate military targets, etc. Standard SBU ops.
The fact that Russia doesn’t do such strikes that often is what leads me to assume the attending members were either high-ranking or especially wanted, i.e. for instance those who perhaps participated in the infamous torture and killing of Russian servicemen, etc.
That being said, I’m not discounting that the entire attack was done by Ukraine, or even a smaller percentage chance that Russia “messed up” and outright struck a mostly civilian gathering with only few military targets. All those are possible but the most likely scenario is the one I outlined, in my view.
34.
Do you have any insights or information on who is behind the persistent jet trails (a.k.a. chemtrails) and whether or not we can expect that to stop anytime soon?
I don’t have any particularly novel thoughts or information on this, other than that by chance I happened to see this report recently, which I’ll post in full in case it gets taken down:
BREAKING: A whistleblower pilot has come out and claimed that the U.S. government has been operating chemtrail programs and utilizing shell companies to profit from secret experiments in the skies.
He claims the chemtrailing aircrafts operate out of Newquay, Southampton, Stansted, Teesside, Prestwick and Liverpool airports, and spray chemtrails across Cornwall, a county in South West England, as well as the cities of London, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester.
….
A colleague used ADS-B software to identify potential aeroplanes flying over an airport. Despite not confirming the plane at an altitude of 12,000-13,000 feet "doing squiggly lines", they identified one at 10,000 feet, crucial for determining contrails and chemtrails formation.
The actual source interview appears to be here.
I can’t corroborate any truth to this, but the only thing I can add is that there are most likely secret programs, which we get inklings of from time to time, designed to dovetail with the various 2030 climate change hoax initiatives. This is a broader topic I’ve covered in depth here and here.
The inklings I speak of are the actual admissions from various globalist and WEF-linked organizations of either carrying out or considering developing various related projects of this sort, with the intention of somehow mitigating the so-called ‘climate change’. Such projects include the infamous Bill Gates-linked “blocking out the sun” and releasing airborne mosquitos from planes, etc.
The thing I’m most certain of, is that given the fact that the elites absolutely require climate change as the final grand centralization project to complete their control over humanity via a central global authority, they will induce the climate change panic at all costs. But since actual anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist, they have to artificially ‘stimulate’ it in order to generate the required ‘concern’ from the public, that will allow the abnegation of rights.
Recall the famous audios from the Covid era, which saw several major figures admit that it was “too bad” that Covid didn’t “kill more people” because it would “wake the deniers up” to the extremity or seriousness of the pandemic. This is an insight into how these globalists think. They have truly convinced themselves that the problem is so grave that it’s morally admissible to both exaggerate the problem—ironically, despite its putative ‘graveness’—and even outright lie and distort it, for the “greater moral good” of ultimately saving people from said problem.
Since the same exact people, institutions, organizations, etc., are involved in the climate hoax, it’s only natural that the same types of sentiments will predominate. So it’s only logical that people who were willing to ‘boost’ Covid’s lethality, both real and perceived, are willing to boost the malign effects of ‘climate change’ for the same reason.
That means it’s very probable that there are secret programs out there aimed at meddling with the atmosphere in various experimental ways in order to accentuate the climate change dialogue. These may be overt programs with the direct intent to do as described, or covert ones operating under a false guise of making some other related atmospheric adjustment or “benign experiment”, while secretly designed to actually bring about the very ‘global warming’ they so yearn for.
Ultimately, as I said, the people who have literally and openly proposed to block out the sun for the purpose of ‘climate change’ should be trusted at their word. If they’re talking about this publicly, you can bet they’ve already had more covert portions of the operations running for a long time.
From the mainstream Forbes article above:
Microsoft’sMSFT -1.8% billionaire founder Bill Gates is financially backing the development of sun-dimming technology that would potentially reflect sunlight out of Earth’s atmosphere, triggering a global cooling effect. The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University scientists, aims to examine this solution by spraying non-toxic calcium carbonate (CaCO3) dust into the atmosphere — a sun-reflecting aerosol that may offset the effects of global warming.
Why would it be “kooky conspiracy theory” or hard to believe that someone is spraying chemtrails for this purpose, when the world’s richest and most powerful globalists are literally openly signaling their intentions?
So, while I don’t have any more direct proof that it’s been going on, simply using logic and reason we can deduce it’s highly probable that it’s happening. And if it isn’t, then it most certainly will be very soon, as the climate hoax is the globalist’s last gasp for seizing control of humanity.
They’re beginning to turn up the knobs of fear and paranoia to get us into that suggestible state:
35.
These two questions were related:
The Zionist connection of Ukraine and Israel is a highly interesting topic. I’ve come to believe that Europea Jewry at least partially descends from Khazaria - a vast empire that lasted 400 years that covered Eastern Ukraine amongst other areas. I believe the Ashkenazis or their elites are fully aware that Ukraine snd the Caucases is their true homeland.
There’s been admission to this in thr form of satire in the Israeli MSM and several books have been written about it. Would be an interesting topic to touch upon although a highly sensitive one at that.
And another:
I saw something, either in your column or in another one, that really threw me. It showed that some fighters in the Azov battalion had the Jewish star on their uniforms. There also was a photo of a Jewish Azov fighter warmly greeted by a Rabbi. I am finding it hard to understand what is going on here. Ukraine is referred to occasionally as "the 2nd Israel", so perhaps Israel is thinking about getting Ukraine, or what's left of it, for themselves after the war. I guess they feel they need room to grow. But how does fighting with a neo-Nazi battalion against the Russians achieve that? And why is the Azov battalion accepting of it? Why not sit back and wait for the Russians to complete the "de-Nazification" of Ukraine and then step in? I'm clearly missing something here. I have become aware recently how much the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis during WWII, but they did that in order to compel European Jews to help form their own state in Palestine. I just don't get the connection. Do you have any insight on the "inner workings" here?
Just to add another layer to my question... Apparently the Azov battalion was formed in the beginning by organizing soccer hooligans and other neo-Nazi lowlifes, and it was formed by Kolomoiky, a Jewish/Zionist oligarch, the same one who set up Zelensky in his role as president. (Cprrect me if I am wrong here.) So this whole Ukraine situation might just be Israel pulling the strings of the neocon "attack dogs" in the West and the neo-Nazi "attack dogs" in Ukraine (and the West) to prepare Ukraine to be the "2nd Israel", but I still dont' understand why they don't just sit back and let the Russians do their de-nazification dirty work. Why join the Azov? Sorry for the long question, but I feel like there is something big that I'm missing.
Corollary:
Also, how does Russia actually achieve de-nazification, and how can it accept any deals that don't complete that stated objective?
First about the infamous ‘Khazarian origin theory’, which is often derided as a ‘conspiracy theory’. The most important thing to note is that detractors of the theory couch their debunking of it in one narrow aspect, which can be plainly seen on the very first sentence of the wikipedia article on the subject as an example:
The Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, often called the Khazar myth by its critics, is a largely abandoned historical hypothesis that postulated that Ashkenazi Jews were primarily, or to a large extent, descended from Khazars, a multi-ethnic conglomerate of mostly Turkic peoples who formed a semi-nomadic khanate in and around the northern and central Caucasus and the Pontic–Caspian steppe.
Read the bolded portion.
This is the crux of the entire argument: they’re not saying that no Ashkenazi Jews descended from Khazars, they are debunking it purely on the—perhaps somewhat strawman’d—postulate that ALL Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars.
Ashkenazis probably have a pretty wide variance so it likely is correct to question that “all of them” are directly descended from Khazaria. There appears to be some evidence that many Khazarians converted to Judaism and ultimately ended up melding with the wider diaspora, but all the genetic tests of Ashkenazi people I’ve seen do appear to show a fairly wide genetic distribution.
I don’t think I have the definitive say on the topic, but I personally am inclined to believe that there’s a little truth to all the theories. Meaning, those who claim that the entire Jewish diaspora came from their exile of Roman Judea are exaggerating, as there is ample proof not all Jews left, and even some evidence that one grand exile never even occurred.
But likewise, the theory that all of them came from Khazaria is probably not accurate either. As always, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle—some did flee from Judea, while other ‘Turkic’ converts fled from the destruction of Khazaria. These all met in the middle of the European diaspora, mixed their genetics together while being adulterated by the admixture of other non-Jewish Europeans from time to time, creating a concoction of the modern European Ashkenazi Jew.
As to the second part of both questions regarding “Ukraine as 2nd Israel” and the paradoxically bizarre close-knit working relationship between Jews and Nazis in Ukraine.
What can be said? It’s a very unsettling truth. Ukraine is objectively an institutionally neo-Nazi regime, and yet it’s led in large part by a Jewish central government. That is indisputable fact.
There’s a huge amount of inexplicable intersections:
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Here the Israeli ambassador to Ukraine, Mikhail Brodsky, even states that it’s perfectly fine that Ukrainians support notorious Nazi Bandera, while at the same time acknowledging that Bandera was a Nazi who wanted all Jews dead:
He says, “We (as in, Israelis) don’t like these heroes, but for most Ukrainians they are heroes who fought for their independence.”
All right—that’s fine. You can respect a country’s particular preference without overtly aiding and abetting them. Though it would still be questionable if he had said this in a vacuum, it would at least be one thing if Israel didn’t openly support Ukraine. But given the fact that they’ve provided Ukraine with certain military aid and other types of political support, it opens a lot of very difficult questions about Israel’s actual views on Nazism.
However, we must note that not all Jews are in bed with Nazis because there are many who have, and continue to share, outrage at these inconvenient facts. For instance, here’s a Jerusalem Post article from a few years ago depicting many Jews being outraged by Ukraine’s election of an openly Nazi mayor:
I have seen and posted other videos of Jews in Israel scathingly condemning Ukraine for its support of Nazis.
But it does still raise questions, particularly in regard to the Israeli ambassador clip I posted above. The end conclusion necessarily becomes that many Jews, particularly the politicians in Israel, use the specter of Nazism to their advantage when convenient and politically expedient, while paying lip service with feigned put-ons and pearl-clutching performances about the ‘horrors of Nazism’. In reality, many of them have no real aversion to the brand—it’s a “useful tool” just as ISIS was for Israel, who worked hand in glove with the terror caliphate, even admitting to medically treating wounded Al-Qaeda militants on the Syrian border.
In fact, there’s no current nation on earth that is acting more in accordance with how Nazi Germany behaved in WW2, than Israel. There are many similarities between the Israeli regime and that of the German 3rd Reich. Everything the Nazis did to the Jews, the Israelis are now doing to the Palestinians.
But like I said, I’m limiting that to a condemnation of the Israeli ruling regime, because there are a huge amount of Jews worldwide who are standing up against Zionism and Israel as we speak.
As for the point about Ukraine being readied as a potential second Israel, there have been some indications of this. Here’s one Ukrainian soldier sounding off on just that.
And then, there was this interesting post reportedly by Belarusian journalist Ksenia Lebedeva:
Assumptions that Ukraine is to be turned into a second Israel have started to be put forward again against the background of the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Belarusian journalist Ksenia Lebedeva said:
📝 "The war between Palestine and Israel was provoked by the Mossad in order to move Israelis to Ukraine".
This version was supported by former Verkhovna Rada MP Ilya Kiva.
📝 "Israel will lose to the Muslim world in this war and will make its sacral resettlement!!!, - he wrote in his TG-channel, and then on Russian TV explained, - Jews will make sacral resettlement to the place where tzadiks came and pointed 300-500 years ago. And, dying, they left their graves as a fairway for their people, who should move to the fertile lands of western Ukraine. In fact, to the place where they had always lived once".
✔️ The topic was continued by Vyacheslav Salnikov, associate professor at Voronezh State University. He stated that the involvement of the Muslim world in the conflict "with its growing power" threatens the existence of the state of Israel.
📝 "And where will the streams of refugees flow to? ...It is not excluded that they will return to their historical homeland, where they lived before moving to Israel... In the post-Soviet space - this is the former "sedentary line" in Ukraine and Belarus, where under certain circumstances Jews from Israel and other countries may return. At least under the current president of Ukraine this is quite possible...," he said.
❗️ How "conspiracy" versions that Ukraine is being specially prepared for the resettlement of Jews from Israel can be considered "conspiracy" is still unclear. But the fact that for many Jews Ukraine remains "home" and the place where they and their ancestors were born, makes one wonder whether there will indeed be a flood of refugees from the "promised land" to the "land of independence".
In light of this, to answer the question of why would Jews/Israelis support Azov battalion and other open Nazi groups in Ukraine rather than “sitting back and waiting”—the answer is clear: if they sat back and waited, Russia will simply win and then conquer this ‘homeland,’ depriving them of it forever. But if they support Ukraine in defeating Russia, Ukraine as a puppet state can easily be manipulated and overrun afterwards, allowing them to resettle it or do as they please, if such a hypothetical plan exists. As I said, it’s already ruled by a predominantly Jewish elite regime now, so it would be elementary to turn Ukraine into a Jewish homeland after their triumphant victory over Russia.
If Russia takes over the country, then this can never happen other than perhaps in the western Polish regions. That said, I don’t know if such a plan actually exists, but I did talk about it before here. You can check the video I posted in that article where, in 2004, Zhirinovsky even predicted that Israel would be ‘forced to seek a new homeland in Ukraine within 20 years’, which would put us to right about now.
As to the final question about how Russia can achieve deNazification. You’re right, I don’t think Russia can accept any deals without this. Some pro-Ukrainians have tried to claim in recent times that Russia and Putin have abandoned this pursuit, retreating back to less ambitious objectives. But I’ve recently seen multiple Russian officials categorically reaffirm the goal, particularly Peskov and Medvedev. There’s simply no way Russia would allow a genocidal Russophobic terrorist army representing the ideology that killed over 20 million Russians to live and thrive on Russia’s border—it’s lunacy to consider.
So how will it achieve it? Very simple: when Russia effects a full capitulation of Ukraine, whether that be by surrender or full military conquest, Russia will install their own pro-Russian leader of the rump state—if it even exists. This leader will be charged with utilizing Ukraine’s own security services—which will have been ‘purged’ of all undesirables—to cleanse Ukraine of all such extremists. They will outlaw extremist groups like Nazis in mimicry of what Russia has done to various objectionable groups in its own country. The only reason such groups exist in Ukraine is because the supreme authorities deliberately allow them to thrive, or at least turn a blind eye.
Under a new regime, these will be hunted down and done away with by Ukraine’s own new security services under Russia’s orders as per a strict post-war treaty signed between the two nations. This treaty will likely include the mandatory revision of the Ukrainian constitution to inscribe the criminalization and prohibition of such groups into Ukraine’s very founding documents, on penalty of severe military retribution. Just like Chechens were made to purge all the Basayev devotees and jihadists, the same will happen with Ukraine.
36.
Short of annihilation/subjugation, can you cite any international wars, like Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, where the feuding parties were fighting over the same lands, where a long term, viable settlement was reached? I'm not counting an armistice where the 2 parties are still at war but not kinetically.
Depending on what you consider viable, I suppose China and Taiwan is an example. I say that in contrast to the Korean scenarios as you mentioned, because China and Taiwan now have fairly good relations, all things considered. It can’t be considered definitively ‘settled’, but it certainly has existed as at least a ‘long term settlement’ of sorts.
For instance, China is actually Taiwan’s largest economic trading partner, with U.S. in second place. Compare this to other ‘unsettled conflicts’ like that of North and South Korea who, to my knowledge, don’t trade at all with each other, and retain very tense relations.
So in my mind, given the fact that the China-Taiwan conflict could literally erupt into a giant invasion and war in the near future, you would never think that to be the case if you were to examine their present relations which seem relatively routine and amicable. This creates a sort of bizarre and hard to reconcile juxtaposition. But at the same time, legally and officially, I don’t think they reached any ‘settlement’ so in some ways it is similar to the Korean armistice, non-kinetic state of war scenario you cite.
Off the top of my head, Pakistan and Bangladesh, if I recall, have pretty decent and cordial relations, including economic trade, all after fighting a brutal war of independence in the 70s. I think during Imran Khan’s time as prime minister the relations improved to a peak, but issues remain, like with the fact that Pakistan still refuses to apologize for a reported genocide during the war.
Israel and Egypt can perhaps be cited, as they had their famous wars of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and yet currently enjoy fairly cordial relations with a lot of mutual “cooperation.” Minus the current Gaza situation, of course, as that has sort of inflamed some anti-Israeli sentiments in Egypt. But in a general sense, all their issues over the Sinai, etc., were settled after the wars and they’ve had nearly 40 years of peace now.
Argentina and Britain have fairly good relations long after the Falklands as well, but I’m not sure if you can call it ‘settled’ per se, though the conflict ended decisively. It seems now Milei’s government could revive tensions and open some old wounds in regard to that.
But of course, many other conflicts remain as festering sores that continue bleeding for a long time, without any real ‘settlement.’ It seems most conflicts simply become frozen in a stasis of tension indefinitely—like Nagorno-Karabakh, PMR/Transnistria, Abkhazia-Ossetia, and countless others in Southeast Asia and Africa.
37.
Thanks very much for your brilliant work.
The Ukrainians have suffered very heavy casualties, and their ranks are now being filled with press-ganged conscripts. Old men; teenagers; even young women are prominent in video footage from the front line. The troops are poorly equipped and trained, their artillery is worn out and short of ammunition, they have no air cover and few armored vehicles to support their increasingly futile attacks. They must be totally exhausted, and yet they continue to fight heroically, while their leaders loot the country and their Western supporters look for an exit strategy.
Surely at some point soon there’s going to be a collapse of the front line and a wholesale retreat back to the Dnieper or beyond.
How do you see this ending, and what is your approximate timeline?
Let me first “correct” a few of the misconceptions above. While they are mostly true, there is some danger in over exaggerating these characterizations:
1. Armor: while it’s true they’re short in the sense that they’re forced to go into a conservation mode, I believe they still have a relatively huge amount of armor. Meaning upwards of 300-800 tanks, and as much as 800-1200 APC/IFV/IMV/AFV/ICV.
The reason this is a bit difficult to parse, or sounds contradictory, is because that sounds like a lot on paper, but it’s not a lot for extended offensive operations. Furthermore, if they lose too much more, then they begin to get into very critical territory. Against someone like Russia, having, let’s say, only 200 tanks and 500 APCs left would mean you’re basically roadkill. Russia would smell blood and instantly pounce to finish you off.
So that’s to say, Ukraine is in such a state that they’re forced to conserve their armor just in case, and thus are actually operating in meat-assaults on the frontlines as a result of this. However, in the overall sense, they do still have a lot of armor left. It’s just down to the ‘critical strategic supply’ at this point.
2. The old men, women, teenagers: there’s a similar situation here. While it’s true that they’re forced increasingly to dip into these categories, there are a few important nuances. Firstly, there’s still a respectable number of elite brigades like the 47th remaining, which are full of highly motivated, experienced, and prime-aged fighters.
Secondly, there are also a lot of mercenaries still there which are mostly lethal, experienced, and not old.
Thirdly, the fact that the ‘average assault battalion age’ is 43 years old, or whatever the recent statistic was—this to some extent only proves that Zelensky hasn’t even truly begun to dip into the “off-limits” mobilization category of college aged students, etc. Because if he did, then the average age would immediately shift to extremely young.
Right now, Ukraine doesn’t even call up anyone who’s exempted and below 27. If they “opened Pandora’s box” and unleashed full mobilization, they could hypothetically flood the ranks with tons of young conscripts. The 17 year olds and such we’ve seen for now remain outliers, kids from orphanages that shouldn’t have ended up at the front, etc.
However, there’s a reason they haven’t done a “full mobilization” yet—because it would come at great political, social, and economic cost, and could lead to an uprising or overthrow of Zelensky. They fear going down that route.
What you said is still accurate though, I just added in a little nuance. But it’s true they’re still being witheringly attritioned on a daily basis, including critical force-multiplier items like artillery and AD/radar systems.
One of the problems with the ever-seeming ‘Schrodinger’s war’, which always seems either close to collapse, or still brimming with fierce resistance, is that it’s the Ukrainian government’s job to conceal the deficiencies and potential boiling over unrest as much as possible. That means they could legitimately be close to collapse as we speak, but the authorities will signal strength and high morale, creating a confusing cognitive distortion and seemingly irreconcilable contradiction.
This is a roundabout way of answering your question to say that either possibility can happen. They could still continue to bitterly resist for quite some time, or there could very well be a sudden total collapse that happens nearly overnight, because the level of exhaustion and true deprivation they masked and concealed was off the charts. In essence: neither would surprise me.
But my personal verdict is this:
To me, by far the biggest signifier will be the military and financial support from the West, or lack thereof. Right now we’re at a critical moment where both the U.S. congress and EU is holding up Ukraine’s lifeline. December 15 appears to be the deadline for Congress, and then it’s game over for a long time for potential aid. And the EU is likewise having an important summit in Brussels on December 14th, where they’ll also try to get a massive $50-60B Ukrainian budget unlocked. But the problem is, right now that too is not looking good:
Additionally, today Pentagon spokesman Matthew Miller revealed the remaining drawdown funds for Ukraine are at 97%, and Kirby echoed by characterizing the situation as critical.
If neither the EU or U.S. can pass their massive budgets, Ukraine may literally start running out of ammo and supplies by January.
So my answer is entirely contingent upon that: if those budgets truly fall through, then the collapse you speak of could happen anywhere between Jan-March, with perhaps a coup taking out Zelensky.
However, if the giant funds are allocated, and at least an operable level of munitions continue to be supplied, then I could still see Ukraine holding out on a defensive footing for quite a while longer.
It also depends what Russia chooses to do in the winter. We’ve expected a massive missile campaign to wipe out Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as Russia has been stockpiling a dizzying amount of missiles for months now. If Russia does carry this out—and I see no reason why they wouldn’t—then it could turn the situation even uglier and put unprecedented pressure on Ukraine to collapse by spring time.
I do plan on doing a much more detailed indepth “projection” style analysis in the future, describing precisely the vectors where I foresee the conflict going. But for now I’ll say that if funding is magically found at the 11th hour, Ukraine may still be able to survive militarily through at least 2024. Russia has not even upped the pressure yet and launched official offensives. Shoigu’s latest decree says Russia is officially in an ‘active defense’ posture while “building combat potential”—which basically means still ‘gaining strength’.
We may not see any real offensive attempts until spring or summer of 2024 or even later.
However, note I said militarily. That means if everything else were going well—but the way the socio-political situation is positioned now, it’s difficult to even imagine Ukraine not collapsing into a major coup by spring 2024 at the latest. The only question is what would happen after said coup; an overthrow of Zelensky doesn’t necessarily mean a cessation of hostilities.
Given what we know of Zaluzhny, that he’s very conscious of the preservation of troops, and defensively oriented, there could be two options. A coup by 2024 spring could lead to Zaluzhny taking control and then mass surrendering to Russia under an amnesty deal, or Zaluzhny taking control, then effecting a mass retreat beyond the Dnieper as you proposed, then building up endless fortifications on that side.
But again, this would all be staked on whether the huge funding windfall comes through, as without it, Ukraine is virtually doomed. And with it, if it’s large enough, and if Ukraine smartly manages to eke out another round of mobilizations this winter without stirring the roost too much and causing unrest, then Ukraine could likely persist in scrappily defending through 2024. I just can’t imagine that politically it would be allowed. Even with funding, by summer of 2024 the Ukrainian situation will look so absolutely ghastly, that it will redound too negatively on the U.S./Western political establishment and force them in one way or another to pull the plug, even if they have to start liquidating Ukraine’s leadership.
But as I said, look for a more indepth analysis of future outlook projections in an upcoming article.
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
Thank you for yet another insightful and comprehensive "mailbag" article.
A couple of notes:
1) Ireland - For many decades, Ireland was the impoverished "welfare recipient" of the EU and not a place many immigrants wanted to settle. Then Ireland devised its rather stupid "ultra low corporate taxes" policy and suddenly all the big corps (Google, Apple, et al) started relocating their corporate HQs there. On paper, this led to a massive surge in GDP for Ireland. In reality, few Irish people got any high-paying tech jobs BUT a surge in real estate "investing" led to massive increases in housing prices and housing scarcity.
This led to two things: Ireland's gov't started getting uppity and thinking it was rich a) so it could be generous to pay for refugees, invite massive number of migrants, etc, and b) starting getting involved in world geopolitics (basically) for the first time such as sending vast quantities of money to Ukraine, thus further wrecking the budget.
Meanwhile... the events of 2020 and 2021 saw a lot of Irish people, especially in Dublin, forced to stay home while all the "essential workers" (delivery drivers, especially) were now non-Irish. Look outside your window and now it's all black and brown people everywhere. And this explosive mix of a) an arrogant, globalist government b) lack of housing, especially low-cost/free housing for Irish c) an explosion in number of non-Irish people, including refugees and others getting benefits like housing d) drastic cuts in government services has led to a lot of very angry Irish people.
Even before the stabbings, there were already protests (some quite "fiery") against further immigration as well as all these other acts by the government.
2) PMR - Let's review here. Moldova is, in effect, now a dictatorship. The "pro-EU" (actually pro-USA) government is ruling by emergency decree (which gets "temporarily extended" every 6 months) even though they have a majority in parliament. All opposition TV channels have been illegally shut down. Two opposition parties have been declared illegal. The gov't also refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Gagauz (which have their own parliament and other constitutional benefits of autonomy) administration. And Moldova has been inviting NATO in for "exercises" while taking in a rather large quantity of (donated) armored vehicles and equipment from Germany.
On paper, this looks like a perfect chance for Moldova to steamroll PMR and end the "separatist state" once and for all. And that's exactly what the UK government has been urging.
However.... Moldova's constitution strictly calls for military neutrality, and this sentiment is backed by easily 90% or more of the people. Likewise, the vast majority of Moldovans speak Russian, engage in Russian culture (including by going off to study in Russian universities), and have ZERO fascist tendencies towards stuff like "ethnic purity." Furthermore, Moldova's army is TINY (roughly 5k total personnel), partly because nobody in Moldova really wants to fight anyone and partly because the pay is abysmal (working at a food truck pays better, and the barracks/facilities in the army are outdated and in horrible shape). To wit, there are more something like 3 times more cops in Moldova than soldiers.
Furthermore, the border between PMR and Moldova is extremely porous (you don't even need a passport and it takes 5 minutes or less). People have families and friends on both sides and cross ALL the time for all kinds of reasons, including simple stuff like buying their preferred medicines (some folks favor Russian-made pills/meds that can't be found in the west, while Moldova gets certain meds/pills from Romania that are unique and not available in PMR or even most of the EU). Some people even move to PMR just for the winter because the heating bills are lower. So there is almost ZERO public appetite in Moldova for any kind of use of force against PMR. And plenty of folks remember the shitstorm of 1992 in which something like 60k people became (temporarily) refugees due to the fighting in Bendery/Tighina.
Last but certainly not least, people are free to speak Moldovan in PMR and Russian in Moldova and every other local language as well (Gagauz, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, etc). There is no institutional apathy, hatred, or aggression taught on either side against the other side. Most Moldovans think of PMR as their territory, but 99% of them are completely opposed to KILLING someone to regain what would be, at most, an expansion of Moldovan bureaucracy into their lives. And few people in Moldova have ever been enamored of their government.
So yeah, in terms of guns and tanks, it'd take only a few days or weeks for an invading force to conquer PMR. But there's basically nobody willing to do it, except for the British ambassador and that crowd (including Zelensky). And let's not forget that well over HALF of the PMR population has either a Moldovan passport or a Ukrainian one (or both), so there's that to consider as well. Yes, Russian is the language of day-to-day life in PMR, but ethnic Russians are in the MINORITY in PMR, and so there's no "easy" route to genocide and war along ethnic lines. And next to zero fascism in Moldovan institutions in order to cultivate a "hybrid" war either.
Response to Simplicius' "Subscriber Mailbag: Answers - 12/4/23 [Part 2]"
"Russia likely took all these build ups and provocations very seriously, and saw the writing on the wall that if it didn’t ‘cure’ the Ukrainian sickness once and for all, it would only escalate until Russia was totally surrounded by NATO aggression. "
I've long believed that it was this moment that started the invasion. In my view, the Russian General Staff had a Ukraine invasion CONTINGENCY plan in place since at least 2014-2015. In spring, 2021, I believe they upgraded it to an OPERATIONAL plan.
At the same time, Putin and Lavrov began working on what became the treaty proposals of December, 2021. Of course, Ukraine and the West rejected those proposals and then Zelensky visited the front, the Ukrainian army started increased shelling as a preparation for an assault, and in addition Zelensky came back from the Munich conference talking about Ukraine getting nuclear weapons. All that was the last straw.
I also believe that Putin and Lavrov were the ones who created the plan to "scare" Kiev into negotiations by the initial operations of the SMO. However, in my view this was an absurd concept, despite the alleged "agreement" Ukraine and Russia initialed in Turkey at the end of March and beginning of April, 2022. People who think this would have avoided the war are delusional (I'm looking at Alexander Mercouris in that regard, but there are many others.) The reality is that any such deal would have either 1) collapsed in further negotiations to iron out the details, or 2) would have been reneged on just like Minsk II.
But the Russian General Staff would have told Putin that he needed an alternative plan in case his initial invasion plan failed. And that's what the Russians have done ever since. The important point is that they didn't come up with the current plan on the fly after March, 2022. It was in place from the get-go. This is something people also don't seem to get. They assume the Russian General Staff laid all its hopes on the initial invasion moves and had to revamp the plan after. That's nonsense, in my view.
I also believe that the Russians have decided to end the issue of Ukraine - and further, to end the issue of the West frequently invading Russia - and that is what the end game of Russia is. This is going to involve taking out of Ukraine - right up to the Polish border and including western Ukraine - and then building a new Military District there which will be powerful enough to deter any NATO threats from decades to come. This will be in line with Russia's new Military Districts in northern Russia opposite Finland as well as its consolidation of efforts with Belarus.
In other words, Russia is going to build a new "Iron Curtain 2.0" which stretches from the Black Sea to the Arctic. If the West wants to threaten Russia in the future, it will have to resort to a nuclear attack - for which Russia is also prepared.