That was a very frank and honest admission, kudos Sir.
I think Scott ritters point was that after Gonzalo was detained for the first time, released so quickly and allowed to continue putting out content, this showed he had made some sort of deal, and he should now be considered as an asset of Kiev. I think he also had a Ukrainian wife and child; they could have been used as leverage against him.
This isn't totally impossible as there could have been some sort of implicit or explicit deal that either side may have reneged on.
But he wasn't still a Ukrainian asset when he died in prison. Pneumonia can be easily cured even in a 55-year-old smoker.
No need to apologize, but here I have just watched a video that gives a little more information about Gonzalo's situation.
New Details About The Death Of Gonzalo | Missile Strike. Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.1.13
This guy posts videos under the name "Military Summary" but he says that his first name is Dima and he knew Gonzalo. He also says that after he was detained in April and then released in July, Gonzalo reached out to him for help to escape the country. He mentions the possibility that Gonzalo was released but then surveilled and followed by the SBU security forces to see if he would lead them to Russian agents or sympathizers. That's a possibility I hadn't considered.
Anyway, question everything, we are deep into the fog of war here. But I remember Gonzalo saying on one of his last videos that if he was sentenced to prison he would die there. That seems to be true.
I feel for you sane ones but look around. The shitpit you live in is utterly corrupt and beyond redemption. Multi secession and new alliances is about all that can save the better of you.
The big cities are mostly write-offs and when the plug is pulled on the Petrodollar,(which will happen within hours of the Yankee government ratifying the theft of Russia's assets and gold reserves),your country will implode within weeks.
Hopefully you are out somewhere where the real people live. Good luck.
I think it will be a bit slower than that, as other countries try to unwind their exposure to the dollar without losing their shirts, but that will possibly lead to a rapid panic and capital controls.
I'm pretty sure that is why BRICS+ has been keeping their Petrodollar afloat for the past 2+ years. Trying to give members and associates time to cash in their Yankee securities as they become due and maybe get their Gold back,(IF Yankeeland still has it),which is questionable given how Yankeeland has been stalling on multiple requests/demands.
Whatever happens 2024 is going to change ALL geopolitics, let us all collectively hope that WW III is not a part of it.
Growing up in the cold war era and having served the only war I will ever fight is for my family and my neck of the woods.
Michael Hudson wrote rather entertainingly about the French taking their dollar holdings as soon as they got them to the bank to convert them into gold, in the late 60s, regardless of what the Americans said. I bet they're gagging to do it again. With the fiat dollar transparently worthless, the rest of the world might find that they're damned if they don't, damned if the do.
Haven't read the piece, but that was the start of the "cowardly French" meme, as petty vengeance in the press. Degaulle (sp?) wasn't having any of the US's BS about the value of the dollar since we were running a war without raising taxes AND creating an absolutely massive welfare state at the same time.
yup a lot slower only because the US still is the biggest consumer nation-- not #s od people, consumer nation. And guess what other countries make their income selling. Its all about the money.
American Impotence is now visible for all to see. The Regime seeks War with Iran (courtesy of its Neocon 'leadership') but lacks the Ability, Will & Readiness to do so.
The Strikes against Yemen's Ansarallah only emboldens Axis of Resistance members to escalate attacks against the Anglo-Zionist architecture in the region.
Many have already said (in private) that they will settle for nothing less than the complete dismantling of Sykes-Picot as we know it... they may soon get their wish!
Interesting doomsday stack. One (newly revealed, possibly true) detail is lacking in your analysis. The US nuclear arsenal is antiquated & apparently for years has not been maintained. Documentation is missing, the people who knew how to maintain it dead.
It is unlikely to function properly, if at all, if they are stupid enough to try...
I wouldn't get too happy about this. After studying a defector's MiG-25 back during the Cold War, it was expected that a lot of the Soviet ICBM force would fail to function as desired. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter - enough will get through to destroy the targets.
I don't doubt that but I will say this, the first rule of gun safety is to assume it's loaded even when you know it isn't.
If there's even a 99% chance that the U.S. can't use its nukes, there's the 1% chance that they absolutely can and will. That's a 1% chance of nuclear annihilation.
That's still high enough in my view to consider them key to the calculus.
Yep. People also forget that the Houthis suffered strikes by the UAE and Saudi fighters (many flown by US and UK active or VET pilots) for years ... and they still came through them all and in effect won !.
You mean the paper tiger that’s been getting ass whipped since Vietnam? Yeah, that sleeping giant symbolized by a senile, nursing home escapee, crash test dummy acting as president, along with a bloated hippo acting as defense secretary, but “electively” missing and nowhere to be found for a week after leaking uncontrollably in his oversized diapers😂! That laughing stock “Giant” is on its short way to permanent sleep!
It's always 1944 in the minds of the deluded and heavily-propagandized American serfs. The end of the Empire is coming, and unlike Rome, you have no Flavius Aetius or Aurelian coming to save you.
And if there were, you'd tell them to check their white privilege anyway, lmao.
"Cincinnatus? Sulla? Yeah, sorry. They're not in line with our diversity initiatives. Besides, we just hired Tyeesha Jackson for the "Restitutor Orbis" position."
The giant's gonna wake up and scream "micro-aggression!"
And then it'll demand Russians and Chinese stop dead-naming its transvestite sailors and soldiers, and scream "transphobe!"
The awakened giant will then call HR and demand an investigation of Iran for ignoring its queerness.
That giant will then work with the legacy American media to have the Houthis cancelled from X and all other social media.
Then the giant'll demand that the drone warriors of its enemies mask-up when flying sorties against it--after all, we're all in this together! Safety first! Get jabbed!
Maybe, but pretty unlikely since I don't partake of social media, and because I'm a historian of covert influence...but much more likely that you're out of touch with the reality of PC-Prog America:
"One year ago, Sgt. Jessica Haut came out as trans in the military. Now, VICE News checks back in to see how she’s navigating her transition while serving in the U.S. Army."
A couple of thoughts on 'impotence'. The first is that it is entirely possible that, if roused, with a 'truly life threatening' situation, a 'giant' might 'wake up' -- and by the I mean dig deep, mobile all of its resources, jettison its 'bad habits', collective its scattered will, and rise to the occasion. But if the 'sleep' is very deep, or the 'bad habits' very serious, or the threat 'not really life-threatening' -- then nothing may really change. This viewpoint would hold that the US could do something (but maybe won't because it's a big problem for many, but just not such a big deal for the US).
A second view might be that the US could rouse its power -- it's just that the world has changed and that what's worked in the past won't work today -- it needs to find new ways of mobilizing its power. Perhaps the days of aircraft carriers and tomahawk cruise missiles are 'gone' (when faced with a decentralized, non industrialized, mountainous tribal people with access to sophisticated modern sensors and weapons like in Yemen). Perhaps modern technology allows a tribe to control a narrow strait better than it allows a modern navy to eliminate that threat.
A third point of view, and one I am sure you would not like, is that maybe the giant is terminally ill and not capable of much of anything any more. You may not believe that that is true (and I am not trying to convince you that it is) -- but don't be surprised if others start to wonder. It's been a long time since Britannia ruled the waves -- and maybe that is now becoming increasingly true of the US.
Problem is that no one really knows the answer to this impotence question. Technology has moved on. Leaders have changed. America itself has changed (as have the world around it). At some point, some other member of the herd challenges the dominant bull -- and if that bull's response is not effective -- more challenges follow. It's probably at the point that a new bull needs to arise -- that new bull could even be a 'new revitalized USA' -- but until that happens, the challenges will continue.
In my opinion, that is a problem -- but I think we have a lot deeper problems that than. I think points 1 and 2 from my response above apply here -- America's problems are too deep (and need too much of a complete overhaul). There is so much leadership -- at the White House, Congress, the States, the Courts, at School Boards, at the FBI and administrative state -- to replace. Until that happens, nothing useful will be possible. I also think that our traditional 'gun boat' diplomacy we've used since 1945 has to change (which probably means eliminating 60-80% of our 'deployable' military assets) and adopting a different set of priorities, policies, and force structures (because the old stuff just isn't really fit for purpose or sustainable any longer). But who really knows.
Getting the US to manifest its actual military power will hinge on a few things. First, the industrial base must exist again. We can't outsource production of materiel to China for obvious reasons. We're making about zero progress on fixing that problem, even though it's been a warning going on for at least a decade. Lots of initiatives, zero practical effort on things like rare earths, chip fab, etc. There are simple tasks that could be carried out, but aren't being. Almost like no one cares, but i'm quite sure someone does care.
The only conclusion I can come to is that TPTB lack the ability to manifest economic activity anymore. Draw conclusions from there.
Pressing X to Doubt. Didn't rise up with summer of love, election fraud, Covid, Forced medical experimentation on a mass scale, J6 and political gulags, and so on.
WW2 Probably killed the best men, as modern wars tend to do.
Agreed. And to 33db's point, it takes strong men / strong women to stand up and say 'it stops here' and 'follow me and do as I do' if there is to be any chance of a turn-around. And I get the sense that 33db is such a man (and we, the US, need such men). One man, or even a group of men (and women) are not sufficient by themselves, but they are necessary (and provide hope and potential core to rebuild around).
Mr. / Ms. 33db -- do what's right -- even if others disagree or mock you or wish you ill. If everyone 'throws in the towel' and 'quits' or 'checks out' then we are most certainly doomed to fail. The journey may be hard (even impossible) - but if you don't try you won't know, and if you (and Americans in general) can't be bothered to even try, then you are probably not worthy of that goal anyway. Do your best and with luck (and divine help) things can get better.
As befits Italy’s status as President of G7 their Foreign Minister has announced a new PR campaign with a new aid package, combined with the threat to Ukraine of Peace, hidden in the Presidential language
Another story with no content : – on the one hand Ukraine is losing, on the other ‘we’ must not give in and admit the RF is winning : the talk about the importance of peace is just an excuse to provide less armaments
Carefully not mentioned is the exact nature of aid to be given, some (non FT) sources claim this may be military but excluding weapons given that Italian stocks are so depleted, and this not surprisingly according to the very same Foreign Minister, who has previously (2023) underlined popular war fatigue in Italy as another reason to limit supplies
Given that the first 5 Italy military aid packages were worth a total of $1.05B, the article is making a mountain out of a molehill
So - All negotiations must be conditional on RF ceasing to ‘bomb’ Ukraine – (this can be achieved by negotiation!) - but there are no pre conditions on Ukraine; none are needed, the threat is clear enough
“We must be realistic and cannot ignore the military situation on the field,” Crosetto said as lawmakers approved more bilateral aid to Kyiv. “The time seems to have come for effective diplomatic action.”
(As reported by the FT) On the one hand Zelensky will not negotiate, on the other RF will not negotiate, says Zelensky : this despite repeated statements from RF that they are open to all and any talks – this phrasing accuses Zelensky of lying
The Ukraine can not win, but to throw a dog a bone-
‘Putin too was faced with economic challenges and growing war fatigue among the Russian population, he added.’
Putin is doing fine, so is the RF economy, and so are the Russians - The war fatigue is in Italy, and other EU excepting Baltic, this is the real problem Italy is seeking not to face by this pretension at peace talks, a feeble stab at grabbing a claim of victory from the jaws of certain defeat
The fastest way to end the carnage in Ukraine would be for the Ukrainian military to terminate the self serving DC puppets in Kiev, followed with a big middle finger to DC. I don't know that there is any real prospect of such an outcome but it certainly would save a lot of lives and solve a lot of problems. Perhaps if DC money isn't available to shovel into their bank account Ukrainian military "leadership" will think about ending the slaughter.
A perfectly rational choice in the face of their abuse. I've seen Ukrainian prisoners interviewed who seem to understand they are just being used by DC and the self serving monsters in Kiev.
There's a certain grim amusement to be had if the Ukro army does in 2024 what the German army failed to do in 1944 and turns the clock back to the day before the US-Ukronazi putsch of 2014.
Unfortunately the power centers seem to be run by the Bandera nationalists and whichever oligarch/mafia are most closely associated with them. For the true believers, they're in it until the last peon dies, and for the moneymakers, the war is the greatest golden goose of all time (direct aid, license to shake down the entire male population for like $1000 every month)
One thing that I do not fully understand is why Ukrainian men don´t seem to cross Westetn borders illegaly (Poland, Slovakia, Romania) to escape mobilization. What, are those actually only European borders that are so well guarded that just cannot be done?
Take a look at where these borders are, mate, and you'll see. First of all, a lot of the border is extremely mountainous, with huge amounts of snow, and even an experienced alpinist with full gear would have trouble traversing that terrain. Secondly, many of the borders are formed by rivers, which are pretty fucking cold to be swimming across right now. Third, most border areas are sparsely inhabited villages, which makes it really easy to detect movement or new people arriving in the area, and you can't exactly take a bus there, can you?
Lastly, smuggling cigarettes out of Ukraine (to the EU) has been a huge business for years, and so the EU gave the Ukrainian Border Police a shit ton of gear such as infrared vision goggles and other stuff, precisely to interdict people crossing the border. And now, of course, Ukraine has even more armed men and drones and who knows what else, precisely to stop people from escaping.
It's really hard. And it takes a lot of preparations. And with current political climate it's a risk for a military ready man to walk on the streets. And you suggest trecking the whole way across Ukraine? Or giving prohibitively large bribes? Most people are incapable of either. They probably try to hide with their relatives somewhere in the smaller cities.
Sure, some people probably did run away illegaly or legaly at the start of the conflict. But since then their numbers must have dwindled extremely.
Honestly I want them to just drop the curtain and give Biden 150million votes. 2020 was farcical enough, but I want the entire rest of the world to know.
As for CBR asset seizure this is US trying to throw the EU under the bus, to weaken & destroy the use of the Euro as a reserve currency, reputation as a safe haven, damage it’s finance industry and infra
The US holds $4.6B is CBR assets, although it claims that some assets held in the EU are in $, without any details
Nonetheless the EU holds in Euro assets of approximately E200B plus
The US is not going to take the risk of confiscating the US assets only, but is trying to force the EU, via G7 ’consultations’, to play the fall guy, i.e. a financial NS2
Plus the UN record of the debate and vote in the General Assembly, 15 November 2022
‘General Assembly adopts text recommending creation of Register to document damages caused by Russian aggression against Ukraine, resuming emergency special session’
The special danger to western interests presented by their own arguments in favour of ‘countermeasures’ and ‘reparations’ is on display in the UN Assembly vote on the Establishment of a Register for claims, a timid step on the path to claims, in which 14 countries voted against and 73 abstained
Objections were to
‘The text brings a high level of uncertainty regarding the legal parameters of such a register to be created outside the framework of the United Nations and without its supervision’, without precedent, vaguely worded and inoperable
Exclusion of claims by ‘States suffering from foreign interference, colonialism, slavery, oppression, unilateral coercive measures, illegal blockades and other internationally wrongful acts also deserve the right for remedy, reparation and justice’
Not enough support to go it alone, legislation is required, illegal as it now stands – what might appear a face saver for all concerned in the US offers potential disasters
e.g; should this be done in collaboration with rather less willing G7, or alone: can language blocking the RF from challenging the move in US be constitutional: what may be done to mitigate negative outcomes in perception for the RoW that the US, and the EU, are increasingly desperate to convince to their cause: this will never be considered as a one time only action, inevitably it will be followed by others
In other words how to shoot yourself in the head when you’ve missed your foot
"...Republicans to allow a certain amount of migrants in through the southern border per day, but having a hard “cap” or quota on the total amount."
OK Tyrone, we need to lay down some rules. First of all, you can't look my wife in the eyes during penetration. And no kissing. Just hard pounding, the way we both like it.
"OK Tyrone, we need to lay down some rules. First of all, you can't look my wife in the eyes during penetration. And no kissing. Just hard pounding, the way we both like it."
LMFAO. Thanks for that. I doubt we see the border (or rather BROADER immigration issue) the same, but thanks for that hearty laugh. I literally did LOL on my way to and back from the kitchen.
Republicans will never win again with Joe bidens 10-12 million new democrat voters guaranteed. Republicans have to be nice to thier future colleagues so when they switch parties to Democrat they get good seats.
I don't know why China is sitting on it's ass. They have best 5g comms around not to mention could mass produce any kind of EW to be fitted on everything Russia has. If everyone in West can help Ukraine everyone else should help Russia get this over with. Just a waste of lives.
China and Russia have much in common yes but they also have centuries old disputed lands/resources plus China and Russia have other fish to fry elsewhere in the world.
China will help Russia to a certain extent but end of the day Russia does not need help and this allows China to further both its own aims and the aims of BRICS+ without overt interference from the global communist West.
Indeed, people tend to overlook the fact that China and Russia are historic rivals - China covets the resources of Siberia and the Russian Far East- and previously advanced claims to a big piece of it. Short of outright control, a weakened Russia that would give them access on very favorable terms would work pretty well for them, too.
The US (Japan, too) should have long since been normalizing and strengthening relations w/Russia (+N. Korea, Iran, Syria) instead of creating every incentive for them to move closer to China.
Credit to Vivek R. for recognizing China as the US principal rival and prioritizing decoupling the US and Russia from it.
The sooner the US gets out of the empire business the more that will be left to rebuild something more constructive for the future.
I am not sure "rivals" is the right word for the historic relation between China and Russia. I would suggest that they are uneasy neighbors, who maintain peace between themselves through strength. I think it was clear, early on in Putin's government, that he was uncomfortable with too close a relationship with China and the CCCP totalitarians. and wanted, ala Peter the Great, to improve relations with the West. However, he was not willing to sell off Russia to buy Western friends.
The U.S. neo-con anti-Russian fanaticism and Wall-Street's coveting of all Russian resources, however, have forced Putin into this uneasy alliance. It will take quite some time to mend these fences, and I am not sure there is any desire of anyone in the U.S., including Trump, to try to mend these fences, given the ferocious attacks by the U.S. intelligence community and Washington establishment against anyone who threatens their grifting and war-mongering.
America has always been in the empire business since 1776. The British Empire gave birth to the benighted spawn that is the American Empire today.
Wars of aggression and expansionism--disguised behind an Orwellian mask of "American freedom and liberty"--are fundamental to America's political DNA for the past 200+ years.
In the past, Manifest Destiny was the ideology deployed to rationalize American theft and colonization of indigenous Indian lands, Northern Mexico, and Hawaii.
Today, America has ambitions to colonize the world in all but name--though it is rationalized by equally deceptive ideologies about "defending Freedom and Democracy"; a fake War on Terrorism; a (New) Cold War; or upholding a USA-led world order.
All factions of the American Empire--Red State or Blue State alike--support this imperial agenda. The only "differences" between the two is the tactics to achieve this common ambition.
Blue Staters like the Democrats want to focus on finishing Russia before moving against China.
Red Staters like the Republicans want to focus on finishing China before moving against Russia.
The "partisan differences" between Red State vs. Blue State, Democrat vs. Republican, or Donald Biden vs. Joseph Trump are as fake as American democracy itself. That is something neither political side nor their propagandists want to admit.
At the end of the day, no country that opposes American world dominance is tolerated.
Even Vladimir Putin has called out the self-styled Land of the Free as a "global dictatorship" in no uncertain terms:
"The American-style world, with the hegemony of one country, is being destroyed and is receding gradually but inexorably into the past. However, the United States is unwilling to accept this, and instead seeks to preserve and extend its dominance, its global dictatorship, which is easier to achieve amid such chaos, because the United States believes this chaos will help it contain and destabilise its rivals or, as they put it, their geopolitical opponents, among which they also rank our country, which in reality are new global growth centres and sovereign independent countries who are unwilling to kowtow and play the role of servants."
Meeting with members of the Security Council and Government, and heads of security agencies
As for Russia and China, whatever differences they have (many of which are deviously being hyped up by Americans to advance the USA's predictable divide-and-conquer agenda), they realize that both their national sovereignties confront a common existential threat: the United States of America.
Indeed, the rise of BRICS+ and the line of nations eager to join this organization implicitly suggest that increasing numbers of countries outside of the USA and its vassals realize this America threat.
Very astute observations. And the uni-party will pretend to host an election this year. But we can’t vote to throw Vicky Nudelman out.. or vote on anything that matters.
I believe that there is some truth in what you are saying -- but fear that you are 'falling in love with a narrative' too much and not seeing beyond the 'US has been and always will be an evil empire' trope.
The first counter to your thinking is that no country or society in the history of the earth has been free of the 'imperial' virus -- wars of aggression and expansion and theft and displacement and colonization and forced assimilation (and even genocide). All of these evils have been (and will probably always be) a fundamental part of the human experience (think of the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Mongols, the Greeks, etc). The fact that we associate these trends with certain countries or peoples (like the US, the British, the Russians, the Chinese, etc.) more than others (the Irish, the Masai, the Inuits) is because certain groups have been more successful at this stuff then others (or because we have more recent documentation of their excesses). So, in that context, singling out the 'bad USA' is a bit foolish -- you might as well condemn human nature itself. [Note: that doesn't mean 'excuse' what different people or groups have done in history -- just don't attribute 'insatiable lust for empire' to a specific group as a specific group trait]
The other reason why I think your line of thinking is 'weaker than it should be' is because I believe that you are misreading the history or America (and its various peoples) over time. America (and probably all groups but I will stay focused on the USA) has waxed and waned over time with regard to this 'lust for empire'. There have been times when this 'lust' has been particularly active (the expansion of the frontier after the Civil War, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the Cold War / Post Cold War) -- and there have been times when America has been very content to be 'isolated and by itself' (e.g. the period of time from the end of the War of 1812 to the Mexican War was 'quiet' relative to non-native powers --- and so too was the post civil-war to Spanish American War experience). Americans were very reluctant to enter WW1 (and more or less had to be hoodwinked into it), and the blow back from WW1 led to the 'isolationism' many in the world condemned prior to WW2. Truman and Eisenhower were not particularly interested in 'staying in' Europe or Japan after WW2 (but events changed their minds), and Eisenhower (and even Kennedy) were very cool to supporting Israel in the Middle East, etc. All that is not to say that the US hasn't intervened, interfered, sought to control the fates of others both near and abroad, create / destroy puppets -- they have. But there have been real moments where it has (or wanted to) say 'f-ck you all' and 'go home'.
Finally, don't equate what 'psychotic' or 'sociopathic' leaders (or think tanks or media outlets) in our society do ('the Red States' or the 'Blue States') with the people as a whole. The America of 2024 is a lot more vulnerable to propaganda, information control, and psycho-social manipulation than the America of 1924 or 1724. It was a lot harder to generate consensus for 'empire' in the past than it is today (that's an assertion not a provable fact that I believe it to be accurate). Therefore, even though 'leaders' on the left want 'war on Russia first' while the leaders on the right want 'war on China first' -- that doesn't reflect the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans know very little about people outside of the United States (and are content to keep it that way -- always have been and probably always will be that way regardless of whether that is right or wrong).
Bottomline, hate on the USA if you want, but see them as really 'no different' than the rest of humanity save except for the fact that through luck or fate, they have been exceptionally endowed with resources, geographic safety, freedoms, etc that have enabled them to 'achieve more' (for good or ill) than most people for most of history. If they have been evil or given into temptations (or wasted their chances to do good), well, then, what did you really expect. Has any group ever done much better? And if not, then why the hate on them? And to the extent that they have done good, well, then we are all better off so keep that in perspective as well. If you stop looking for a savior or a villain in them, you will be less disappointed.
In truth, in my assessment, America is much closer to another 'all of you go fxck yourself moment' of isolationism than since the 1920's. So, be prepared for a 'change of seasons' coming soon.
Why would we want China to help? Do you think that China's help is free? Don't get me wrong, we like that China is so approachable, predictable and open for economic-diplomatic talks. But I don't think any russian has any questions about chineese interested in helping out only themselves.
So we would not want to pay exorbitant ammounts of money and other things for something that we might not even require for the win. Better start up our own tech companies.
Because China is next to bust up and for Wall Street west to take over if Russia fails. Seems like people don't understand US goals. Total planetary domination. It's neoliberal system and it's corporations and hedge funds ruling the world.
It could be to a *large* extent exaggerated, but there are some first hand accounts and direct interviews with soldiers I've seen. The problem lies in extrapolating that out too far so I myself am trying to get a better bead on how pervasive it *actually* is. But one thing is certain: Baofengs are cheap consumer grade junk radios you can find yourself on aliexprses for $20-50. That is indisputable fact.
2nd indisputable fact: Baofengs can be seen *regularly* amongst Russian troops. In fact, they are so widespread they are seen far more often than Azarts or other real military grade encrypted radios. This is seen in thousands of videos.
So at the least, we have that to go by.
But as I said, I do believe they use them for the most part at the lowest level of squad/platoon comms, which keeps them from being intercepted too often. For higher echelons they do use the encrypted military grade systems.
However, there are still many interviews with direct Russian troops where you can see them say things like: "When we communicate we have to use euphemisms and code words for certain things because we know the enemy is intercepting everything we say." That's when they use consumer grade Chinese Walmart radios.
I'm familiar with Baofengs, preppers recommend them regularly, I've considered getting one myself. The number of different models is rather confusing, however.
One could argue that on the lowest tactical level, below company and battalion levels, radio encryption is not as important as on the higher operational levels. Perhaps the Russians don't mind their individual soldiers communicating between squads and platoons as long as at least one encrypted radio is available to receive orders from the higher levels. I could see doing that as an economic measure. Having units forced to spread out to avoid being hit by artillery and drone strikes might have put a strain on the number of encrypted radios. I'm sure that is probably being addressed by the Russian MIC.
And perhaps the individual soldiers themselves decided to start using them to cover gaps in tactical maneuver communication given the dangers of operating in close groups with the drone threat. Not to mention that ruggedized military radios tend to be bigger and heavier than modern mobile ham units. Soldiers will take advantage of any weight reduction - except ammo - such as "field-stripping MREs."
Using some standard verbal codes would make that almost as secure as using encrypted radios, as long as those standard codes weren't eventually deciphered by the Ukrainians. That would be similar to the use of native American languages that were used in WWII to avoid German eavesdropping. I'll bet the Chechens do something similar.
There is also the issue of being geo-located due to the signal. Sometimes, you may not care what a low level unit is 'saying' per se (although you might it they are talking about morale, their losses, their out-of-supply situation, etc.) -- sometimes you just want to know in which abandoned building they are hole-ing up in -- in which case geo-locating a drone strike may be the issue. Sounds like the radio-spectrum is full of encrypted / unencrypted messages, jammed / un-jammed signals, etc which both helps and hurts the soldiers on the front lines. I just wanted to point out that using an analog radio (like a Beofeng) puts you at risk for more than just surveillance.
Good points. Of course, it's likely the soldiers know that and only use the unencrypted radios knowing they're going to move shortly to avoid any retaliatory strike. It's like how the artillery crews I've seen seem to fire a few rounds then cover up the gun with camo and move away until it's clear there isn't going to be any counter-battery fire, then they return and fire a few more rounds. Such tactics render tactical counter-intelligence less useful.
I'm not sure that I would want to use anything that emits electromagnetic radiation, except as a decoy. Better to go back to using messenger pigeons, heliographs and Fullerphones.
This is a powerful argument for preplans and common signals; probably the lessons of Millennium Challenge 2002 have been forgotten. Although that exercise - 'debacle', from the American view would not be too strong a word - inspires passionate invective from both sides, it was generally agreed that the Red Team, led by retired US Marine 3-star General Paul Van Riper , destroyed the best part of a US Carrier group in less than an hour, using small boats carrying explosives which were hidden alongside wharf infrastructure and cued to attack on a common signal - the sounding of the muezzin, the Moslem call to prayer. There was no radio order to attack, and Van Riper used motorcycle couriers to pass inland orders, and a minimum of radio traffic.
The Blue (USA) Team response was to stop the exercise, and then restart it with all 'sunk' participants alive again, and of course the surprise attack would not work twice in quick succession. And there is a sensible argument for that - the exercise cost millions to stage, and if the results of the initial engagements were allowed to stand there would be no opportunity to learn anything, except maybe for Don't Ever Do That Again. Likewise, this is not an argument that Russian radio comms do not need to be improved - communications are critical to success. But the more encrypted systems are introduced, the more minor-warfare and mid-level commanders feel like they have to get on the radio and discuss operations at length. There is much to be said for saying less. A visual signal like a green flare is a whole textbook of orders if the operation to go forward has been planned in advance. Everything hinges on how well the chain of command understands the objective and the scheme of maneuver, their part in it and how to recognize friendly forces' movements so as to avoid engaging your own side.
Go for a more modern cheap Chinese portable than the Baofengs.
Perhaps look at the Quansheng UV K5 (8) for a more modern chip set and ridiculous levels of program ability. Cost about $22 delivered to USA off of Ali Express last month, took about a week to arrive.
There ARE ways to secure your communications when using these cheap radios- They will make you stand out if you are the only one to use them in your area and likely attract "extra attention".
I have Baofeng radios now after years of using Motorola radios and I can tell you with experience that if you regard Baofeng radios as cheap Chinese junk then Motorolas are a whole step lower. Motorolas have less range, shitty battery life and far less features, ie, security measures built in that you can use. Baofeng radios are inexpensive feature rich radios that the US hasn't a prayer to match. I live in the midwest and communication will be essential to us when TSHTF because of the absolute idiocy of the government in the USSA.
Simplicius, To rephrase your response here. Mass 'NOISE euphemistic communication' VOLUMES, are similar to sacrifice decoy drones sent for locating & identifying missile system locations & capacities for future targeting.
Unencrypted Baofengs & Walmart radios widely spread in safe zones provide a distraction. 100s of 1000s of Russian & Russian-aligned Ukrainian (Donbass, Crimea etc) Soldiers, Functionaries & Citizens (from secure areas) send & receive messages, dozens of times per day (Total 10s of millions of messages/day). This Noise volume is used to occupy putsch-Ukrainian, EU & USA 'intelligence' systems & analysts. Of course western 'intelligence-monitoring' viewing & analysis contracts are farmed out to Russian speaking contractors in Israel & every other western subject nation, so there are many 100s of viewers & AI systems pouring over multiple communication (microwave) tower relayed messages. The goals being NOISE CONFUSION & Message Obfuscation.
This is still the standard combat radio for the US. Note it was devised in the 1980s and doesn't really exist in an easily portable form. It's frequency hopping and encrypted. When someone is carrying a SINCGARS, it looks a little like that picture of a Marine 2LT using the PRC-119. Mostly a metal case in most TOCs with a shoulder strap, but I digress.
There aren't tons of them. Vehicles have them, and command posts (TOCs) will have them. Not many are carrying them in the field. There are logistics issues with batteries and size that prevent everyone from having one. Programs exist and have existed to get a smaller radio out to everyone. They fall prey to the battery charging issue and the logistical issue of maintaining key and FH sets. These radios gobble power compared to the little walkie-talkies you can buy on Amazon.
In practice, even US soldiers use the little commercial radios for certain things. I wouldn't be shitting too much on Russia in this department. It's true that the FH encrypted tactical sets are better than the commercial stuff, but the logistics are not inconsequential and if someone captures a loaded key, you have to presume the net is insecure and distribute new keys and FH sets.
The tactical radios are VHF and are just as susceptible to being jammed (EW) as anything else. There are satellite radios as depicted in the next link, but they require a fixed antenna pointed at the ecliptic and can't be run off a simple whip.
Comment comparing Russia barrage vs Yemen is apples and oranges really. You really beleive the Russians have seriously attacked civil infrastructure and failed?
I have just finished a book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61138494-on-a-knife-edge that details Germany's grand strategy in WW1. However I found the parallels with Ukraine’s situation quite interesting. Wars are very easy to start but incredibly difficult to end, and both sides tend to become more committed to victory and less to compromise as time passes and losses mount. Even when rational analysis informs the professional military men that the chances of victory are slim, they still roll the dice and accept accelerating losses to try to achieve a politically acceptable set of circumstances. Peace negotiations become less not more likely over time, until one side or the other is defeated. And I’d argue you can see many of the same dynamics being played out in Ukraine, no one really wants peace, they want victory, or at least to avoid defeat. And the West is working hard to convince itself that this victory or at least a stalemate is just around the corner, all they have to do is supply Ukraine with a little more cash and weapons, and it will out last an “exhausted” Russia. But of course it takes both sides to agree to stop the fighting.
"With a decisive breakthrough unlikely in the coming months, Kiev’s allies say designing a clear military strategy for how to defend current positions and then break through Russian lines is crucial," the report continues.
All the more reason to put those who advocate and prosecute war along with their extended families out on a barren island somewhere with hand weapons only and live stream the battle.
I looked forward to this in lieu of Afflerbach's book on Falkenhayn not being translated but thought that his thesis, that it was a case of Germany losing the war, rather than the Allies winning it was over-egging the pudding.
The situation you describe (the reluctance of warring states to accept less-than-total victory) is especially true when the war a nation is fighting is 'unlimited' and 'intended' to lead to major geo-political change. As you note, WW1 (and WW2) were both 'unlimited' in their end goals and fought in an unlimited manner that made compromise near impossible once all-out conflict got underway in earnest. In a similar manner, the current Ukraine-Russian war has war goals that are unlimited (e.g. the de-nazification of Ukraine or regime change in Russia) -- but I'd argue that there was the possibility of 'backing off' from total realization of these objectives by both sides early in the conflict. Furthermore, I'd argue that there has been a limits on how the war has been fought (at least for Russia and for NATO), that makes gives the warring parties 'room to maneuver' and thus make compromise still possible (in theory). Therefore, I'd argue that there are both important similarities and differences between the current Ukrainian-Russian war and past conflicts like WW1 that both support (and argue against) your thesis.
In World War 1, you had a combination of very unlimited war goals plus unlimited war means (and corresponding war losses). This combination (goals and losses) made 'settling' for something less than outright victory near impossible right at the start of the conflict. Imperial Germany went into the war intentionally -- it chose to escalate the 'Balkan crisis' into a continental European peer-to-peer war so that it could destroy the rival Franco-Russian alliance now (while Germany had the military and economic advantage) rather than later (as Russia economically and miliarily developed in the years ahead). This goal (destruction of the rival power block) was large -- but not entirely unlimited. Germany did not initiate the war for territorial acquisition or to challenge the strength of the British Empire. The First World War took on those 'additional war goals' as the war went along, and German 'sacrifices' (enormous losses in terms of men, finances, the economy, the structure of society, politically) reinforced this war goal expansionism and helped make a negotiated peace short of out-right victory impossible. The Allies, due to the territorial and other losses, had real constraints on their ability to 'settle' as well: France and Belgium could not 'stop fighting' as long as their key territory remained in German hands (without it being seen internally and externally as surrender), Imperial Russia could not 'stop fighting' as long as its and its allies territories were occupied, Britain had to 'fight' for the same reason, etc. The combination of losses (sunk cost) plus non-negotiable claims (territorial returns had to be made via reconquest) made peace impossible. Thus, the belligerents in WW1 had everything (except common sense) pushing back against a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
In the current Ukraine-Russian war, the situation is both similar and different. In this current war, Russia began the war with rather large (but still limited) objectives.
a) end the democide of Russian-speakers in Ukraine (e.g. the on-going loss of civilians in LPR and DPR)
b) remove any outside threats to Russia's control of Crimea
c) forestall the potential presence of any NATO assets (surveillance & strike) so near to Russia territory
d) eliminate 'extreme anti-Russian ideologies and worldviews' from Ukraine (in particular) and from the West (if possible)
These goals were not 'limitless' or entirely unconstrained -- but they were 'substantive' and were not about mere territorial adjustments or 'signaling'. However, these goals were also potentially obtainable short of outright military conquest -- thus there was a theoretical chance that these goals could have been obtained through negotiation (either pre-war or post-war, as for example, as through the rejected Turkish 'peace deal'), Furthermore, Russian losses in the current war (in terms of manpower, economic upheaval, financial cost, diplomatic reputation, internal dissent, etc.) have been limited (given the scope of the objectives and the success on the ground). Thus, Russia probably has the flexibility to reach a negotiated settlement short of occupying all of Ukraine (if it had a trustworthy and amenable negotiating opponent).
This 'difference' versus WW1 is even more evident in terms of Ukraine. Ukraine, under its current leadership class, appears to have had war goals 'of choice' even more unlimited than Russia at the start of the conflict:
a) Reincorporate its rebellious provinces by force (and force Ukrainization on them)
b) Conquer Crimea militarily (at some point after the start of the war)
c) Become fully integrated into NATO and the EU
d) Allow NATO to use its territory for survellience (and potentially strike) of Russia
e) Force regime change in the Russian government
While I don't believe that Ukraine meant for all of these goals to be active 'on Day 1' of the conflict, that fact that Ukraine (and the West) rapidly moved to embrace all of these goals early on in the war reinforces the opinion that all of these factors underlie the conflict before combat actually began in Feb 2022.
Furthermore, what's important to note is that none of these Ukrainian goals were necessarily the war goals of the Ukrainian nation state as a whole (they were the goals of its leadership class and Western backers). It is relatively certain that the Ukrainian populace wanted these objectives in a relative manner (i.e. they would like the territories returned) -- but not in an absolute manner (i.e. they did not want these territories returned militarily - especially if that military move resulted in their annihilation as a viable nation-state). This 'conditionality' of the Ukrainian people (that many didn't want to 'go that far' in order to achieve Ukraine's war goals) could have allowed Ukraine to negotiate a settlement (early in the current conflict) and perhaps may give (a new leadership class) something 'to work with now. Imperial Germany was deeply aware of French revanchism in 1914 and concerned about 'being crushed' between the pillars of Russia and France. Furthermore, Germany built its mass-army specifically for this 'inevitability'. Not so, Ukraine -- there was less certainty of 'conflict' and less unity on 'how to meet' that potential conflict.
So, in conclusion, I like your point 'it is hard to negotiate during a non-limited war' -- but I think that this current conflict has a lot more degrees of freedom to negotiate than WW1 (or WW2).
I believe even the genesis of WW I has parallels to the war in Ukraine.
German high command saw Russia as its main threat, so the sole purpose of the war against France was to defeat France quickly, to then be able to focus on Russia.
Similarly (I believe), the US saw the war in Ukraine as a strategy to quickly defeat Russia, to then be able to concentrate squarely on China.
I understand and get what you are saying -- and I think that there is truth in it. However, I think that there is lot about WW1 that is just so different than WW2 or today.
Specifically, it's hard to convey just how 'naive' and 'lacking in imagination' the Germans were at the start of WW1. Yes, they wanted to repel France (but not conquer it -- doing so had been a total pain in the ass in 1870). Yes, they wanted to embarrass and maybe even roll-back Russia -- but did they want to overthrow the Tsar ? Almost certainly not -- Germany probably only wanted him to 'get back on their side' via a Three Emperor's type deal (like before 1890). Pre-war, they would have been appalled at a Bolshevik revolution. Did they want to 'take on the British Empire' -- no, they somehow naively convinced themselves that British intervention wouldn't happen (or matter much if it did). What about Central Europe -- did they want to expand the German Empire by adding more non-Germanic people's to the Reich? Hell no -- they probably only wanted more of a German dominated customs-union. Germany, for a variety of reasons, couldn't see beyond a 'short war' with 'comparatively limited' objectives -- so it was both a victim to unplanned-for events (British intervention or successful, but not decisive battlefield success in the East and West) and it's war-gained geo-political power (dominating Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans and the Ottoman lands and Flanders) created early in the War.
As a result, as the war unfolded, and Germany found itself conquering and dominating so much of Europe, their unclear goals crystalized into more specific 'wants' (the Belgium coast, the Baltic states and a puppet Ukraine, a Germany controlled Austro-Hungarian Empire, Rumania, Balkans, and Ottoman Empire, etc). In some ways, these megalomanical war aims 'on the fly' were fatal to Germany -- but there were a direct result of how 'unlikely' Germany deemed such success (I don't think it occurred to them pre-war that they would be that successful) and how 'unprepared' its strategists were for what would come out as a result of 'der Tag'. In my opinion, it appears that the German pre-war thinkers imagined a pre-war world largely unchanged, except for greater Germany safety, prestige, and influence -- they didn't expect to have to fight for as much (all of Europe and the some of the Middle East), for as long, or as successfully. Contrast this with WW2 (and Soviet and US and UK thinking about 'what's next' that was already underway pre-war or early into the months of WW2) -- or the Cold War, etc. I think it was the naivety of the 'Great Powers' in WW1 that 'taught' the planners and strategists to 'think ahead and shape the world you want' (for good or ill).
Thanks for the usual updates. It seems Ukr has innovated their artillery shortage problems away with drones. Things must be utterly frigid at the front at the moment and that may explain some of the reduced activity
Thank you for acknowledging Gonzalo Lira's tragic end. He was a courageous man, shedding light on what was really happening in his adoptive country, betrayed by the country of his birth. I hope his loved ones take comfort in the impact he had. May he rest in peace.
I usually lurk, but I wanted to thank you for your hard work in getting the truth out to us in this age of censorship and persecution.
That was a very frank and honest admission, kudos Sir.
I think Scott ritters point was that after Gonzalo was detained for the first time, released so quickly and allowed to continue putting out content, this showed he had made some sort of deal, and he should now be considered as an asset of Kiev. I think he also had a Ukrainian wife and child; they could have been used as leverage against him.
This isn't totally impossible as there could have been some sort of implicit or explicit deal that either side may have reneged on.
But he wasn't still a Ukrainian asset when he died in prison. Pneumonia can be easily cured even in a 55-year-old smoker.
R.I.P. Gonzalo Lira.
No need to apologize, but here I have just watched a video that gives a little more information about Gonzalo's situation.
New Details About The Death Of Gonzalo | Missile Strike. Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.1.13
This guy posts videos under the name "Military Summary" but he says that his first name is Dima and he knew Gonzalo. He also says that after he was detained in April and then released in July, Gonzalo reached out to him for help to escape the country. He mentions the possibility that Gonzalo was released but then surveilled and followed by the SBU security forces to see if he would lead them to Russian agents or sympathizers. That's a possibility I hadn't considered.
Anyway, question everything, we are deep into the fog of war here. But I remember Gonzalo saying on one of his last videos that if he was sentenced to prison he would die there. That seems to be true.
I feel for you sane ones but look around. The shitpit you live in is utterly corrupt and beyond redemption. Multi secession and new alliances is about all that can save the better of you.
The big cities are mostly write-offs and when the plug is pulled on the Petrodollar,(which will happen within hours of the Yankee government ratifying the theft of Russia's assets and gold reserves),your country will implode within weeks.
Hopefully you are out somewhere where the real people live. Good luck.
I think it will be a bit slower than that, as other countries try to unwind their exposure to the dollar without losing their shirts, but that will possibly lead to a rapid panic and capital controls.
I'm pretty sure that is why BRICS+ has been keeping their Petrodollar afloat for the past 2+ years. Trying to give members and associates time to cash in their Yankee securities as they become due and maybe get their Gold back,(IF Yankeeland still has it),which is questionable given how Yankeeland has been stalling on multiple requests/demands.
Whatever happens 2024 is going to change ALL geopolitics, let us all collectively hope that WW III is not a part of it.
Growing up in the cold war era and having served the only war I will ever fight is for my family and my neck of the woods.
Michael Hudson wrote rather entertainingly about the French taking their dollar holdings as soon as they got them to the bank to convert them into gold, in the late 60s, regardless of what the Americans said. I bet they're gagging to do it again. With the fiat dollar transparently worthless, the rest of the world might find that they're damned if they don't, damned if the do.
Haven't read the piece, but that was the start of the "cowardly French" meme, as petty vengeance in the press. Degaulle (sp?) wasn't having any of the US's BS about the value of the dollar since we were running a war without raising taxes AND creating an absolutely massive welfare state at the same time.
Welfare state or warfare state? ;O)
Also, when Venezuela demanded its gold reserves back, they got delays.... until Mali was invaded conveniently I think in the same year or the next.
yup a lot slower only because the US still is the biggest consumer nation-- not #s od people, consumer nation. And guess what other countries make their income selling. Its all about the money.
America is at a crossroads.
It can either experience its version of the Fall of the Roman Republic or the Fall of the Roman Empire
One will allow it to survive but as a very different type of state. The other will see it die altogether.
American Impotence is now visible for all to see. The Regime seeks War with Iran (courtesy of its Neocon 'leadership') but lacks the Ability, Will & Readiness to do so.
The Strikes against Yemen's Ansarallah only emboldens Axis of Resistance members to escalate attacks against the Anglo-Zionist architecture in the region.
Many have already said (in private) that they will settle for nothing less than the complete dismantling of Sykes-Picot as we know it... they may soon get their wish!
(For those interested)
If you wish to read (& listen!) to more of My commentary, here is my Main Stack:
https://thefallofthewest.substack.com
Thank You Kindly to everyone!
Thx. Nice stack name 😉
Honoured by the mention, Good Sir!
Good look. Like the black background.
Thank You for the Kind words!
Interesting doomsday stack. One (newly revealed, possibly true) detail is lacking in your analysis. The US nuclear arsenal is antiquated & apparently for years has not been maintained. Documentation is missing, the people who knew how to maintain it dead.
It is unlikely to function properly, if at all, if they are stupid enough to try...
I published a “Note” about this a few days ago; but a longer form essay is in the works! Thank you for the insight!
I wouldn't get too happy about this. After studying a defector's MiG-25 back during the Cold War, it was expected that a lot of the Soviet ICBM force would fail to function as desired. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter - enough will get through to destroy the targets.
I don't doubt that but I will say this, the first rule of gun safety is to assume it's loaded even when you know it isn't.
If there's even a 99% chance that the U.S. can't use its nukes, there's the 1% chance that they absolutely can and will. That's a 1% chance of nuclear annihilation.
That's still high enough in my view to consider them key to the calculus.
Yep. People also forget that the Houthis suffered strikes by the UAE and Saudi fighters (many flown by US and UK active or VET pilots) for years ... and they still came through them all and in effect won !.
"American impotence" A wise man once said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Said Giant today is the Muslim Ummah.
As for Emma Lazarus' "New Colossus"... that one's a Goner given its Deindustrialization, Erasure of Borders, etc.
It will cease to exist quite soon as a viable entity.
We will see.
Nothing left to see.
The Navy cannot even control & secure the Trade Routes anymore.
Classic Late Stage Empire Decline & Fall 101:
Loss of Control over the Overland Trade Routes (in the case of Land Powers)
Loss of Control over the Sea Routes (in the case of Sea Powers)
It's now a Checkmate Pattern Deterministically unfolding.
We are seeing.
You mean the paper tiger that’s been getting ass whipped since Vietnam? Yeah, that sleeping giant symbolized by a senile, nursing home escapee, crash test dummy acting as president, along with a bloated hippo acting as defense secretary, but “electively” missing and nowhere to be found for a week after leaking uncontrollably in his oversized diapers😂! That laughing stock “Giant” is on its short way to permanent sleep!
It's always 1944 in the minds of the deluded and heavily-propagandized American serfs. The end of the Empire is coming, and unlike Rome, you have no Flavius Aetius or Aurelian coming to save you.
And if there were, you'd tell them to check their white privilege anyway, lmao.
"Cincinnatus? Sulla? Yeah, sorry. They're not in line with our diversity initiatives. Besides, we just hired Tyeesha Jackson for the "Restitutor Orbis" position."
Yeah, right.
The giant's gonna wake up and scream "micro-aggression!"
And then it'll demand Russians and Chinese stop dead-naming its transvestite sailors and soldiers, and scream "transphobe!"
The awakened giant will then call HR and demand an investigation of Iran for ignoring its queerness.
That giant will then work with the legacy American media to have the Houthis cancelled from X and all other social media.
Then the giant'll demand that the drone warriors of its enemies mask-up when flying sorties against it--after all, we're all in this together! Safety first! Get jabbed!
Is that the giant you're talking about?
No it is not, honestly, that sounds like a manifestation of social media propaganda in your mind.
Maybe, but pretty unlikely since I don't partake of social media, and because I'm a historian of covert influence...but much more likely that you're out of touch with the reality of PC-Prog America:
"One year ago, Sgt. Jessica Haut came out as trans in the military. Now, VICE News checks back in to see how she’s navigating her transition while serving in the U.S. Army."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68sjjlE9Ugk
"An estimated 15,000 transgender troops currently serve in the U.S. military."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOs41_DLfA8
"US Navy Hires Active Duty DRAG QUEEN To Head Military Recruitment Drive"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnI9GVJqoNk
This all seems like something that could go away overnight with a leadership change.
15k is what, 3%? These seems like cherries.
Was getting chased out of Afghanistan by a bunch of sandal wearing goat herders armed with rusted flintlocks social media propaganda?
They were pulled out by Blinken the Jew.
I think you might be referring to the domestic character, also known as the men who wished to be left alone
Ultimately these will be the most ferocious.
A couple of thoughts on 'impotence'. The first is that it is entirely possible that, if roused, with a 'truly life threatening' situation, a 'giant' might 'wake up' -- and by the I mean dig deep, mobile all of its resources, jettison its 'bad habits', collective its scattered will, and rise to the occasion. But if the 'sleep' is very deep, or the 'bad habits' very serious, or the threat 'not really life-threatening' -- then nothing may really change. This viewpoint would hold that the US could do something (but maybe won't because it's a big problem for many, but just not such a big deal for the US).
A second view might be that the US could rouse its power -- it's just that the world has changed and that what's worked in the past won't work today -- it needs to find new ways of mobilizing its power. Perhaps the days of aircraft carriers and tomahawk cruise missiles are 'gone' (when faced with a decentralized, non industrialized, mountainous tribal people with access to sophisticated modern sensors and weapons like in Yemen). Perhaps modern technology allows a tribe to control a narrow strait better than it allows a modern navy to eliminate that threat.
A third point of view, and one I am sure you would not like, is that maybe the giant is terminally ill and not capable of much of anything any more. You may not believe that that is true (and I am not trying to convince you that it is) -- but don't be surprised if others start to wonder. It's been a long time since Britannia ruled the waves -- and maybe that is now becoming increasingly true of the US.
Problem is that no one really knows the answer to this impotence question. Technology has moved on. Leaders have changed. America itself has changed (as have the world around it). At some point, some other member of the herd challenges the dominant bull -- and if that bull's response is not effective -- more challenges follow. It's probably at the point that a new bull needs to arise -- that new bull could even be a 'new revitalized USA' -- but until that happens, the challenges will continue.
All we really need is uncompromised leadership.
In my opinion, that is a problem -- but I think we have a lot deeper problems that than. I think points 1 and 2 from my response above apply here -- America's problems are too deep (and need too much of a complete overhaul). There is so much leadership -- at the White House, Congress, the States, the Courts, at School Boards, at the FBI and administrative state -- to replace. Until that happens, nothing useful will be possible. I also think that our traditional 'gun boat' diplomacy we've used since 1945 has to change (which probably means eliminating 60-80% of our 'deployable' military assets) and adopting a different set of priorities, policies, and force structures (because the old stuff just isn't really fit for purpose or sustainable any longer). But who really knows.
Getting the US to manifest its actual military power will hinge on a few things. First, the industrial base must exist again. We can't outsource production of materiel to China for obvious reasons. We're making about zero progress on fixing that problem, even though it's been a warning going on for at least a decade. Lots of initiatives, zero practical effort on things like rare earths, chip fab, etc. There are simple tasks that could be carried out, but aren't being. Almost like no one cares, but i'm quite sure someone does care.
The only conclusion I can come to is that TPTB lack the ability to manifest economic activity anymore. Draw conclusions from there.
The "power that be" are dismantling the US, this is very obvious to me. Again it could go the other way with leadership.
Pressing X to Doubt. Didn't rise up with summer of love, election fraud, Covid, Forced medical experimentation on a mass scale, J6 and political gulags, and so on.
WW2 Probably killed the best men, as modern wars tend to do.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, Those Who Remain
I read your comments
Yes, it would be nice if the United States had smart leaders.
And by the way, I am sure that then the instability generated by modern leaders would be significantly reduced
You see, leadership is not about defeating everyone. Leadership is smart
Agreed. And to 33db's point, it takes strong men / strong women to stand up and say 'it stops here' and 'follow me and do as I do' if there is to be any chance of a turn-around. And I get the sense that 33db is such a man (and we, the US, need such men). One man, or even a group of men (and women) are not sufficient by themselves, but they are necessary (and provide hope and potential core to rebuild around).
Mr. / Ms. 33db -- do what's right -- even if others disagree or mock you or wish you ill. If everyone 'throws in the towel' and 'quits' or 'checks out' then we are most certainly doomed to fail. The journey may be hard (even impossible) - but if you don't try you won't know, and if you (and Americans in general) can't be bothered to even try, then you are probably not worthy of that goal anyway. Do your best and with luck (and divine help) things can get better.
The quote you are referring to comes from Hollywood. Go figure!
There's debate as to the source, irrelevant from my point of view as the Japanese woke the tiger regardless and then got nuked.
13 January 2024 FT A New Year PR Campaign not a Peace Campaign from Italy
‘Italy links Ukraine aid to ‘negotiated settlement’ efforts’
https://www.ft.com/content/e0c9a4bb-903a-48d9-b44c-f26b445499b0
As befits Italy’s status as President of G7 their Foreign Minister has announced a new PR campaign with a new aid package, combined with the threat to Ukraine of Peace, hidden in the Presidential language
Another story with no content : – on the one hand Ukraine is losing, on the other ‘we’ must not give in and admit the RF is winning : the talk about the importance of peace is just an excuse to provide less armaments
Carefully not mentioned is the exact nature of aid to be given, some (non FT) sources claim this may be military but excluding weapons given that Italian stocks are so depleted, and this not surprisingly according to the very same Foreign Minister, who has previously (2023) underlined popular war fatigue in Italy as another reason to limit supplies
Given that the first 5 Italy military aid packages were worth a total of $1.05B, the article is making a mountain out of a molehill
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/10/05/italian-official-warns-of-war-fatigue-limited-resources-for-ukraine/
So - All negotiations must be conditional on RF ceasing to ‘bomb’ Ukraine – (this can be achieved by negotiation!) - but there are no pre conditions on Ukraine; none are needed, the threat is clear enough
“We must be realistic and cannot ignore the military situation on the field,” Crosetto said as lawmakers approved more bilateral aid to Kyiv. “The time seems to have come for effective diplomatic action.”
(As reported by the FT) On the one hand Zelensky will not negotiate, on the other RF will not negotiate, says Zelensky : this despite repeated statements from RF that they are open to all and any talks – this phrasing accuses Zelensky of lying
The Ukraine can not win, but to throw a dog a bone-
‘Putin too was faced with economic challenges and growing war fatigue among the Russian population, he added.’
Putin is doing fine, so is the RF economy, and so are the Russians - The war fatigue is in Italy, and other EU excepting Baltic, this is the real problem Italy is seeking not to face by this pretension at peace talks, a feeble stab at grabbing a claim of victory from the jaws of certain defeat
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/eastern-europe-and-former-soviet-union/europes-emerging-war-fatigue
The fastest way to end the carnage in Ukraine would be for the Ukrainian military to terminate the self serving DC puppets in Kiev, followed with a big middle finger to DC. I don't know that there is any real prospect of such an outcome but it certainly would save a lot of lives and solve a lot of problems. Perhaps if DC money isn't available to shovel into their bank account Ukrainian military "leadership" will think about ending the slaughter.
It would be helped if everyone in the field called Volga as well.
A perfectly rational choice in the face of their abuse. I've seen Ukrainian prisoners interviewed who seem to understand they are just being used by DC and the self serving monsters in Kiev.
There's a certain grim amusement to be had if the Ukro army does in 2024 what the German army failed to do in 1944 and turns the clock back to the day before the US-Ukronazi putsch of 2014.
Unfortunately the power centers seem to be run by the Bandera nationalists and whichever oligarch/mafia are most closely associated with them. For the true believers, they're in it until the last peon dies, and for the moneymakers, the war is the greatest golden goose of all time (direct aid, license to shake down the entire male population for like $1000 every month)
One thing that I do not fully understand is why Ukrainian men don´t seem to cross Westetn borders illegaly (Poland, Slovakia, Romania) to escape mobilization. What, are those actually only European borders that are so well guarded that just cannot be done?
Pretty hard to get across the border.
ALL public transport is being regularly stopped and searched and any point of exit from Ukraine is heavily guarded and monitored.
Ukraine needs meat for the grinder.
Also the Ukrainians mined the border to Belarus, and of course Russia in all direction is a war zone. Time to get out was Feb 2022, way too late now.
Take a look at where these borders are, mate, and you'll see. First of all, a lot of the border is extremely mountainous, with huge amounts of snow, and even an experienced alpinist with full gear would have trouble traversing that terrain. Secondly, many of the borders are formed by rivers, which are pretty fucking cold to be swimming across right now. Third, most border areas are sparsely inhabited villages, which makes it really easy to detect movement or new people arriving in the area, and you can't exactly take a bus there, can you?
Lastly, smuggling cigarettes out of Ukraine (to the EU) has been a huge business for years, and so the EU gave the Ukrainian Border Police a shit ton of gear such as infrared vision goggles and other stuff, precisely to interdict people crossing the border. And now, of course, Ukraine has even more armed men and drones and who knows what else, precisely to stop people from escaping.
Not quite an 'Iron Curtain', but perhaps an 'Electron Curtain'?
It's really hard. And it takes a lot of preparations. And with current political climate it's a risk for a military ready man to walk on the streets. And you suggest trecking the whole way across Ukraine? Or giving prohibitively large bribes? Most people are incapable of either. They probably try to hide with their relatives somewhere in the smaller cities.
Sure, some people probably did run away illegaly or legaly at the start of the conflict. But since then their numbers must have dwindled extremely.
Vote Biden 2024: As the World Burns!
Be 82,000,000 votes this time around with Big Mike and Khlarmydia Harass as the dream team before 2025.
Honestly I want them to just drop the curtain and give Biden 150million votes. 2020 was farcical enough, but I want the entire rest of the world to know.
As for CBR asset seizure this is US trying to throw the EU under the bus, to weaken & destroy the use of the Euro as a reserve currency, reputation as a safe haven, damage it’s finance industry and infra
The US holds $4.6B is CBR assets, although it claims that some assets held in the EU are in $, without any details
Nonetheless the EU holds in Euro assets of approximately E200B plus
The US is not going to take the risk of confiscating the US assets only, but is trying to force the EU, via G7 ’consultations’, to play the fall guy, i.e. a financial NS2
Re Confiscation of CBR assets
For a lucid exposition of the legal and political situation please read
‘Countermeasures and the Confiscation of Russian Central Bank assets’
Ingrid (Werth) Brunk, Lawfare 3 May 2023
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/countermeasures-and-the-confiscation-of-russian-central-bank-assets
Plus the UN record of the debate and vote in the General Assembly, 15 November 2022
‘General Assembly adopts text recommending creation of Register to document damages caused by Russian aggression against Ukraine, resuming emergency special session’
https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/general-assembly-adopts-text-recommending-creation-register-document-damages-caused-russian-aggression-against-ukraine-resuming-emergency-special-session
The special danger to western interests presented by their own arguments in favour of ‘countermeasures’ and ‘reparations’ is on display in the UN Assembly vote on the Establishment of a Register for claims, a timid step on the path to claims, in which 14 countries voted against and 73 abstained
Objections were to
‘The text brings a high level of uncertainty regarding the legal parameters of such a register to be created outside the framework of the United Nations and without its supervision’, without precedent, vaguely worded and inoperable
Exclusion of claims by ‘States suffering from foreign interference, colonialism, slavery, oppression, unilateral coercive measures, illegal blockades and other internationally wrongful acts also deserve the right for remedy, reparation and justice’
Some good observations here from an objective professional viewpoint : https://lenapetrova.substack.com/?nthPub=91
https://rumble.com/c/LenaPetrova
There is also this new wrinkle - US requires legislation to act, even so...
‘White House throws support behind seizing frozen Russian assets’
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/white-house-throws-support-behind-seizing-frozen-russian-assets
Not enough support to go it alone, legislation is required, illegal as it now stands – what might appear a face saver for all concerned in the US offers potential disasters
e.g; should this be done in collaboration with rather less willing G7, or alone: can language blocking the RF from challenging the move in US be constitutional: what may be done to mitigate negative outcomes in perception for the RoW that the US, and the EU, are increasingly desperate to convince to their cause: this will never be considered as a one time only action, inevitably it will be followed by others
In other words how to shoot yourself in the head when you’ve missed your foot
"...Republicans to allow a certain amount of migrants in through the southern border per day, but having a hard “cap” or quota on the total amount."
OK Tyrone, we need to lay down some rules. First of all, you can't look my wife in the eyes during penetration. And no kissing. Just hard pounding, the way we both like it.
"OK Tyrone, we need to lay down some rules. First of all, you can't look my wife in the eyes during penetration. And no kissing. Just hard pounding, the way we both like it."
LMFAO. Thanks for that. I doubt we see the border (or rather BROADER immigration issue) the same, but thanks for that hearty laugh. I literally did LOL on my way to and back from the kitchen.
Republicans will never win again with Joe bidens 10-12 million new democrat voters guaranteed. Republicans have to be nice to thier future colleagues so when they switch parties to Democrat they get good seats.
FARK! I laughed!
I have to say - that was hilarious.
"The Institute for the Study of War managed to admit..."
Do you mean the "Nulander Institute for the Study of Losing War and People Who Can’t Win Good"?
https://youtu.be/NQ-8IuUkJJc?t=59
Message said ''Video not available" - Its been censored.
I had no problem with it.
O.K. May be regional for some reason. I will try later. Thank you for letting me know.
I don't know why China is sitting on it's ass. They have best 5g comms around not to mention could mass produce any kind of EW to be fitted on everything Russia has. If everyone in West can help Ukraine everyone else should help Russia get this over with. Just a waste of lives.
China and Russia have much in common yes but they also have centuries old disputed lands/resources plus China and Russia have other fish to fry elsewhere in the world.
China will help Russia to a certain extent but end of the day Russia does not need help and this allows China to further both its own aims and the aims of BRICS+ without overt interference from the global communist West.
Exactly right thank you
I think that the disputes were resolved early in Putin's presidency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#Border_negotiations:_1990s%E2%80%932000s
But otherwise, I agree.
Indeed, people tend to overlook the fact that China and Russia are historic rivals - China covets the resources of Siberia and the Russian Far East- and previously advanced claims to a big piece of it. Short of outright control, a weakened Russia that would give them access on very favorable terms would work pretty well for them, too.
The US (Japan, too) should have long since been normalizing and strengthening relations w/Russia (+N. Korea, Iran, Syria) instead of creating every incentive for them to move closer to China.
Credit to Vivek R. for recognizing China as the US principal rival and prioritizing decoupling the US and Russia from it.
The sooner the US gets out of the empire business the more that will be left to rebuild something more constructive for the future.
I am not sure "rivals" is the right word for the historic relation between China and Russia. I would suggest that they are uneasy neighbors, who maintain peace between themselves through strength. I think it was clear, early on in Putin's government, that he was uncomfortable with too close a relationship with China and the CCCP totalitarians. and wanted, ala Peter the Great, to improve relations with the West. However, he was not willing to sell off Russia to buy Western friends.
The U.S. neo-con anti-Russian fanaticism and Wall-Street's coveting of all Russian resources, however, have forced Putin into this uneasy alliance. It will take quite some time to mend these fences, and I am not sure there is any desire of anyone in the U.S., including Trump, to try to mend these fences, given the ferocious attacks by the U.S. intelligence community and Washington establishment against anyone who threatens their grifting and war-mongering.
America has always been in the empire business since 1776. The British Empire gave birth to the benighted spawn that is the American Empire today.
Wars of aggression and expansionism--disguised behind an Orwellian mask of "American freedom and liberty"--are fundamental to America's political DNA for the past 200+ years.
In the past, Manifest Destiny was the ideology deployed to rationalize American theft and colonization of indigenous Indian lands, Northern Mexico, and Hawaii.
Today, America has ambitions to colonize the world in all but name--though it is rationalized by equally deceptive ideologies about "defending Freedom and Democracy"; a fake War on Terrorism; a (New) Cold War; or upholding a USA-led world order.
All factions of the American Empire--Red State or Blue State alike--support this imperial agenda. The only "differences" between the two is the tactics to achieve this common ambition.
Blue Staters like the Democrats want to focus on finishing Russia before moving against China.
Red Staters like the Republicans want to focus on finishing China before moving against Russia.
The "partisan differences" between Red State vs. Blue State, Democrat vs. Republican, or Donald Biden vs. Joseph Trump are as fake as American democracy itself. That is something neither political side nor their propagandists want to admit.
At the end of the day, no country that opposes American world dominance is tolerated.
Even Vladimir Putin has called out the self-styled Land of the Free as a "global dictatorship" in no uncertain terms:
"The American-style world, with the hegemony of one country, is being destroyed and is receding gradually but inexorably into the past. However, the United States is unwilling to accept this, and instead seeks to preserve and extend its dominance, its global dictatorship, which is easier to achieve amid such chaos, because the United States believes this chaos will help it contain and destabilise its rivals or, as they put it, their geopolitical opponents, among which they also rank our country, which in reality are new global growth centres and sovereign independent countries who are unwilling to kowtow and play the role of servants."
Meeting with members of the Security Council and Government, and heads of security agencies
http://en.kremlin.ru/catalog/keywords/78/events/72618
As for Russia and China, whatever differences they have (many of which are deviously being hyped up by Americans to advance the USA's predictable divide-and-conquer agenda), they realize that both their national sovereignties confront a common existential threat: the United States of America.
Indeed, the rise of BRICS+ and the line of nations eager to join this organization implicitly suggest that increasing numbers of countries outside of the USA and its vassals realize this America threat.
Very astute observations. And the uni-party will pretend to host an election this year. But we can’t vote to throw Vicky Nudelman out.. or vote on anything that matters.
I believe that there is some truth in what you are saying -- but fear that you are 'falling in love with a narrative' too much and not seeing beyond the 'US has been and always will be an evil empire' trope.
The first counter to your thinking is that no country or society in the history of the earth has been free of the 'imperial' virus -- wars of aggression and expansion and theft and displacement and colonization and forced assimilation (and even genocide). All of these evils have been (and will probably always be) a fundamental part of the human experience (think of the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Mongols, the Greeks, etc). The fact that we associate these trends with certain countries or peoples (like the US, the British, the Russians, the Chinese, etc.) more than others (the Irish, the Masai, the Inuits) is because certain groups have been more successful at this stuff then others (or because we have more recent documentation of their excesses). So, in that context, singling out the 'bad USA' is a bit foolish -- you might as well condemn human nature itself. [Note: that doesn't mean 'excuse' what different people or groups have done in history -- just don't attribute 'insatiable lust for empire' to a specific group as a specific group trait]
The other reason why I think your line of thinking is 'weaker than it should be' is because I believe that you are misreading the history or America (and its various peoples) over time. America (and probably all groups but I will stay focused on the USA) has waxed and waned over time with regard to this 'lust for empire'. There have been times when this 'lust' has been particularly active (the expansion of the frontier after the Civil War, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the Cold War / Post Cold War) -- and there have been times when America has been very content to be 'isolated and by itself' (e.g. the period of time from the end of the War of 1812 to the Mexican War was 'quiet' relative to non-native powers --- and so too was the post civil-war to Spanish American War experience). Americans were very reluctant to enter WW1 (and more or less had to be hoodwinked into it), and the blow back from WW1 led to the 'isolationism' many in the world condemned prior to WW2. Truman and Eisenhower were not particularly interested in 'staying in' Europe or Japan after WW2 (but events changed their minds), and Eisenhower (and even Kennedy) were very cool to supporting Israel in the Middle East, etc. All that is not to say that the US hasn't intervened, interfered, sought to control the fates of others both near and abroad, create / destroy puppets -- they have. But there have been real moments where it has (or wanted to) say 'f-ck you all' and 'go home'.
Finally, don't equate what 'psychotic' or 'sociopathic' leaders (or think tanks or media outlets) in our society do ('the Red States' or the 'Blue States') with the people as a whole. The America of 2024 is a lot more vulnerable to propaganda, information control, and psycho-social manipulation than the America of 1924 or 1724. It was a lot harder to generate consensus for 'empire' in the past than it is today (that's an assertion not a provable fact that I believe it to be accurate). Therefore, even though 'leaders' on the left want 'war on Russia first' while the leaders on the right want 'war on China first' -- that doesn't reflect the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans know very little about people outside of the United States (and are content to keep it that way -- always have been and probably always will be that way regardless of whether that is right or wrong).
Bottomline, hate on the USA if you want, but see them as really 'no different' than the rest of humanity save except for the fact that through luck or fate, they have been exceptionally endowed with resources, geographic safety, freedoms, etc that have enabled them to 'achieve more' (for good or ill) than most people for most of history. If they have been evil or given into temptations (or wasted their chances to do good), well, then, what did you really expect. Has any group ever done much better? And if not, then why the hate on them? And to the extent that they have done good, well, then we are all better off so keep that in perspective as well. If you stop looking for a savior or a villain in them, you will be less disappointed.
In truth, in my assessment, America is much closer to another 'all of you go fxck yourself moment' of isolationism than since the 1920's. So, be prepared for a 'change of seasons' coming soon.
Why would China get involved?
Why would we want China to help? Do you think that China's help is free? Don't get me wrong, we like that China is so approachable, predictable and open for economic-diplomatic talks. But I don't think any russian has any questions about chineese interested in helping out only themselves.
So we would not want to pay exorbitant ammounts of money and other things for something that we might not even require for the win. Better start up our own tech companies.
Because China is next to bust up and for Wall Street west to take over if Russia fails. Seems like people don't understand US goals. Total planetary domination. It's neoliberal system and it's corporations and hedge funds ruling the world.
Have yet to see any actual evidence of this constantly-repeated refrain that Russia has "bad communications"...
It could be to a *large* extent exaggerated, but there are some first hand accounts and direct interviews with soldiers I've seen. The problem lies in extrapolating that out too far so I myself am trying to get a better bead on how pervasive it *actually* is. But one thing is certain: Baofengs are cheap consumer grade junk radios you can find yourself on aliexprses for $20-50. That is indisputable fact.
2nd indisputable fact: Baofengs can be seen *regularly* amongst Russian troops. In fact, they are so widespread they are seen far more often than Azarts or other real military grade encrypted radios. This is seen in thousands of videos.
So at the least, we have that to go by.
But as I said, I do believe they use them for the most part at the lowest level of squad/platoon comms, which keeps them from being intercepted too often. For higher echelons they do use the encrypted military grade systems.
However, there are still many interviews with direct Russian troops where you can see them say things like: "When we communicate we have to use euphemisms and code words for certain things because we know the enemy is intercepting everything we say." That's when they use consumer grade Chinese Walmart radios.
I'm familiar with Baofengs, preppers recommend them regularly, I've considered getting one myself. The number of different models is rather confusing, however.
One could argue that on the lowest tactical level, below company and battalion levels, radio encryption is not as important as on the higher operational levels. Perhaps the Russians don't mind their individual soldiers communicating between squads and platoons as long as at least one encrypted radio is available to receive orders from the higher levels. I could see doing that as an economic measure. Having units forced to spread out to avoid being hit by artillery and drone strikes might have put a strain on the number of encrypted radios. I'm sure that is probably being addressed by the Russian MIC.
And perhaps the individual soldiers themselves decided to start using them to cover gaps in tactical maneuver communication given the dangers of operating in close groups with the drone threat. Not to mention that ruggedized military radios tend to be bigger and heavier than modern mobile ham units. Soldiers will take advantage of any weight reduction - except ammo - such as "field-stripping MREs."
Using some standard verbal codes would make that almost as secure as using encrypted radios, as long as those standard codes weren't eventually deciphered by the Ukrainians. That would be similar to the use of native American languages that were used in WWII to avoid German eavesdropping. I'll bet the Chechens do something similar.
There is also the issue of being geo-located due to the signal. Sometimes, you may not care what a low level unit is 'saying' per se (although you might it they are talking about morale, their losses, their out-of-supply situation, etc.) -- sometimes you just want to know in which abandoned building they are hole-ing up in -- in which case geo-locating a drone strike may be the issue. Sounds like the radio-spectrum is full of encrypted / unencrypted messages, jammed / un-jammed signals, etc which both helps and hurts the soldiers on the front lines. I just wanted to point out that using an analog radio (like a Beofeng) puts you at risk for more than just surveillance.
Good points. Of course, it's likely the soldiers know that and only use the unencrypted radios knowing they're going to move shortly to avoid any retaliatory strike. It's like how the artillery crews I've seen seem to fire a few rounds then cover up the gun with camo and move away until it's clear there isn't going to be any counter-battery fire, then they return and fire a few more rounds. Such tactics render tactical counter-intelligence less useful.
I'm not sure that I would want to use anything that emits electromagnetic radiation, except as a decoy. Better to go back to using messenger pigeons, heliographs and Fullerphones.
This is a powerful argument for preplans and common signals; probably the lessons of Millennium Challenge 2002 have been forgotten. Although that exercise - 'debacle', from the American view would not be too strong a word - inspires passionate invective from both sides, it was generally agreed that the Red Team, led by retired US Marine 3-star General Paul Van Riper , destroyed the best part of a US Carrier group in less than an hour, using small boats carrying explosives which were hidden alongside wharf infrastructure and cued to attack on a common signal - the sounding of the muezzin, the Moslem call to prayer. There was no radio order to attack, and Van Riper used motorcycle couriers to pass inland orders, and a minimum of radio traffic.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/
The Blue (USA) Team response was to stop the exercise, and then restart it with all 'sunk' participants alive again, and of course the surprise attack would not work twice in quick succession. And there is a sensible argument for that - the exercise cost millions to stage, and if the results of the initial engagements were allowed to stand there would be no opportunity to learn anything, except maybe for Don't Ever Do That Again. Likewise, this is not an argument that Russian radio comms do not need to be improved - communications are critical to success. But the more encrypted systems are introduced, the more minor-warfare and mid-level commanders feel like they have to get on the radio and discuss operations at length. There is much to be said for saying less. A visual signal like a green flare is a whole textbook of orders if the operation to go forward has been planned in advance. Everything hinges on how well the chain of command understands the objective and the scheme of maneuver, their part in it and how to recognize friendly forces' movements so as to avoid engaging your own side.
Go for a more modern cheap Chinese portable than the Baofengs.
Perhaps look at the Quansheng UV K5 (8) for a more modern chip set and ridiculous levels of program ability. Cost about $22 delivered to USA off of Ali Express last month, took about a week to arrive.
There ARE ways to secure your communications when using these cheap radios- They will make you stand out if you are the only one to use them in your area and likely attract "extra attention".
I have Baofeng radios now after years of using Motorola radios and I can tell you with experience that if you regard Baofeng radios as cheap Chinese junk then Motorolas are a whole step lower. Motorolas have less range, shitty battery life and far less features, ie, security measures built in that you can use. Baofeng radios are inexpensive feature rich radios that the US hasn't a prayer to match. I live in the midwest and communication will be essential to us when TSHTF because of the absolute idiocy of the government in the USSA.
Check out the Quansheng UV K5 (8) radios.
Looks like another good one! Similar to the Baofeng UV 21R.
(A bit off-topic, but due to a browser glitch I can only reply to comments, not post one)
Can anyone make out what those 'Suzuki' marked cartons might contain on the truck behind Magyar in the video re: Russian drones?
Happen to live near Suzuki HQ and was wondering...
4 wheelers, perhaps.
Simplicius, To rephrase your response here. Mass 'NOISE euphemistic communication' VOLUMES, are similar to sacrifice decoy drones sent for locating & identifying missile system locations & capacities for future targeting.
Unencrypted Baofengs & Walmart radios widely spread in safe zones provide a distraction. 100s of 1000s of Russian & Russian-aligned Ukrainian (Donbass, Crimea etc) Soldiers, Functionaries & Citizens (from secure areas) send & receive messages, dozens of times per day (Total 10s of millions of messages/day). This Noise volume is used to occupy putsch-Ukrainian, EU & USA 'intelligence' systems & analysts. Of course western 'intelligence-monitoring' viewing & analysis contracts are farmed out to Russian speaking contractors in Israel & every other western subject nation, so there are many 100s of viewers & AI systems pouring over multiple communication (microwave) tower relayed messages. The goals being NOISE CONFUSION & Message Obfuscation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINCGARS
This is still the standard combat radio for the US. Note it was devised in the 1980s and doesn't really exist in an easily portable form. It's frequency hopping and encrypted. When someone is carrying a SINCGARS, it looks a little like that picture of a Marine 2LT using the PRC-119. Mostly a metal case in most TOCs with a shoulder strap, but I digress.
There aren't tons of them. Vehicles have them, and command posts (TOCs) will have them. Not many are carrying them in the field. There are logistics issues with batteries and size that prevent everyone from having one. Programs exist and have existed to get a smaller radio out to everyone. They fall prey to the battery charging issue and the logistical issue of maintaining key and FH sets. These radios gobble power compared to the little walkie-talkies you can buy on Amazon.
In practice, even US soldiers use the little commercial radios for certain things. I wouldn't be shitting too much on Russia in this department. It's true that the FH encrypted tactical sets are better than the commercial stuff, but the logistics are not inconsequential and if someone captures a loaded key, you have to presume the net is insecure and distribute new keys and FH sets.
The tactical radios are VHF and are just as susceptible to being jammed (EW) as anything else. There are satellite radios as depicted in the next link, but they require a fixed antenna pointed at the ecliptic and can't be run off a simple whip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PRC-117
I don't know much about the equivalent Russian systems but I suspect they are analogous.
Comment comparing Russia barrage vs Yemen is apples and oranges really. You really beleive the Russians have seriously attacked civil infrastructure and failed?
I have just finished a book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61138494-on-a-knife-edge that details Germany's grand strategy in WW1. However I found the parallels with Ukraine’s situation quite interesting. Wars are very easy to start but incredibly difficult to end, and both sides tend to become more committed to victory and less to compromise as time passes and losses mount. Even when rational analysis informs the professional military men that the chances of victory are slim, they still roll the dice and accept accelerating losses to try to achieve a politically acceptable set of circumstances. Peace negotiations become less not more likely over time, until one side or the other is defeated. And I’d argue you can see many of the same dynamics being played out in Ukraine, no one really wants peace, they want victory, or at least to avoid defeat. And the West is working hard to convince itself that this victory or at least a stalemate is just around the corner, all they have to do is supply Ukraine with a little more cash and weapons, and it will out last an “exhausted” Russia. But of course it takes both sides to agree to stop the fighting.
"With a decisive breakthrough unlikely in the coming months, Kiev’s allies say designing a clear military strategy for how to defend current positions and then break through Russian lines is crucial," the report continues.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-officials-concerned-about-tense-split-between-zelensky-military-chief
As I was saying....
All the more reason to put those who advocate and prosecute war along with their extended families out on a barren island somewhere with hand weapons only and live stream the battle.
I liked a recent suggestion I saw that only those subject to draft can vote for war, and only those who vote yes are added to the draft pool.
Love it!
Pointed sticks and rocks.
I looked forward to this in lieu of Afflerbach's book on Falkenhayn not being translated but thought that his thesis, that it was a case of Germany losing the war, rather than the Allies winning it was over-egging the pudding.
The situation you describe (the reluctance of warring states to accept less-than-total victory) is especially true when the war a nation is fighting is 'unlimited' and 'intended' to lead to major geo-political change. As you note, WW1 (and WW2) were both 'unlimited' in their end goals and fought in an unlimited manner that made compromise near impossible once all-out conflict got underway in earnest. In a similar manner, the current Ukraine-Russian war has war goals that are unlimited (e.g. the de-nazification of Ukraine or regime change in Russia) -- but I'd argue that there was the possibility of 'backing off' from total realization of these objectives by both sides early in the conflict. Furthermore, I'd argue that there has been a limits on how the war has been fought (at least for Russia and for NATO), that makes gives the warring parties 'room to maneuver' and thus make compromise still possible (in theory). Therefore, I'd argue that there are both important similarities and differences between the current Ukrainian-Russian war and past conflicts like WW1 that both support (and argue against) your thesis.
In World War 1, you had a combination of very unlimited war goals plus unlimited war means (and corresponding war losses). This combination (goals and losses) made 'settling' for something less than outright victory near impossible right at the start of the conflict. Imperial Germany went into the war intentionally -- it chose to escalate the 'Balkan crisis' into a continental European peer-to-peer war so that it could destroy the rival Franco-Russian alliance now (while Germany had the military and economic advantage) rather than later (as Russia economically and miliarily developed in the years ahead). This goal (destruction of the rival power block) was large -- but not entirely unlimited. Germany did not initiate the war for territorial acquisition or to challenge the strength of the British Empire. The First World War took on those 'additional war goals' as the war went along, and German 'sacrifices' (enormous losses in terms of men, finances, the economy, the structure of society, politically) reinforced this war goal expansionism and helped make a negotiated peace short of out-right victory impossible. The Allies, due to the territorial and other losses, had real constraints on their ability to 'settle' as well: France and Belgium could not 'stop fighting' as long as their key territory remained in German hands (without it being seen internally and externally as surrender), Imperial Russia could not 'stop fighting' as long as its and its allies territories were occupied, Britain had to 'fight' for the same reason, etc. The combination of losses (sunk cost) plus non-negotiable claims (territorial returns had to be made via reconquest) made peace impossible. Thus, the belligerents in WW1 had everything (except common sense) pushing back against a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
In the current Ukraine-Russian war, the situation is both similar and different. In this current war, Russia began the war with rather large (but still limited) objectives.
a) end the democide of Russian-speakers in Ukraine (e.g. the on-going loss of civilians in LPR and DPR)
b) remove any outside threats to Russia's control of Crimea
c) forestall the potential presence of any NATO assets (surveillance & strike) so near to Russia territory
d) eliminate 'extreme anti-Russian ideologies and worldviews' from Ukraine (in particular) and from the West (if possible)
These goals were not 'limitless' or entirely unconstrained -- but they were 'substantive' and were not about mere territorial adjustments or 'signaling'. However, these goals were also potentially obtainable short of outright military conquest -- thus there was a theoretical chance that these goals could have been obtained through negotiation (either pre-war or post-war, as for example, as through the rejected Turkish 'peace deal'), Furthermore, Russian losses in the current war (in terms of manpower, economic upheaval, financial cost, diplomatic reputation, internal dissent, etc.) have been limited (given the scope of the objectives and the success on the ground). Thus, Russia probably has the flexibility to reach a negotiated settlement short of occupying all of Ukraine (if it had a trustworthy and amenable negotiating opponent).
This 'difference' versus WW1 is even more evident in terms of Ukraine. Ukraine, under its current leadership class, appears to have had war goals 'of choice' even more unlimited than Russia at the start of the conflict:
a) Reincorporate its rebellious provinces by force (and force Ukrainization on them)
b) Conquer Crimea militarily (at some point after the start of the war)
c) Become fully integrated into NATO and the EU
d) Allow NATO to use its territory for survellience (and potentially strike) of Russia
e) Force regime change in the Russian government
While I don't believe that Ukraine meant for all of these goals to be active 'on Day 1' of the conflict, that fact that Ukraine (and the West) rapidly moved to embrace all of these goals early on in the war reinforces the opinion that all of these factors underlie the conflict before combat actually began in Feb 2022.
Furthermore, what's important to note is that none of these Ukrainian goals were necessarily the war goals of the Ukrainian nation state as a whole (they were the goals of its leadership class and Western backers). It is relatively certain that the Ukrainian populace wanted these objectives in a relative manner (i.e. they would like the territories returned) -- but not in an absolute manner (i.e. they did not want these territories returned militarily - especially if that military move resulted in their annihilation as a viable nation-state). This 'conditionality' of the Ukrainian people (that many didn't want to 'go that far' in order to achieve Ukraine's war goals) could have allowed Ukraine to negotiate a settlement (early in the current conflict) and perhaps may give (a new leadership class) something 'to work with now. Imperial Germany was deeply aware of French revanchism in 1914 and concerned about 'being crushed' between the pillars of Russia and France. Furthermore, Germany built its mass-army specifically for this 'inevitability'. Not so, Ukraine -- there was less certainty of 'conflict' and less unity on 'how to meet' that potential conflict.
So, in conclusion, I like your point 'it is hard to negotiate during a non-limited war' -- but I think that this current conflict has a lot more degrees of freedom to negotiate than WW1 (or WW2).
I believe even the genesis of WW I has parallels to the war in Ukraine.
German high command saw Russia as its main threat, so the sole purpose of the war against France was to defeat France quickly, to then be able to focus on Russia.
Similarly (I believe), the US saw the war in Ukraine as a strategy to quickly defeat Russia, to then be able to concentrate squarely on China.
The best laid plans...
I understand and get what you are saying -- and I think that there is truth in it. However, I think that there is lot about WW1 that is just so different than WW2 or today.
Specifically, it's hard to convey just how 'naive' and 'lacking in imagination' the Germans were at the start of WW1. Yes, they wanted to repel France (but not conquer it -- doing so had been a total pain in the ass in 1870). Yes, they wanted to embarrass and maybe even roll-back Russia -- but did they want to overthrow the Tsar ? Almost certainly not -- Germany probably only wanted him to 'get back on their side' via a Three Emperor's type deal (like before 1890). Pre-war, they would have been appalled at a Bolshevik revolution. Did they want to 'take on the British Empire' -- no, they somehow naively convinced themselves that British intervention wouldn't happen (or matter much if it did). What about Central Europe -- did they want to expand the German Empire by adding more non-Germanic people's to the Reich? Hell no -- they probably only wanted more of a German dominated customs-union. Germany, for a variety of reasons, couldn't see beyond a 'short war' with 'comparatively limited' objectives -- so it was both a victim to unplanned-for events (British intervention or successful, but not decisive battlefield success in the East and West) and it's war-gained geo-political power (dominating Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans and the Ottoman lands and Flanders) created early in the War.
As a result, as the war unfolded, and Germany found itself conquering and dominating so much of Europe, their unclear goals crystalized into more specific 'wants' (the Belgium coast, the Baltic states and a puppet Ukraine, a Germany controlled Austro-Hungarian Empire, Rumania, Balkans, and Ottoman Empire, etc). In some ways, these megalomanical war aims 'on the fly' were fatal to Germany -- but there were a direct result of how 'unlikely' Germany deemed such success (I don't think it occurred to them pre-war that they would be that successful) and how 'unprepared' its strategists were for what would come out as a result of 'der Tag'. In my opinion, it appears that the German pre-war thinkers imagined a pre-war world largely unchanged, except for greater Germany safety, prestige, and influence -- they didn't expect to have to fight for as much (all of Europe and the some of the Middle East), for as long, or as successfully. Contrast this with WW2 (and Soviet and US and UK thinking about 'what's next' that was already underway pre-war or early into the months of WW2) -- or the Cold War, etc. I think it was the naivety of the 'Great Powers' in WW1 that 'taught' the planners and strategists to 'think ahead and shape the world you want' (for good or ill).
Thanks for the usual updates. It seems Ukr has innovated their artillery shortage problems away with drones. Things must be utterly frigid at the front at the moment and that may explain some of the reduced activity
Thank you for acknowledging Gonzalo Lira's tragic end. He was a courageous man, shedding light on what was really happening in his adoptive country, betrayed by the country of his birth. I hope his loved ones take comfort in the impact he had. May he rest in peace.
I usually lurk, but I wanted to thank you for your hard work in getting the truth out to us in this age of censorship and persecution.