Along comes another dimwitted propagandist. Once again, I am calling a spade for what it is.
Printable View
Along comes another dimwitted propagandist. Once again, I am calling a spade for what it is.
The 10 Rules Of Propaganda
Lord Arthur Ponsonby was a British diplomat and politician, dates 1871–1946.
This keen and cagey fellow pinpointed 10 rules of propaganda.
SUNDAY, MAR 12, 2023 - 11:30 AM
"They are these:
1. We don’t want war, we are only defending ourselves.
2. The other guy is solely responsible for this war.
3. Our adversary’s leader is evil and looks evil.
4. We are defending a noble purpose, not special interest.
5. The enemy is purposefully causing atrocities; we only commit mistakes.
6. The enemy is using unlawful weapons.
7. We have very little losses, the enemy is losing big.
8. Intellectuals and artists support our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred.
10. Those who doubt our propaganda are traitors.
Just Look at the News
A daily scan of the newswires calls to mind three or more of these propaganda rules. On some days, six or seven. On others still, all 10.
We refer specifically to the conflict presently arage in the eastern European nation of Ukraine.
Let us now consider these rules. We will not take up each of them since some rules relate closely to others. We will instead weld these together. To proceed…
1. We don’t want war, we are only defending ourselves.
2. The other guy is solely responsible for this war.
On how many occasions have you read or heard condemnations of Mr. Putin’s “unprovoked” act of aggression?
To phrase it differently, when has it not been described as unprovoked?
Yet a man can argue very persuasively that Mr. Putin’s war was indeed provoked.
The Russian autocrat warned on several occasions that NATO expansion into Ukraine was a “red line.”
Russia would not abide the NATO dagger pressing against its vitals (parts of Ukraine actually lie east of Moscow).
Yet the NATO alliance had announced its intentions to incorporate Ukraine — despite Vladimir’s moans and grimaces.
A de Facto NATO Member
It is true that no formal offer of membership has come. Yet for years the United States and its NATO allies were arming and training Ukrainian forces.
Why do you think these Ukrainian forces have performed so excellently?
Some have in fact referred to Ukraine as a de facto NATO member. It has merely been awaiting the de jure formality of actual membership.
You may argue that Mr. Putin’s invasion was unjustified. You may argue that it was unnecessary. Your editor himself has maintained these very points.
Yet you cannot argue that it was unprovoked.
Putin’s Evil!
3. Our adversary’s leader is evil and looks evil.
9. Our cause is sacred.
Here is a very condensed sample of headlines regarding the blackened state of Mr. Putin’s soul:
“Vladimir Putin — ‘Evil on the Level of Joseph Stalin’”
“Yes, Putin Is Evil”
“Putin Is Evil, Not Mentally Ill, a Psychological Explanation”
“’Terrifying’ Putin Driven by ‘Evil Forces,’ Says ECB’s Christine Lagarde”
“How Vladimir Putin Became Evil”
And is this not the very face of evil?
The title of the magazine article affixed to this caption bears the title:
“The Secret Source of Putin’s Evil”
Now you have the flavor of it. We could continue but mercy forbids it.
Is Putin Really Evil?
Yet how do these demonologists know if the man is evil? Have they looked under the hood… and glanced his soul?
Perhaps the man is psychologically impaired. Perhaps he goes by a different morality. Perhaps he is simply misguided.
Or perhaps he simply believes his nation is under threat and that his invasion is justified.
No — not justified — necessary.
We would not claim that he is an especially congenial fellow. We would not claim that he is “nice.”
But evil? That we are not prepared to say.
Yet we are prepared to say — and will say — that for the past year propaganda has enjoyed a very brisk circulation.
Evil on the level of Joseph Stalin, as the one headline screamed? This is the work of the propagandist.
No Special Interest?
4. We are defending a noble purpose, not special interest.
Defending Ukraine may certainly qualify as a “noble purpose.” We do not contend otherwise.
Yet there are several arms manufacturers who presently drive an excellent trade.
They must replace all the armaments that have been dispatched to — and continue to be dispatched to — Ukraine.
Are they not a special interest?
Meantime, our spies inform us that a disturbing portion of monies parading under the banner of “Ukrainian aid” has been diverted to the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs.
We would sort these oligarchs into the category of “special interest.”
“We Don’t Do Those Things”
5. The enemy is purposefully causing atrocities; we only commit mistakes.
We are told that Russia’s calendar of sins is endless. These hellcats are shooting projectiles into apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, churches.
Yet we are likewise told that Russia suffers from an acute ammunition lack. Why would these Russians waste valuable ammunition on these valueless targets?
Perhaps such targets were struck by accident. It is war and incidents as these are nearly inevitable.
Perhaps even Ukrainian forces struck some of these structures unintentionally.
We recall one instance in which a Russian missile struck very near the Polish border, murdering two. As chance would have it the “Russian missile” was an erring Ukrainian air defense missile.
Perhaps Ukrainian forces fired upon Russian forces from these sites. Russians would be justified to return the fire.
Reports of Russian massacring of civilians proliferate widely. Yet closer examination reveals that at least some of these claims are of very dubious validity.
We would be stunned and gobsmacked if atrocities of various sorts have not occurred — perpetrated by both sides.
It is, after all, war. And war is the very negation of civilization.
Yet there is little to no evidence that atrocities are official Russian policy.
That, we hazard to say, is propaganda.
He’s Using Chemical Weapons!
6. The enemy is using unlawful weapons.
“Kyiv Claims Russia Used Banned Chemical Weapon”
“Russia’s Tear Gas Bombings in Ukraine May Be First Step in Dangerous Chemical Escalation”
“Ukraine’s Battlefield Is Haunted by Putin’s Chemical Weapons Legacy”
We assigned our spies the case. They inform us there exists no evidence of Russian chemical weapons use.
Videos have circulated — however — of Ukrainian soldiers preparing chemical weapons for battlefield use. Other videos circulate of Russian soldiers gagging on these chemical agents.
We cannot confirm their trueness.
270,000 Russian Casualties?
7. We have very little losses, the enemy is losing big.
Source after source cites claims of unspeakable Russian deaths and woundings. Figures of 270,000 Russian casualties have been proposed.
Yet the original invasion force consisted only of 190,000 men. Are they all — plus 80,000 others — dead or injured?
The British Broadcasting Corporation decided to so some spade work. They attempted to discern the true number of Russian fatalities. This they did by poring through death notices, funeral announcements, social media and other venues.
What did they discover?
They could only identify the names of 16,071 confirmed Russian fatalities. They concede the possibility that they are undercounting the butcher’s bill by as much as 40%.
In all, BBC places Russia’s total irretrievable losses (wounded, killed or missing people) at some 144,500.
These figures nonetheless place the actual casualty roster — both killings and woundings — far below the mainstream telling.
We are loathe to employ the word “only” when discussing deaths and woundings. It is a morbid affair. Each man is a unique human creature crafted in the image of his creator.
Yet the BBC’s sleuthing indicates strongly that Russian casualty figures are extravagantly exaggerated.
It is in keeping to Propaganda Rule no. 7.
8. Intellectuals and artists support our cause.
How many intellectuals and artists boast Twitter accounts bearing an image of the Ukrainian flag?
They are nearly beyond count.
10. Those who doubt our propaganda are traitors.
Your patriotic editor has been labeled traitorous on many, many occasions — by readers and colleagues alike.
The Propaganda War
Does Russia transmit its own propaganda? We are certain that it does.
Upon reflection we must amend the prior statement — we suspect strongly that Russia transmits its own propaganda. We cannot be certain.
That is because none of it is allowed in. It is all censored out by the Western press. They have erected a great cordon walling off Russian propaganda.
How else does one explain the universal media claims of Ukrainian righteousness and Russian evil? Of Ukrainian brio and Russian incompetence? Of Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat?
We will merely state that we have been privy to… conflicting… reports.
Yet we are aware that by posting the 10 Rules of Propaganda… we will be accused of distributing propaganda — Russian propaganda.
We plead nolo contendere… comrade."
The 10 Rules Of Propaganda | ZeroHedge
An interesting set of interviews with people on the street in Russia about what is happening . . . refreshingly candid with varying opinions (OhWoe wouldn't know what that is).
Should we invade Finland and Sweden before they join NATO? - YouTube
One can understand a bit why a few ordinary Russians feel wary of NATO/US/West
A propaganda source discussing propaganda. Utterly laughable. Utter BS as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Wagner is done for...
Attachment 99835
Not likely that Bakhmut will fall anytime soon.
:)
More likely the words got back that they are just the expendables thrown into the meat grinder and joining wagner is little better than a death sentence
The Washington Post's view:
Ukraine short of skilled troops and munitions as losses, pessimism grow
By Isabelle Khurshudyan
,
Paul Sonne
and
Karen DeYoung
[COLOR=var(--wpds-colors-gray80)]March 13, 2023 at 5:33 p.m. EDT
"DNIPROPETROVSK REGION, Ukraine — The quality of Ukraine’s military force, once considered a substantial advantage over Russia, has been degraded by a year of casualties that have taken many of the most experienced fighters off the battlefield, leading some Ukrainian officials to question Kyiv’s readiness to mount a much-anticipated spring offensive.
U.S. and European officials have estimated that as many as 120,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or wounded since the start of Russia’s invasion early last year, compared with about 200,000 on the Russian side, which has a much larger military and roughly triple the population from which to draw conscripts. Ukraine keeps its running casualty numbers secret, even from its staunchest Western supporters.
Statistics aside, an influx of inexperienced draftees, brought in to plug the losses, has changed the profile of the Ukrainian force, which is also suffering from basic shortages of ammunition, including artillery shells and mortar bombs, according to military personnel in the field.
“The most valuable thing in war is combat experience,” said a battalion commander in the 46th Air Assault Brigade, who is being identified only by his call sign, Kupol, in keeping with Ukrainian military protocol. “A soldier who has survived six months of combat and a soldier who came from a firing range are two different soldiers. It’s heaven and earth.”
“And there are only a few soldiers with combat experience,” Kupol added. “Unfortunately, they are all already dead or wounded.”
Such grim assessments have spread a palpable, if mostly unspoken, pessimism from the front lines to the corridors of power in Kyiv, the capital. An inability by Ukraine to execute a much-hyped counteroffensive would fuel new criticism that the United States and its European allies waited too long, until the force had already deteriorated, to deepen training programs and provide armored fighting vehicles, including Bradleys and Leopard battle tanks.
The situation on the battlefield now may not reflect a full picture of Ukraine’s forces, because Kyiv is training troops for the coming counteroffensive separately and deliberately holding them back from current fighting, including the defense of Bakhmut, a U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid.
Andriy Yermak, head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said the state of the Ukrainian force does not diminish his optimism about a coming counteroffensive. “I don’t think we’ve exhausted our potential,” Yermak said. “I think that in any war, there comes a time when you have to prepare new personnel, which is what is happening right now.”
And the situation for Russia may be worse. During a NATO meeting last month, U.K. Defense Minister Ben Wallace said that 97 percent of Russia’s army was already deployed in Ukraine and that Moscow was suffering “First World War levels of attrition.”
Kupol said he was speaking out in hopes of securing better training for Ukrainian forces from Washington and that he hopes Ukrainian troops being held back for a coming counteroffensive will have more success than the inexperienced soldiers now manning the front under his command.
How much increased Western military aid and training will tip the balance in such a spring offensive remains uncertain, given the scars of attrition that are beginning to show.
One senior Ukrainian government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid, called the number of tanks promised by the West a “symbolic” amount. Others privately voiced pessimism that promised supplies would even reach the battlefield in time.
“If you have more resources, you more actively attack,” the senior official said. “If you have fewer resources, you defend more. We’re going to defend. That’s why if you ask me personally, I don’t believe in a big counteroffensive for us. I’d like to believe in it, but I’m looking at the resources and asking, ‘With what?’ Maybe we’ll have some localized breakthroughs.”
“We don’t have the people or weapons,” the senior official added. “And you know the ratio: When you’re on the offensive, you lose twice or three times as many people. We can’t afford to lose that many people.”
Such analysis is far less optimistic than the public statements by Ukraine’s political and military leadership.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has described 2023 as “the year of victory” for Ukraine. His military intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov, touted the possibility of Ukrainians vacationing this summer in Crimea, the peninsula Russia annexed illegally from Ukraine nine years ago.
“Our president inspires us to win,” Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, Ukraine’s ground forces commander, said in an interview with The Washington Post. “Generally, we all think the same, and we understand that for us it is of course necessary to win by the end of the year. And it is real. It is real if we are given all the help which we have been promised by our partners.”
On the front lines, however, the mood is dark.
Kupol, who consented to having his photograph taken and said he understood he could face personal blowback for giving a frank assessment, described going to battle with newly drafted soldiers who had never thrown a grenade, who readily abandoned their positions under fire and who lacked confidence in handling firearms.
“There’s always belief in a miracle,” he said. “Either it will be a massacre and corpses or it’s going to be a professional counteroffensive. There are two options. There will be a counteroffensive either way.”
His unit withdrew from Soledar in eastern Ukraine in the winter after being surrounded by Russian forces who later captured the city. Kupol recalled how hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers in units fighting alongside his battalion simply abandoned their positions, even as fighters for Russia’s Wagner mercenary group pressed ahead.
After a year of war, Kupol, a lieutenant colonel, said his battalion is unrecognizable. Of about 500 soldiers, roughly 100 were killed in action and another 400 wounded, leading to complete turnover. Kupol said he was the sole military professional in the battalion, and he described the struggle of leading a unit composed entirely of inexperienced troops.
“I get 100 new soldiers,” Kupol said. “They don’t give me any time to prepare them. They say, ‘Take them into the battle.’ They just drop everything and run. That’s it. Do you understand why? Because the soldier doesn’t shoot. I ask him why, and he says, ‘I’m afraid of the sound of the shot.’ And for some reason, he has never thrown a grenade. … We need NATO instructors in all our training centers, and our instructors need to be sent over there into the trenches. Because they failed in their task.”
He described severe ammunition shortages, including a lack of simple mortar bombs and grenades for U.S.-made MK 19s.
Ukraine has also faced an acute shortage of artillery shells, which Washington and its allies have scrambled to address, with discussions about how to shore up Ukrainian stocks dominating daily meetings on the war at the White House National Security Council. Washington’s efforts have kept Ukraine fighting, but use rates are very high, and scarcity persists.
“You’re on the front line,” Kupol said. “They’re coming toward you, and there’s nothing to shoot with.”
Kupol said Kyiv needed to focus on better preparing new troops in a systematic way. “It’s like all we do is give interviews and tell people that we’ve already won, just a little bit further away, two weeks, and we’ll win,” he said.
Dmytro, a Ukrainian soldier whom The Post is identifying only by first name for security reasons, described many of the same conditions. Some of the less-experienced troops serving at his position with the 36th Marine Brigade in the Donetsk region “are afraid to leave the trenches,” he said. Shelling is so intense at times, he said, that one soldier will have a panic attack, then “others catch it.”
The first time he saw fellow soldiers very shaken, Dmytro said, he tried to talk them through the reality of the risks. The next time, he said, they “just ran from the position.”
“I don’t blame them,” he said. “They were so confused.”
The challenges stem from steep losses. Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s commander in chief, said in August that nearly 9,000 of his soldiers had died. In December, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelensky, said the number was up to 13,000. But Western officials have given higher estimates and, in any case, the Ukrainian figures excluded the far larger number of wounded who are no longer able to fight.
A German official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid, said that Berlin estimates Ukrainian casualties, including dead and wounded, are as high as 120,000. “They don’t share the information with us because they don’t trust us,” the official said.
Meanwhile, a Russian offensive has been building since early January, according to Syrsky. Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, told The Post last month that Russia had more than 325,000 soldiers in Ukraine, and another 150,000 mobilized troops could soon join the fight. Ukrainian soldiers report being outnumbered and having less ammunition.
The stakes for Ukraine in the coming months are particularly high, as Western countries aiding Kyiv look to see whether Ukrainian forces can once again seize the initiative and reclaim more territory from Russian control.
Russia is also facing ammunition, manpower and motivation problems — and has notched only incremental gains in recent months despite the strained state of Ukraine’s force. As bad as Ukraine’s losses are, Russia’s are worse, the U.S. official said.
“The question is whether Ukraine’s relative advantage is sufficient to attain their objectives, and whether those advantages can be sustained,” said Michael Kofman, a military analyst at Virginia-based CNA. “That depends not just on them, but also on the West.”
Despite reports of untrained mobilized Russian fighters being thrown into battle, Syrsky said those now arriving are well-prepared. “We have to live and fight in these realities,” he said. “Of course, it’s problematic for us. … It forces us to be more precise in our firing, more detailed in our reconnaissance, more careful in choosing our positions and more detailed in organizing the interaction between the units. There is no other way.”
Russia’s recent gains — notably around Bakhmut — have not significantly tilted the battlefield, and U.S. military officials have said that even if Russia seizes Bakhmut, it would be of little strategic importance. But given the heavy casualties Ukraine is suffering there, officials in Washington have questioned Kyiv’s refusal to retreat. The United States has been advising Ukraine to retreat from the city since at least January, the U.S. official said.
A Ukrainian official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the battle for Bakhmut was depleting Russian forces there — mainly Wagner fighters who have been Moscow’s most effective of late — and that Ukrainian units defending the city were not slated to be deployed in upcoming offensive operations anyway.
Ukraine has lost many of its junior officers who received U.S. training over the past nine years, eroding a corps of leaders who helped distinguish the Ukrainians from their Russian enemies at the start of the invasion, the Ukrainian official said. Now, the official said, those forces must be replaced. “A lot of them are killed,” the official said.
At the start of the invasion, Ukrainians rushed to volunteer for military duty, but now men across the country who did not sign up have begun to fear being handed draft slips on the street. Ukraine’s internal security service recently shut down Telegram accounts that were helping Ukrainians avoid locations where authorities were distributing summonses.
Initially, the United States focused its training on new weapons systems Washington had decided to provide Kyiv, such as M777 artillery pieces and HIMARS rocket launchers. In January, after nearly a year of all-out war, the United States began training Ukrainian forces in combined-arms warfare. Just one battalion, of about 650 people, has completed the training in Germany so far.
Additional Ukrainian battalions will complete the training by the end of March, and the program will adjust as Ukraine’s needs evolve, said Lt. Col. Garron Garn, a Pentagon spokesman.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “remains laser-focused on ensuring that Ukraine is receiving the training it needs for the current fight,” Garn said. The United States is “working around-the-clock” to fulfill Ukraine’s security needs, in addition to investing billions of dollars to produce and procure artillery ammunition, he said.
“The bottom line is that we are getting the Ukrainians what they need, when they need it,” Garn said. “And as President Biden and Secretary Austin have emphasized repeatedly, we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
Even with new equipment and training, U.S. military officials consider Ukraine’s force insufficient to attack all along the giant front, where Russia has erected substantive defenses, so troops are being trained to probe for weak points that allow them to break through with tanks and armored vehicles.
Britain is also training Ukrainian recruits, including about 10,000 last year, with another 20,000 expected this year. The European Union has said it will train 30,000 Ukrainians in 2023.
Ukraine has been holding back soldiers for a spring offensive and training them as part of newly assembled assault brigades. Kyiv is also organizing battalions around the new fighting vehicles and tanks that Western nations are providing.
Syrsky said he is focused on holding the line against Russian attacks while his deputies prepare soldiers for the next offensive.
“We need to buy time to prepare reserves,” Syrsky said, referring to the Ukrainian soldiers training abroad with Western weapons. “We know that we have to withstand this attack to prepare the reserves that will take part in future actions properly. … Some people defend, others prepare.”
U.S. officials said they expect Ukraine’s offensive to start in late April or early May, and they are acutely aware of the urgency of supplying Kyiv because a drawn-out war could favor Russia, which has more people, money and weapons manufacturing.
Asked at a recent congressional hearing how much more U.S. aid might be required, Pentagon policy chief Colin Kahl told House lawmakers that he did not know. “We don’t know the course or trajectory of the conflict,” Kahl said. “It could end six months from now, it could end two years from now, three years from now.”
Sonne and DeYoung reported from Washington. Souad Mekhennet in Munich, David
L. Stern in Kyiv and Siobhán O’Grady in Kharkiv, Ukraine, contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tion-shortage/
[/COLOR]
Consistent from Wapo. They also swore that Ukraine was losing the battle for Kherson. Now they claim a couple of anonymous sources that Ukraiane is fucked again.
:smileylaughing:
You actually read that wall of text?
Of course not. I read the article on Wapo yesterday when it came out.Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
A question was asked the answers were informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYWaTPwHTsU&t=4s
MARCH 14, 2023 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Sabotage of Nord Stream won’t go unpunished
"Next Monday, an uneasy anniversary arrives. It will be 20 years since the invasion of Iraq by the United States. Britain was a pillar of the US-led ‘coalition of the willing.’ The Guardian columnist John Harris wrote on Sunday that it was “the greatest political and humanitarian disaster the UK had been involved in since the second world war… when the supposed political centre ground suddenly lurched somewhere reckless and catastrophic.”
The Iraq War caused endless violence and huge levels of death. Ironically, it was Seymour Hersh who exposed that horrific chronicle of torture in the Abu Ghraib by the US troops that shocked the world.
Harris made a debatable point that Iraq War had “profound effects” on the UK. He listed, amongst them, “a sense that politics and power had lurched away from the public, and left a huge and very uneasy gap.” Maybe he is right, but for the wrong reasons. As time passed, Iraq War made Britain’s party politics look farcical.
Britain today has a UniParty — the party of government, which seems to consist of the same people as the party of the opposition. Britain has reached where the US has been for quite some time — a cabal of political elites hijacking the country, operating its own agenda, regardless of which political party is formally in power — and the people at large having lost control of their government. That is why crimes like Abu Ghraib and Nord Stream go unpunished.
On March 3, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had a top secret one-on-one with Biden in the Oval Office in what appears to have been an attempt, among other things, to reach a consensus on how to handle Hersh’s explosive report on the sabotage of Nord Stream. (Read my blog Ukraine: A war to end all wars in Europe.)
Look at the sequence of events: Four days after Scholz met Biden, New York Times carried a sensational media leak regarding Nord Stream, attributing the sabotage to a “pro-Ukrainian group” consisting of five men and one woman who used a yacht rented in Poland.
The vessel was later found by German investigators — also a media leak in Berlin — and turned out to be the Andromeda, a Bavaria C50 sailing boat. The group reportedly embarked on their mission from Rostock on September 6, 2022. The equipment for the secret operation was allegedly transported to the port in a truck.
Germany’s Die Zeit backed the Times narrative in real time. But the narrative itself is riddled with discrepancies. Questions are galore: How could a 15-meter chartered yacht have possibly carried an estimated 1,500-2,000 kilograms of explosives required for the sabotage? How could Andromeda, which doesn’t have a crane, hoist such massive quantities of explosives safely into the water?
A Russian analysis points out that “the site of the explosion, the Baltic Sea, is about 80 meters deep, which requires special diving equipment, including air tanks with a helium-oxygen mixture and pure oxygen. All in all, one would need 30 litres of a special gas mixture for one dive alone, which means there must have been dozens of bottles on board. In addition, there should have been a decompression chamber for the divers, something that the yacht is not fit for. Furthermore, it would have taken several dives and a few days to lay the explosives on the pipelines. It’s hard to imagine that these activities would have gone completely unnoticed.”
The Times news desk evidently didn’t do any fact check. But on March 10, the chair of the Bundestag’s intelligence oversight committee, Konstantin von Notz from the Green Party, told Die Zeit that what happened was likely a “state-backed act of terrorism” and was likely conducted by a “state or quasi-state actor.”
Scholz is skating on thin ice. He heads a coalition of Atlanticists. But Germany is not yet a UniParty country. Besides, unlike in the US or the UK, in the German political system, the public prosecutor who is investigating the Nord Stream sabotage is an autonomous entity who can’t be ordered around by politicians in power.
The German defence minister Boris Pistorius’ reaction to the Times report shows it — that Germans don’t yet know whether this was a Ukrainian commando that acted with the knowledge of the Ukrainian government, a pro-Ukrainian group that acted without their knowledge, or whether it might have been a false flag operation. Berlin apparently doesn’t exclude official Ukrainian involvement.
Scapegoating comes handy for Washington in such situations as an exit strategy. A report in Politico on Sunday distanced the Biden Administration from the Ukrainian regime of Zelensky, and Nord Stream sabotage is mentioned there as one of three reasons for the “growing differences behind the scenes” between Washington and Kiev.
For the present, though, there seems to be a tacit understanding between Biden and Scholz that they will not tear each other up over this matter. As for Zelensky, he probably has no option but to play the role of a scapegoat when necessary.
By mentioning Nord Stream as a matter of discord between Washington and Kiev, the Politico report seems to hint to Zelensky that this is a high stakes game affecting transatlantic unity and scapegoat may become necessary.
Meanwhile, instead of pointing finger at Washington, the Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev was non-committal on Sunday, saying, “I emphasise that any accusations that are not supported by the results of an impartial investigation cannot be trusted. Therefore, Moscow insists on an objective investigation with the participation of Russia and other interested countries. Without this, voicing one-sided subjective versions of the terrorist attack does not explain anything.”
Patrushev has virtually challenged the Biden-Scholz tandem. To be sure, an impartial investigation will have political consequences. For one thing, German public opinion is relatively fickle on the issue of weapons deliveries. Second, Scholz cannot afford a perception that he is in collusion with Biden.
Of course, if it is established that a Ukrainian commando unit or an American outfit was responsible for the sabotage, the political consequences will be massive. German public may demand stoppage of arms supplies to Ukraine. On the other hand, if the US is responsible, the current renaissance in German-American ties will simply wither away.
Scholz is yet to understand that Transatlanticism is not the defining characteristic of the Democratic Party. His fate may turn out to be the same as Tony Blair’s. Harris wrote that the effects of Blair’s deceptions rippled on all the way to Brexit.
To quote him, “Iraq hideously sullied Blair and [Gordon] Brown’s domestic record and marked the end of the New Labour vision of Britain as a young, confident country. It reduced the fantasies of “liberal interventionism” to ash, and deepened the disaffection and unease that would lead to our exit from Europe.”
Handelsblatt newspaper in a report last Thursday pointed out that the investigation on Nord Stream may play politically into the hands of the far-left and the far-right in German politics. Can Scholz survive the deception over Nord Stream sabotage? If Ukraine is implicated, there is no going back for Germany."
Sabotage of Nord Stream won't go unpunished - Indian Punchline
$32,000,000 dumped in the Black Sea.
Attachment 99903
The questions and answers were from morons. It is not a surprise that a cum guzzling putin knob gobbler like yourself would be stupid enough to think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
A lot of money for a bankrupt ruzzian government. A fraction of a penny to the US defense budget. Twenty-year-old tech that the US couldn't care less about taken out by a drunk ruzzian clown. Those drunk buffoons will not dare fly into Ukrainian airspace because when they do, they get shot down.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Soon the Patriot will be active in Ukraine and the ruzzians will not be able to lob their cruise missiles at women and children from behind their own borders. Fucking cowards.
MILITARY OPERATION IN UKRAINE
17 MAR, 09:35
US opposes ceasefire in Ukraine, rejects China’s peace plan — White House
US National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said that he has long been urging Chinese President Xi Jinping to hold talks with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky
WASHINGTON, March 17. /TASS/.
"The United States opposes a ceasefire in Ukraine and rejects settlement proposals earlier put forward by China, US National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby has told reporters.
"We would certainly be concerned by any proposals coming out of the PRC that would be one sided and reflect only the Russian perspective," the White House official said. "For instance, you guys saw the 12-point plan that was much ballyhooed. It calls for a ceasefire. And while that sounds pretty reasonable, and it sounds like a good thing: ceasefire right now, it basically ratify Russia’s conquest, it would in effect recognize Russia's gains."
"So ceasefire right now would constitute another continued violation of the UN Charter," Kirby continued. In his opinion, Russia would "basically be free to use that ceasefire to further entrench its positions in Ukraine," to restore its forces and retrain its troops "so that they can then restart attacks."
"Frankly, it's just not a step that we believe towards a just and durable peace. If a peace is going to be enduring, if it's going to be a just peace, if it's going to be sustainable, it can't be one sided and it has to absolutely include <…> Ukrainian perspectives and Ukrainian decision making," he added.
Kirby added that he has long been urging Chinese President Xi Jinping to hold talks with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
"We think it's really important for the Chinese to get the Ukrainian perspective here and not just Mr. Putin’s," he said. "We've been encouraging that for quite some time."
In February, he Chinese Foreign Ministry published a 12-point peace plan for Ukraine, among other things calling for a ceasefire, prisoner exchanges between Moscow and Kiev, and steps to stop unilateral sanctions. Beijing stressed that dialogue and negotiations were "the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis" and called on all sides to support Moscow and Kiev in "working in the same direction" and in resuming direct dialogue as soon as possible."
US opposes ceasefire in Ukraine, rejects China’s peace plan — White House - World - TASS
The Lancet battlefield drone has been overshadowed by this Iran drone bs. The Iran drones only work because Russia has a full compliment of cruise missiles. Without cruise missiles to clear the way, these cheap Iran drones wouldn't have the space to operate.
There is Lancets everywhere now. Production is going 24/7. A bigger version with a heavier warhead is coming soon.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1636960462104416256
^ Wrong attachment
https://youtu.be/0on9NM6aJNw
Errrr...kind of a fundamental prerequisite for a peace negotiator otherwise publishing a "peace treaty" is a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
:bsflag:Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
It is trash, like most of Russia's kit. Most of the components to make it Russia can not get anymore. As usual you are talking out of your ass.
Much better video of ten Russian tanks getting smoked by Ukrainian drones...
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/...61195633917953
:chitown:
Gratifying to see those things getting blown to crap . . . not so much the crew.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
That would seem logical to mostQuote:
Originally Posted by Norton
Would you like to see more twitter links of images and vid of what those types of crew do to civilians? Because that can be arranged, and I can promise you that you will stop feeling sorry for the bastards.Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
It's war, snubbs. They are on the wrong side but still have to fight, as long as they adhere to conventions.
Conventions? We are speaking about ruzzians. They are committing widespread atrocities on a daily basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
...a little analysis to sharpen one's thoughts:
A Neurotic Warmonger and a Master Strategist Meet in Moscow
China’s newly powerful President Xi Jinping will seek to cement Russia’s position as a junior partner when he meets with Vladimir Putin over the coming hours.
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...v1/1200x-1.jpg
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with China's President Xi Jinping at the Kremlin in Moscow.Photographer: Sergei Karpukhin/AFP
By
James Stavridis
March 20, 2023 at 11:57 PM GMT+7
Listen to this article
5:40
Share this article
Gift this article
Follow the authors
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/...8/v0/-1x-1.png
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A retired U.S. Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, he is vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. He is the author most recently of "To Risk It All: Nine Conflicts and the Crucible of Decision." @stavridisj
+ Get alerts forJames Stavridis
In this article
CL1
WTI Crude
67.40
USD/bbl.
-0.24-0.35%
NG1
Generic 1st 'NG' Future
2.25
USD/MMBtu
+0.02+0.99%
The world will be watching closely as two autocratic leaders who have established a profound personal bond meet face-to-face in the Kremlin. Each has a detailed agenda with differing tactical and strategic needs. What are the key objectives for Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, whose frothy pledge last year of partnership “without limits” between Russia and China is under significant stress as Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine flounders?
For Putin, it’s tempting to say that he has just three key deliverables: weapons, weapons and weapons. But it’s actually more complex than that. Certainly, equipment and ammunition are at the top of his wish list. Putin has a terrible burn rate on the killing fields of eastern Ukraine. He has lost thousands of tanks and personnel carriers, most of them in the disastrous early days of the conflict when Western-supplied drones and anti-armor missiles devastated his armor forces.
More from
BloombergOpinion
How Covid Upended Trade Between Two Economic Giants
What If There Can Be Only One Bank?
Are the Ultra-Rich Ready for Singapore After Credit Suisse?
Can Jamie Dimon Outdo J.P. Morgan Himself in This Panic?
He also looks enviously at the growing arsenal of Western-supplied high-tech weaponry, especially long-range drones (both for observation and attack); HIMARS surface-to-surface long-range missiles; and anti-ship cruise missiles. Putin will ask Xi to have the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cooperate with his armed forces to help develop countermeasures. He needs his own improved anti-drone capabilities, as well as defensive systems to negate the very effective HIMARS (with ATACMS probably not far behind) which are devastating his already poor logistic efforts.
In order to move out offensively, Putin will want armor (tanks and personnel carriers) and ammunition — especially howitzer rounds. He’s also running short of the most prosaic of equipment, crew-served machine guns and, shockingly, individual firearms and ammo. Russian soldiers are literally being sent toward the front lines without a firing weapon and told to dig trenches before the rest of the infantry follow behind. The term “cannon fodder” doesn’t begin to cover such orders, backed only by the certainty of execution if disobeyed. Many of the Russians are killed by Ukrainian fire and lie where they fall as steppingstones for the next wave of recruits.
Beyond equipment and ammunition, Putin wants Xi to support his narrative justifying Russia’s invasion of its neighbor. In his mind, simply standing on a stage alongside the leader of the autocratic world would provide him some much-needed cover with the Global South. While the US, EU, NATO and many Western-oriented Asian nations (including Australia, Japan and South Korea) are in strong alignment against Putin, there is still a big swing vote out there playing the middle. India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria and many other nations are ambivalent about the level of criminality in Russia’s behavior. Putin would love the strongest endorsement he can muster from President Xi to influence the undecided column.
Xi will go into the meeting with a very different agenda.
Having completed his trifecta over the past months to solidify his control over the military (he occasionally appears in uniform as the commander-in-chief of the PLA); over the party (at the 20th party congress in October); and over the presidency this month, he is now firmly ensconced as the great helmsman of today’s China. In the pantheon of post-World War II Chinese leadership he rivals — and may ultimately surpass — Mao Zedong.
We should remember that Xi is a patient, thoughtful and strategic man. After his family fell out of power during the cultural revolution, he spent years on a collective farm before finally being readmitted to the Chinese Communist Party. He is unlikely to fully “throw down” with the impulsive Putin, who operates more on neuroses than logic. Xi is the opposite, and what he wants from the meeting is to continue to play a thoughtful hand of cards to the advantage of China.
First, he wants to further the increasingly unbalanced power arrangement between China and Russia. Putin has done a great deal to ensure Russia will become a junior partner to China, which covets Moscow’s oil, natural gas, timber and minerals. Putin is, at times, a clever tactician (as befits a former intelligence operative), but he is a lousy strategist. China will take significant discounts on Russian oil and gas, seek a rewiring of the global energy system to make itself the principal customer (at cheap prices), and thus lift the Chinese economy — Xi’s main goal.
President Xi will also seek to restrain any notion that Putin might use a tactical nuclear weapon. He will probably tell Putin privately but very forcibly that such a choice would instantly drive the Global South away from cooperating or even trading with a Russia under Putin. Xi wants a functioning global economy, with all the advantages he can garner for Beijing. Detonating a nuclear device is a huge destabilizing move.
He will also push the Chinese 12-point peace plan for Ukraine as a basis for negotiations and probably provide Putin assurances that he won’t support a return to pre-2014 borders — meaning Russia would continue to control Crimea and a slender land bridge from there to Russia proper. Putin may pay lip service to that idea — at least to create a tactical pause in operations that he could exploit by obtaining more arms and munitions from China, Iran and North Korea.
Ultimately, it will be a meeting between a clever-but-failing tactician with poor strategic judgment and limited opportunity, and a long-range thinker unwilling to join in the tactical fever dreams of an embattled subordinate. Xi may offer token diplomatic support and even some minor military aid, but he’s too smart to be drawn into an obviously failing enterprise. The smart play would be for Xi to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy from Moscow or soon thereafter. Western leaders should quietly encourage him to think in those terms. China may be too big to fail, but Putin’s Russia is not — and Beijing must realize that reality.