Ukraine war mega thread

[bsnub]

^
Good video and it is spot on.

IZIUM AXIS /1500 UTC 5 OCT/ UKR reported to be close to interdicting the important P-66 and H-26 HWYs. Interdiction of P-66 HWY would make RU positions at Kremenna unviable. RU Lines of Communication and Supply (LOCS) under UKR artillery fire. Ukrainan SOF and Partisans active.

[bsnub]

KHERSON/1250 UTC 5 OCT/ Partisan reports indicate that RU units are being deployed to establish a new defensive line NW of Mylove. Initial reports indicate that RU forces have withdrawn HQ and Command, Control and Communication (C3) assets from Snihurivka.

[panama hat]

Jaysus . . . this is grim. It'd be almost as bad if the TeakDoor contributors were to be drafted

[Shutree]

It'd be almost as bad if the TeakDoor contributors were to be drafted

Oi! Don't go giving Putin any ideas.

[misskit]

Putin’s Dueling Foot Soldiers Are Now Apparently Killing Each Other Off

While Ukraine’s military has been successfully chasing Russian troops out of one territory after another, Vladimir Putin’s foot soldiers have apparently been turning their weapons on each other as the Russian leader’s “special military operation” continues to come apart at the seams in spectacular fashion.


The Kremlin’s flailing bid to get an edge on the battlefield by deploying mercenaries from the Wagner Group—which now includes hundreds of prison inmates—has reportedly backfired as the private military force butts heads with the Russian military.

The growing conflict resulted in a Wagner fighter gunning down a lieutenant colonel in the Russian army—a deadly episode of “friendly fire” that the Kremlin is said to be trying to sweep under the rug, according to the human rights group Gulagu.net.


“They are trying to hush up the incident and prevent publicity. And this is not the first emergency of its kind,” the group quoted a source as telling the Gulagu.net hotline.


The incident was also reported by two other Russian Telegram channels, though no details were provided on when or where the shooting is said to have taken place.

The alleged shooting is not the only recent instance of infighting between Russian troops.


Earlier this week, a mass brawl broke out between newly drafted Russian troops and contract soldiers at a military base outside Moscow, Baza reported. Nearly two dozen contract soldiers are said to have taken a beating from the draftees and were rescued after locking themselves in a separate room and phoning police for help. The fight reportedly erupted after some of the contract soldiers demanded the newly arrived draftees hand over their mobile phones and gear.


The tumult seen between the troops has also visibly carried over to Russia’s wider information space, with pro-Kremlin military bloggers getting increasingly outspoken in their criticisms of top military command and Putin’s more radical allies publicly deriding those in charge of the war.


“The controversies surrounding the poorly executed partial mobilization, coupled with significant Russian defeats in Kharkiv Oblast and around Lyman, have intensified infighting between pro-Putin Russian nationalist factions and are creating new fractures among voices who speak to Putin’s core constituencies,” the Institute for the Study of War wrote in its Tuesday assessment.


Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, one of the most vocal critics of the Russian Defense Ministry’s approach in recent days, announced Wednesday that “kind and beloved” Putin “personally” notified him he was being promoted to the rank of colonel general, a move that may be seen by some as a signal the Russian president is siding with hardliners like Kadyrov over his own defense officials.


Yevgeny Prigozhin, the puppetmaster behind the Wagner Group, has also emerged with that camp, echoing Kadyrov’s complaints about the Russian military after a humiliating retreat from Lyman over the weekend.


Sources close to the Kremlin told Meduza the Russian leader is reluctant to chastise them for shit-talking the military command because he considers both the Wagner mercenaries and Chechen battalions “effective” in the war.

“Putin now finds himself in a dilemma. He cannot risk alienating the Kadyrov-Prigozhin camp, as he desperately needs Kadyrov’s Chechen forces and Prigozhin’s Wagner Group mercenaries to fight in Ukraine. Nor can he disenfranchise the MoD establishment, which provides the overwhelming majority of Russian military power in Ukraine and the institutional underpinnings needed to carry out the mobilization order and continue the war,” the ISW wrote.


After a series of catastrophic battlefield losses, Putin is now “interested in alternative methods of warfare” and those who offer them, one source told Meduza.


The very public discord between warring groups close to Putin has exposed glaring cracks in the Russian president’s war machine, even as Ukraine’s military plows ahead with a stunning counteroffensive to take back the country’s land. Ukraine reclaimed eight new villages in the Kherson region as of Tuesday night, President Volodymyr Zelensky said, and several others in Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk—territories that Putin, just days earlier, had proudly claimed were now part of Russia.


Asked on Wednesday to explain how Russia can claim territory from which its own troops retreated, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov offered an unconvincing response: “There’s no kind of contradiction in this. [The territories] will be with Russia forever, they will be returned.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/vladim...r-off?ref=home

[panama hat]

Putin now finds himself in a dilemma

Hmm . . . what could he have done to avoid that . . . Oh, not invade a sovereign country that didn't pose a threat.

[OhOh]

5 Oct, 2022 15:34 HomeRussia & Former Soviet Union

French spies deployed in Ukraine – Le Figaro

Among other things, the agents process satellite imagery provided by France to Ukraine.

Dozens of French operatives from the Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) have been deployed to Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev, Le Figaro newspaper has reported, citing an intelligence source.

The source told the newspaper’s senior international correspondent Georges Malbrunot that “about fifty men from the DGSE Action Service have been deployed in Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion.” The agents are performing different tasks in the country, among these being processing satellite imagery provided by Paris to Kiev, Malbrunot added.

The spies are also working with “certain material” provided to Ukraine, “probably” including French-made Ceasar self-propelled howitzers, Le Figaro also reported"

French spies deployed in Ukraine – Le Figaro — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

2 Oct, 2022 09:53 HomeRussia & FSU

NATO in the horns of a dilemma after former Ukrainian regions vote to join Russia

Moscow is flipping the bloc's script by moving to absorb Kiev's lost lands, thus switching the fight to its own turf

2 Oct, 2022 09:53 HomeRussia & FSU

NATO in the horns of a dilemma after former Ukrainian regions vote to join Russia

Moscow is flipping the bloc's script by moving to absorb Kiev's lost lands, thus switching the fight to its own turf


Scott Ritter:

"By infusing tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military aid into Ukraine, NATO produced a “game-changing” dynamic designed to throw Russia off balance. By undertaking the referendums in Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk, Russia changed the game altogether.

The ancient Greeks spoke of lemma as representing a logical premise, a matter taken for granted. This contrasted with a dilemma, or “dual premise”, where one would be presented with an either/or proposition. The Romans furthered this notion, referring to a “double premise” as argumentum cornutum, of the “horned argument,” because by answering one argument, an individual would be impaled by the logic of the second. Thus are the ancient roots of the modern idiom, “on the horns of a dilemma.”

This is the ultimate objective of maneuver warfare, for example: to position your forces in such a manner as to present the enemy with no good option – should they react to one pressing threat, they would find themselves overwhelmed by the other.

The Russian military operation that has been underway in Ukraine for more than seven months now has provided ample examples of the military forces of both sides being confronted with a situation that compelled them to alter their preferred course of action; the Russian “diversion” against Kiev early on in the SMO prevented the Ukrainians from reinforcing their forces in eastern Ukraine, and the recently concluded Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkov compelled a hasty Russian withdrawal from a significant swath of previously occupied Ukrainian territory.

Both examples cited presented one side with a lemma, or a single problem, which needed to be addressed. But neither was able to put its opponent “on the horns of a dilemma,” forcing a response which would result in impalement regardless of the option chosen. The reason for this is simple – very rarely will competent military commanders allow themselves to be presented with a military problem for which there is no viable response. War, it seems, is hard work, and dilemmas don’t fall from trees.

Or do they? Ever since Boris Johnston flew to Kiev in April to convince Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to pull out of peace talks then ongoing with Russia in the Turkish city of Istanbul, NATO has embarked on a program designed to provide Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in military and financial assistance, including the transfer of modern heavy weapons and the use of facilities on Western soil where tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops could be trained and organized without fear of Russian intervention.

The purpose behind the NATO infusion of weaponry into Ukraine was straightforward – to empower Ukraine to not only lengthen the conflict, but also to undertake offensive military operations designed to evict Russia from what Kiev and its backers consider occupied Ukrainian territory, including the Donbass and Crimea. The counteroffensive in Kharkov in early September underscored the serious consequences of NATO’s actions – even though, given the massive loss of life and material suffered by the attacking Ukrainian forces, made the Kharkov victory Pyrrhic in nature, it was a Ukrainian victory, and one which compelled a Russian retreat.

By transforming the Ukrainian army into a NATO army which was manned by Ukrainians, the US-led bloc had, in fact, changed the nature of the game from a straightforward Russia-versus-Ukraine “special military operation” into a “Russia-versus-the collective West” struggle where the military resources originally allocated by Moscow to the fight were now insufficient to the task.

Russia, however, was not taking the game-changing actions of NATO standing still. Responding to the new reality on the ground in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin opted not to simply up the ante in this new NATO-driven game of increasing military power but change the game altogether. Not only did he order the partial mobilization of some 300,000 Russian reservists to reinforce the troops currently committed to the SMO, Putin also approved referendums in the four territories where Russian forces are presently fighting – Kherson and Zaporozhye (formerly occupied Ukrainian regions), and Donetsk and Lugansk (former regions of Ukraine, de-facto independent since 2014). These referendums asked the citizens of these four territories one simple question: do you wish to become part of Russia?

After five days of voting, the results from all four territories were clear – by an overwhelming majority, the participants in the referendums approved the proposition. Shortly thereafter, they were incorporated into the Russian Federation. What was once Ukraine has now become Mother Russia.

Russia didn’t just change the rules of the game – it changed the game itself. Instead of Ukrainian forces fighting Russian forces on the territory of Ukraine, any future combat carried out by Ukraine against Russian forces would represent an attack on the Russian homeland itself.

Where does this leave NATO? The bloc's leadership has made it clear from day one that it is not seeking direct confrontation with Russia. While its members have poured in tens of billions of dollars of material into Ukraine to help reconstitute its military, and provided critical logistics, intelligence, and communications support to Ukraine, it has repeatedly and insistently stated that it has no desire to fight a war with Russia directly and has made it clear that it would rather have the Ukrainians serve as a de facto NATO proxy in resisting Moscow.

NATO has gone “all in” both economically and politically when it comes to supporting Ukraine, to the extent that some of its members, having stripped their respective military structures of equipment and material, have nothing left to give. Despite this, European political and economic elites continue to articulate their strong support for Ukraine going forward.

This support, however, was predicated on the fundamental assumption that by providing Ukraine with this massive level of support, NATO would not get directly involved in a conflict with Moscow. But Russia, by transforming the battleground from one being fought on Ukrainian soil to one where it's now defending its own land, has flipped the script.

NATO, having overcommitted to Ukraine, now finds itself “on the horns of a dilemma” – if it continues to provide massive material and financial support to Ukraine, it will, in effect, become a direct party to the conflict, something no one in the bloc wants. However, if it backs away from supporting Ukraine, the various Western political leaders and institutions which have made support for Kiev a sacred obligation will be seen as going back on their word.

How NATO opts to proceed has yet to be manifest, but indications are that it will not be in a manner which continues to double down on supporting Ukraine no matter what. Secretary General Stoltenberg’s tepid speech condemning Russia while showing no enthusiasm for Zelensky’s “accelerated application” for membership is indicative of the less-than-resolute nature of its support for Kiev.

NATO now will find its role diminished by the consequences of the Russian mobilization and referendums. Years from now, when the history of the conflict is finally written, the decision by President Putin to simultaneously mobilize the Russian reserves while absorbing the territory of southern and eastern Ukraine into the Russian Federation will serve as one of the premier modern-history examples of putting an adversary “on the horns of a dilemma.”

The effective neutering of NATO by this action will more than likely be seen as a turning point in the conflict, one which sealed the fate of Ukraine in the face of an inevitable Russian victory."

NATO in the horns of a dilemma after former Ukrainian regions vote to join Russia — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

[Shutree]

NATO, having overcommitted to Ukraine, now finds itself “on the horns of a dilemma”

Not really. Steady as she goes. All these weak attempts to create cracks in the alliance aren't working.

[bsnub]

NATO in the horns of a dilemma after former Ukrainian regions vote to join Russia

There is no dilemma, the Ukrainians are kicking the Russians teeth in at the moment. Kherson is going to fall soon.

[sabang]

Cannot join either Nato or EU if you do not have established national borders.

[Shutree]

established national borders.

They were established and agreed back in 1994.

[bsnub]

Cannot join either Nato or EU if you do not have established national borders.

The borders will be restored to what they were in 1991 and Russia is going to do fuck all about it as Putin is having his ass handed to him on a plate.

[Shutree]

Russia redeploys personnel from Crimea

Ukraine’s deputy chief of military intelligence, Vadym Skibitskiy, told the news website Krym.Realii that Russia had redeployed Black Sea Fleet service personnel from the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea to Novorossiysk, southern Russia, to avoid casualties, after a series of explosions.

Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, has acted as a staging area for Russian personnel and equipment, supporting the invasion of Kherson and Zaporizhia in the early days of the war.

Ukraine has made clear it wants the peninsula back and has made devastating use of 16 US-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) in its September counteroffensives.

On October 1, a lend-lease facility that speeds up the supply of US weapons came into force, and in two separate announcements, the US Department of Defense said it is sending Ukraine 22 new HIMARS rocket launchers and ammunition.



From a longer news piece at:
Ukraine takes swaths of territory, despite Russia’s mobilisation | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera

[misskit]

Mobilized Russian Soldiers Protest Over Animal Conditions

Recently mobilized Russian soldiers are decrying "inhumane" conditions, weapons shortages and mistreatment by officers, according to video published by the independent news website The Insider on Wednesday.


Footage of new recruits sleeping on the floor, being armed with outdated rifles and ordered to source their own supplies appeared almost immediately after President Vladimir Putin announced a “partial” mobilization last month.


Around 500 troops gathered in western Russia’s Belgorod region near the Ukrainian border with no training and no knowledge of where they were being deployed, the latest video’s authors said.


“Nobody needs us,” a voice behind the camera, flanked by uniformed soldiers on a train platform, can be heard saying.

“We’ve lived in animal conditions for a week,” the voice said, adding that the soldiers had received no material support or financial compensation since being called up.


“We’ve spent an absurd amount of money just to feed ourselves, not to mention on ammunition.”


The Insider reported earlier that the soldiers’ wives were forced to spend as much as $2,500 on equipping their husbands. A website set up to answer questions on mobilization states that requiring soldiers to buy their own equipment is illegal. The same website encourages soldiers to bring their own night vision goggles and drones to the battlefield.


It was not clear where the mobilized soldiers depicted in the video were ultimately deployed.


Yury Shvytkin, deputy chairman of the State Duma's Defense Committee, said Thursday that he had asked the military prosecutor's office and the Investigative Committee to investigate the incident.


Western military analysts have predicted that the Kremlin’s rush to deploy new recruits to the frontlines would result in high death rates, troop unreliability and low morale.


Several recruits were reported to have died before deployment.

Ukraine War: As It's Happening - The Moscow Times


VIDEO https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/10/06/nobody-needs-us

[misskit]

Social Media Joke About Annexing Kaliningrad Goes Viral

A joke on social media proposing that Czechs seize the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad has gone viral, sparking mirth as well as anger from those taking it as real.


"Time to split Kaliningrad so that our Czech brothers have access to the sea," a Pole identifying himself as "Papiez internetu" (pope of the internet) tweeted last month.


He added a map of the small exclave encircled by Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea, dividing it into a Polish and Czech part.


The capital of the enclave was founded in the 13th century by Teutonic knights and named Königsberg (King's Hill) in honor of then-Czech King Premysl Otakar II.


The area belonged to Germany until 1945 when it was ceded to Russia as compensation after World War II.


Inspired by the annexation of four Ukrainian regions by Russia last week, the tweet sparked a storm of memes and jokes in the Czech Republic and Poland alike.


"Make Kaliningrad Czech Again!" read an appeal inviting Czechs to a happening outside the Russian embassy in Prague next Monday.


Polish Twitter user Tomasz Komentasz depicted an aircraft carrier named "Karel Gott" after a late Czech singer as it "leaves the Kaliningrad base for the Baltic Sea waters."


A viral meme portrays Russian President Vladimir Putin, looking relaxed on the phone, saying: "What is the situation in Kaliningrad?"


In the next picture, he looks alarmed, exclaiming: "What do you mean, ahoj?" — "ahoj" being Czech for "hello."


Some have proposed an underground line connecting the second Czech city of Brno, Warsaw and Kaliningrad.


Others are planning "Beer Stream II" connecting Prague and Kaliningrad, in reference to the Nord Stream gas pipeline and the Czechs' favorite drink.


Czech politician Tomas Zdechovsky, a European Parliament deputy, gave the joke a boost when he shared it on Twitter — but the decision did not go down well in Russia.


The EurAsia Daily news site slammed him for his "revanchist" post, and it later called the authors of a mock petition for the annexation of Kaliningrad "provocateurs."


"Russians don't have much sense of humor," Zdechovsky quipped on Twitter.


The Czech Republic, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, has provided Ukraine with hefty humanitarian and military aid since it was invaded by Russia in February.

U.S. Flies Russian Cosmonaut to ISS Despite Ukraine War - The Moscow Times

[OhOh]

Not really. Steady as she goes. All these weak attempts to create cracks in the alliance aren't working.

You are not recognising the game has now changed.

My humble opinion.

The SMO .

PHASE 1:

Take back the areas of the republics who requested assistance. Plus strategic Ukrainian assets - nuclear power plants, cities of strategic importance - Mariupol (deny Ukraine access to the Sea of Azove ), Kherson (road and rail access to Crimea)

Utilise a Russian military force equal to the task existing in area Ukraine troops, along with the indigenous republic's military, IMO, generally successful. Their slow advance limiting their losses of soldiers, equipment and civilian injuries, whilst destroying Ukraine's best soldiers and equipment.

The originally deployed Ukraine military and foreign assets, attacking the republic's lands and the routes to Crimea, were defeated. Loosing land, soldiers and equipment.

Concurrently discussing with the Ukraine government a peaceful settlement.

PHASE 2:

The 16% introduced military soldiers, equipment and sanctions.

Russian continued to defeat the Ukraine forces and now the 16% military. Withstood the sanctions imposed and retaliated with their own sanctions - energy only delivered to Europe after payments in roubles, etc. Selling additional energy to "friendly countries". Ensuring the 84% of the world were visited and gained political support, and Russia's actions were thoroughly understood.

More military assets introduce, Russian Chechens and contractors.

Again IMO, generally successful.

PHASE 3:

The 16% impose a no "peaceful settlement" ban on Ukraine's government.

The 16% increase military supplies, management/training of Ukraine military forces, introduces more rebadged military forces. More 16% sanctions imposed on Russia, today the 8th EU package was announced. NaGastan government threats to Russian security increase.

The Russian sanctions intensify, unrest expands in EU and NaGastan civilians.

Russia instigates a partial military call-up of Russian citizens. Training begins.

The Russians determine the time is right for referenda to take place. The referenda deliver an overwhelming choice to join Russia.

The Russian government votes for their acceptance and the legal documents signed and published.

The Russian government, again announces peace talks with the 16% government leaders, with no public announcement in return from them.

Just more belligerent actions. Expanding NATO, sabotaging civilian assets, more military weapons, more sanctions, more attacks on Russian civilians ....

The Russian SMO is complete.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia's new game has been offered.

Russia announces it will protect its country from foreign attacks.

This will involve retaliation if the 16% attacks on Russia citizens continue. No geographical area or country appear to have been announced.

No limits, except, no first use of nuclear armed weapons by Russia, have been ruled out.

Military, Financial and diplomatic are on Russia's table.

The ball is currently in the 16%'s hands.

The world is waiting to hear their peaceful response.

Here is Joshua's:



"How about a nice game of chess"

[OhOh]

Alternatively a video.

[OhOh]

The buffet continues, up next:

Ukraine’s revenge on the West

As the balance of power shifts again in Ukraine, its reverberations will impact the very unity of the EU project

By MK Bhadrakumar

October 05 2022

"Vector politics in Ukraine has added new dimensions to the 222 day-old conflict.

Typically, any conflict behavior should end when a new balance of powers has been determined. But the ‘balancing of powers’ will not end until a balance is actually achieved – and evidence abounds that Ukraine is about to enter yet another ‘re-balancing.’

Russian Duma’s ratification of the annexation of four regions of Ukraine (Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, as well as the Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions), and the adoption of the relevant laws thereof, creates a new dynamic and will take some time to create a new balance of forces on the ground within Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the external environment is also phenomenally transforming. The deepening energy crisis in Europe following the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines becomes a serious contradiction. There is no knowing how it can be reconciled.

Thus, a complex situation presents itself, as all this is also happening against the backdrop of a massive Russian military build-up around Ukraine in the Kharkov region and in the southern Black Sea region, with long convoys of armor reportedly heading toward Crimea from Russia.

Russia’s new borders

The Duma’s unanimous ratification of the accession of four regions to Russia on Monday was to be expected, the relevant legislation was duly ratified on Tuesday by the Federation Council (the upper house of the parliament), and possibly, President Putin too will sign off on the documents today, following which it will come into force. That is to say, as of October 5, the annexed Ukrainian regions will have become part of Russia.

Importantly, the Duma has approved the government’s proposals on the establishment of the new regions’ borders, based on the delimitation of territories which “existed on the day of their establishment and accession to Russia.”

The relevant treaties outline that the borders adjacent to the territory of a foreign country will be Russia’s new state border. Plainly put, the old boundaries of the Soviet era are being restored in those regions.

The determination of the Russian state boundaries has security implications. In the Donbass and Zaporozhye Regions, there are vast areas that still remain under the control of the Ukrainian forces. Liman city in Donetsk Republic was captured by the Ukrainian forces only three days ago. The Ukrainian incursions into Kherson continue. Heavy fighting is reported.

Evidently, much unfinished business remains for Moscow to bring under control the “occupied” territories that previously formed part of Donetsk and Lugansk. The Zaporozhye Region (which also happens to be an important littoral region on the Azov Sea and forms a part of what Russians historically call “Novorossiya”), is another priority where the capital city of the oblast itself is not yet under Russian control.

‘Nyet’ from NATO

In the emergent situation, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky formally applied for Ukraine’s NATO membership on an expeditious basis, but within hours, the alliance poured cold water on that request, explaining that any decision will require support from all 30 member states.
It signals that there isn’t going to be any NATO intervention in Ukraine. Moscow will take note. The recent “loud thinking” about the use of nuclear weapons seems to have served its purpose.

The US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s meeting with the head of Ukraine’s presidential office Andriy Yermak in Istanbul on Sunday was a low-key affair. The White House said Sullivan pledged Washington’s steadfast support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and discussed with Yermak the situation at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant and Ukraine’s continued work with the United Nations to export food to the world.
The White House readout on President Joe Biden’s call with Zelensky on Monday mentioned a new $625 million security assistance package by Washington that includes additional weapons and equipment, including HIMARS, artillery systems and ammunition, and armored vehicles. Biden “pledged to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends itself from Russian aggression for as long as it takes.”

Later, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the recent aid delivery would bring the overall cost of US military aid to Ukraine to more than $17.5 billion. “Recent developments… only strengthens our resolve,” Blinken said in a statement on Tuesday. “We will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine.”

“The capabilities we are delivering are carefully calibrated to make the most difference on the battlefield and strengthen Ukraine’s hand at the negotiating table when the time is right,” he added.

Revamping Russia’s strategy

On the other hand, the Russian military command will probably have to reset the parameters of the special military operations, since its forces will henceforth be safeguarding the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. What form its takes remains to be seen.
So far, the actual Russian deployment has been less than 100,000 troops. Most of the fighting was done by the militia groups such as fighters from Donbass and Chechnya and the Wagner Group of ex-special services personnel and other volunteers from Russia.

Certainly, the induction of 300,000 troops with previous military experience will impact the overall military balance to Russia’s advantage. Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has said that another 70,000 men have also volunteered, which will put the total strength of the additional forces at around 370,000.
Now, that is a huge increase. To get a sense of proportions, at the peak of the Vietnam War, the US deployment stood at around half a million troops. For the first time, Russia will have vast numerical superiority over Ukrainian forces. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that the old pattern of “grinding” the Ukrainian forces may change and the objective will be to end the war quickly and decisively.

The US decision to set up a command centre outside Ukraine (in Germany) seems to anticipate Russian attacks on command centres in Kiev and elsewhere with much bigger use of airpower, as in Syria. In fact, the new commander of the Western Military District Lt. Gen. Roman Berdnikov previously led the Russian intervention in Syria.

Military experts anticipate that once autumn rains give way to the winter and the ground hardens, the Russian operations will intensify. Voices of dissent are heard lately within Russia that the war is meandering with no timeline as such. This may change.

Plainly put, the point of no return is fast approaching from where Russia will have no alternative but to push for a regime change in Kiev and pave the way for an altogether new Ukrainian leadership that shakes off the vice-like Anglo-American grip, and is willing to settle with Russia.

A Kafkaesque moment

Unsurprisingly though, the attention in Europe is turning more and more towards the economic crisis with looming double-digit inflation and recession, which can lead to social unrest and political turmoil all across the continent. The growing public discontent is turning into protests in many European countries already. The crisis can only deepen once winter sets in.

Conceivably, the shift in the popular mood may prompt the European governments to concentrate on their domestic issues rather than dabble in the Ukraine war. The most ardent votary of open-ended war with Russia is Britain, but even London is caught up in massive economic (and political) crises of its own. Prime Minister Liz Truss is fighting for political survival. The Conservatives have practically forfeited their mandate to rule.

Germany’s predicament

Again, the centre-right Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union opposition bloc in the German Bundestag stalled a motion urging the government to “immediately” allow the export of German battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. Politico reported that “A vote on weapons deliveries in the Bundestag would have risked revealing fatal cracks in the government unity and could even have led to a defeat of (Chancellor Olaf) Scholz in parliament.”

On the other hand, the German government also faces mounting pressure from the Eastern European allies in recent weeks to drastically increase the scale and type of Berlin’s military support to Ukraine.
The influential Foreign Policy magazine in Washington wrote last week, “In the eyes of Berlin’s NATO allies in Eastern Europe, particularly the countries that border Russia, Germany, the economic and political power centre of Europe, isn’t doing nearly enough. And the longer it delays, the more it risks a long-term diplomatic fracture with those allies in the East.”

But despite this pressure tactic, polls show that while some 70 percent of Germans are supportive of Ukraine generally, only 35 percent endorse stronger military support.
In this situation, the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline dovetails into the energy crisis in Europe and threatens European countries with “de-industrialization.”

For Germany, in particular, the country’s economic model is riveted on the availability of abundant gas supplies from Russia, per long-term contracts, at cheap prices, through pipelines. Clearly, the sabotage of the Nord Stream has monumental implications.

To be sure, whoever perpetrated that terrorist attack calculated shrewdly that Russian gas should not flow to Europe for the foreseeable future. The perennial fear in Washington is that a German-Russian proximity may develop if energy ties are restored. Besides, today, US oil companies are having a huge windfall of profits in the European energy market, replacing Russia, by selling LNG at five to six times the US domestic price.

Preventing Russian-German reconciliation

What complicates matters is that Europe needs energy security in the short and medium term without also wrecking climate targets. It means heightened geopolitical sensitivity. The point is, Europe’s orderly energy transition away from fossil fuels critically needs Russian gas and was built on the earlier assumption that there would be cheap and plentiful natural gas.
Arguably, Moscow kept hoping that Nord Stream would eventually be a catalyst to heal the rupture in German-Russian energy ties. Interestingly, on Monday, Russian energy giant Gazprom proposed to European gas customers that part of the damaged Nord Stream network could still transport fuel — but only on the newly constructed Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 1 is virtually destroyed.

A Gazprom statement in its Telegram account said that one of the three lines of the Nord Stream 2 remains unaffected and the gas giant has lowered the pressure to inspect the link for damage and potential leaks. Nord Stream 2 has a shipment capacity of 55 billion cubic meters per year, which means its line B could deliver as much as 27.5 billion cubic meters per year to Germany across the Baltic Sea.

However, the Nord Stream 2 requires EU approval, which is problematic given the tensions between Brussels and Moscow. These tensions may only increase if the EU approves the US-led decision by the G7 countries to impose a price cap on Russian oil.
Most certainly, that is also Washington’s calculus — pin down Germany and keep Russia out. The spectre that haunts Washington is that Berlin may lose interest in the Ukraine war. The ascendancy of the Atlanticists in the echelons of power in Berlin in the most recent years – and their nexus with the virulently Russophobic EU bureaucrats in Brussels – has so far worked splendidly in Washington’s favor.

The EU is effectively over

But the ground beneath the feet is shifting, as the dramatic turn in Sweden and Italy’s politics has shown.

Do not underestimate the “Meloni effect.” The heart of the matter is that the far-right forces invariably have more to offer to the electorate in times of insecurity and economic hardship.

In France too, President Macron is immobilized, lacking a parliamentary majority to legislate, and is being worn down by serial crises. As for Britain, the financial crisis triggered by the Chancellor of Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng’s budget highlights fundamentally the scarcity of feasible alternative economic models. Sterling is in free fall. Two consecutive Tory administrations failed to come up with a post-Brexit model, while Labour never wanted Brexit. The Truss government is the last chance to get Brexit really done, but no-one is holding their breath. And then, the Deluge — events will intrude.

What all this means is that the three main power centers within the Eurozone and Britain are finding it hard to escape the old, dying industrial world of the 20th century and this is not the best of time to take on the half-million strong Russian allied forces in Ukraine, the Biden Administration’s bravado notwithstanding.

Do not lend credence to the inaugural summit of the European Political Community (EPC) in Prague on Wednesday bringing together the leaders of 27 EU member states and up to 17 non-EU countries – namely, the UK, Turkey, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Israel.

The plain truth is that the European integration project is over and done with. Any attempt to impose it will produce severe backlash. Looking back, therefore, the rupture with Russia has ushered in a new geopolitical landscape in Europe where Brussels’ conundrum regarding EU expansion stands exposed. The EPC is nothing but a disguised French ploy to slow down actual EU membership for countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

The EPC summit at the Prague Castle only serves to highlight that this is a Kafkaesque moment in European politics.

This must be Ukraine’s revenge on Europe for staging such a cynical, violent coup in 2014 to cut its umbilical cord with Russia."

Ukraine’s revenge on the West

[misskit]

This Video Of Russians Surrendering To Ukrainian Troops Is Intense


This increasingly common scene is likely to be repeated even more frequently as thousands of Russian conscripts deploy to Ukraine.

Powerful footage of Russians surrendering to Ukrainian forces in Kherson Oblast is among the latest in a slew of photos and videos now emerging on social media documenting the counteroffensive that’s underway in the region. While the surrender was described as ‘prearranged,' Ukrainian forces took no chances in approaching their soon-to-be prisoners.


In the clips, a unit of Ukrainian soldiers can be seen positioned along a short stretch of a dirt road in the Kherson Oblast countryside. A Russian BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) then approaches the unit with a telltale white piece of fabric tied to the IFV’s turret, signaling the surrender.

A Russian soldier standing inside the IFV’s open roof hatch from the moment the vehicle arrives can also be seen waving a white flag. The Ukrainian unit then approaches the vehicle with their guns drawn and commands the Russian soldiers to exit the IFV and lie on the ground.


One Ukrainian soldier then begins searching the conceding Russians for weapons while the others observe or keep watch of the surrounding area. The footage continues with the Ukrainian soldier that's doing the searching flipping the Russian onto his back, and the men are then detained and the scene is secured. In one part of the last clip, an unmistakable weathered 'Z' marking is seen on the BMP, which was also supposedly handed over in the surrender.


Some have posited that the video is staged or is a training event of some kind, but there is no evidence to support that being the case at this time.

These surrenders are reportedly becoming commonplace, especially since Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his mobilization decree on September 21, which effectively drafted around 300,000 reservists to fight in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. This mass conscription has led to protests, widespread fleeing, and upheaval among Russian citizens, namely from those now being forced to join the war. The fact that Russia is falling behind on all fronts with rapid losses of occupied territory almost daily has only deepened the resentment among many draftees.


Conscripts drafted as part of the mobilization order are supposed to first undergo the necessary military training before being deployed, but there have been reports that some draftees are instead being sent directly to the front with little to no guidance and without the proper equipment and supplies. All told, the way that Moscow has handled the mobilization has ostensibly set the conditions for an indignant infantry.


Surrenders have reportedly become so numerous since the mobilization, in fact, that a special hotline called ‘I Want to Live’ established by the Ukrainian government has been ringing off the hook. Russian soldiers can call I Want to Live and arrange their surrender through an application process that is supported by the Geneva Convention, and an article published by The Kyiv Post revealed that even Russian soldiers who hadn’t been drafted are making these calls.


I Want to Live even offers a bounty for relinquishing intact armored vehicles, as the Russian unit did in the video. While it is unclear if the Russian soldiers in this particular clip were informed of the surrendering process with help from I Want to Live specifically, it by all accounts appears to have been expertly handled nonetheless. With massive losses on the battlefield by Russian forces, and as Ukrainian forces push deeper into Russian-held territory, they will be tasked with conducting increasingly more of these surrender operations in the coming weeks.

The city of Kherson especially, where the video in question was reportedly filmed, has been the location of a significant breakthrough by Ukrainian forces over the past few days, achieving the liberation of numerous small villages that lead into the heart of the city. With all nearby bridges across the Dnipro river out of action, Russian forces could find themselves trapped on the northern side of the river, which could lead to massive surrenders and huge gains in commandeered equipment.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other local officials have implored Russian troops to surrender with promises to treat them well in accordance with international law. Ukrainian forces are also acutely aware that anyone who surrenders is now someone they no longer have to fight and will only help lead to the collapse of Russia's already beleaguered fighting forces.

There is, however, the question of whether or not taking in these prisoners of war and managing them will become difficult for Ukrainians as the conflict goes on. Kyiv has made a lot of promises in regard to how these surrenderees will be treated under Ukrainian control, and while respectable, giving Russian soldiers housing, food, and protection could later prove to be a lot to ask of the battle-weary country, especially if there is a large-scale surrender by Russian units. But, if they can uphold the surrender process' reputation of being positive and dignified, it will only hasten Russia's defeat.


Arguably, some of these soldiers will be shown greater respect than what Russia showed them after pulling them out of their daily lives and thrusting them totally unprepared into a war the invading country is losing.


Videos. This Video Of Russians Surrendering To Ukrainian Troops Is Intense

[misskit]

Russian conscripts buy their own gear and essential medications. The government will not reimburse them.

Russians conscripted during mobilization are forced to buy their own military gear, since the army does not supply even the basics they will need when sent to the front. The Russian government website “We Explain,” set up to answer questions about current laws and regulations, has posted an article, which says that conscripts should not expect reimbursement for their expenses.


The article was a reply to the question: “Will the conscript’s expenses for buying his own uniform and medications be compensated?” In reply, it was explained:


Those conscripted during the mobilization are given everything they need in order to perform their duties, including uniforms, gear, etc. For this reason, additional purchases of different elements of the uniform, gear, medications, etc., are the conscript’s personal initiative, and no compensation is planned for such expenses.

Since the start of Russia’s current mobilization, conscripts shared numerous stories of having to buy their own outdoor gear and essential medications. They also complained about their living conditions before dispatch to the front.


Relatives and volunteers are collecting the most basic necessities for the new servicemen. Some regional governments have promised to supply them with sleeping bags and warm clothes. In the annexed Crimea, conscripts will be given bulletproof vests, helmets, and communication devices. The federal government has let regional authorities buy gear and equipment for their mobilized residents.


On October 5, Andrey Kartapolov and Vasily Piskarev — heads of the State Duma committees for defense and security — appealed to Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov, asking him to sort out the situation with army supplies.

https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/06...reimburse-them

[misskit]

Fears in Europe grow over Putin nuke threats

VIENNA — Nuclear experts are warning that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to deploy a nuclear weapon in Ukraine has put the world at its most dangerous precipice of nuclear confrontation since the Cold War.


“The nuclear risk, is it as bad as during the Cold War? The answer is yes,” said Alexander Kmentt, director for disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation with the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“In the Cold War we had essentially two nuclear interests trying to deter one another. We have several potential nuclear flashpoints now. … The latest iteration of those risks, issued by Russia, are just completely beyond the pale.”


While U.S. officials have stressed they have yet to see Russian movements pointing to a nuclear escalation, Austrian officials provide a unique perspective on Putin’s Russia given the distinct space the country occupies.

While Austria is a member of the European Union and party to the sanctions placed on Russia, it has not provided any military support to Ukraine and the country is constitutionally bound to its position of neutrality.


This, in part, has prevented it from joining NATO even as traditionally neutral Finland and Sweden are on the brink of ascension to the organization.


Moscow and Vienna have long held strategic and deep economic ties. Austria serves as a major energy transit center for natural gas traveling from Russia to Europe, in particular to Italy. The country also gives reverence to the Soviet Union for helping Austria establish its independence after World War II.


In April, Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer became the first European leader to meet face-to-face with Putin after he ordered his military to invade Ukraine on Feb. 24.

The meeting failed to pull Putin back, however, and Austria has pushed the boundaries of its neutrality to more firmly join the international community in supporting Ukraine.
“We are for Ukraine,” said an Austrian diplomat, who declined to be named in order to speak candidly, but added that Vienna stands ready to host — however unlikely — de-escalation talks.


Emil Brix, who served as Austria’s ambassador to Russia from 2015 to 2017, said it is important for the international community to state clearly that any nuclear deployment by Putin would be completely unacceptable.


Brix, who said he has met Putin on numerous occasions, describes the Russian leader as someone who is well-informed in things that are “mainly strategically important to him,” who works hard to rationalize his every action but is “not open to many opinions.”


“He only understands strength,” Brix said, though he added that international condemnation may factor into Putin’s “rational thinking.”


Austria has long made nuclear disarmament a major foreign policy priority, and Kmentt, the nonproliferation official, said the goal is a radical change to the current paradigm — where mutually assured destruction was thought to be the best way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.


That risk now is immediately grave, suggesting the paradigm may no longer be workable.


Hard-line partners of Putin are calling for the use of “low-yield nuclear weapons,” as proposed by the head of Russia’s region of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. This suggests Putin’s threats may not be a bluff.


The debate around the potential use of a “tactical” or “low-grade” nuclear weapon is likely to lead to “all-out nuclear war,” Kmentt said.


“Nobody knows how you can contain escalation once this threshold is crossed,” he said.


U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper said on Tuesday that she had “nothing to corroborate” in response to a question on whether Russia is moving tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine’s border.


Kmentt credited the U.S., Europe and NATO for reinforcing unity, coordinating sanctions on Russia and working to rally global condemnation of Putin’s actions.


“You can also make the argument that what the West has been trying” to do is break the paradigm, Kmentt said, but that “we haven’t been as successful as we would have liked on that.”


Ksenyia Karchenko, a Ukrainian refugee in Austria, is putting fears of a Russian nuclear strike out of her mind. As a researcher working with the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, she is documenting Ukrainians’ lived experience during the war.


Ukraine is fighting for its survival, she explained, to finally put an end to Putin’s best attempts to destroy the country and calls for the world to stay united and not capitulate to the Russian leader’s threats.


“This is a huge, bloody history we’re sharing [with Russia], it is important for Ukrainians to have this final battle. There’s no other way for us but to win,” she s

Fears in Europe grow over Putin nuke threats | The Hill

[david44]

The capital of the enclave was founded in the 13th century by Teutonic knights and named Königsberg (King's Hill) in honor of then-Czech King Premysl Otakar II.

Dear MsKitt our ineffable newshound I admire your efforts but here you are Msinformed my ilk were in Twangste long before the old Prussians named it Kings Hill.

I don't expect everyone to be aware of the constant ebb and flow of Masurian swampies nor the sand spits of Memlland and Baltic folks but there it is.

As for Czechs, their modern state was founded the Czechoslovak republic post Versailles Trianon treaty imposed on the vanquished, Ottaker was a Bohemian

As wiki cites

"Königsberg (German: [ˈkøːnɪçsbɛʁk] (listen), lit. 'King's mountain') was the historic Prussian city that is now Kaliningrad, Russia. Königsberg was founded in 1255 on the site of the ancient Old Prussian settlement Twangste by the Teutonic Knights during the Northern Crusades, and was named in honour of King Ottokar II of Bohemia."

It is indeed an amusing canard reflecting the deep hatred and mistrust of Russia by those who recall being bombed invaded raped and enslaved by the comrades in living memory. I have recently returned from Eastern Europe ad Putin has undone 20 years of Helsinki accord goodwill and reconciliation.

The port of Gdansk adjacent has a rich history including Soldarnosc, The Tin Drum and many episodes that have changed world history including teh false flag a Westerplatte September 1st 1939

https://europeremembers.com/story/westerplatte/

[Joe 90]

Indeed David, I concur.
A salient point or two, beautifully orchestrated.

[sabang]

These Washington foreign policy elites are recklessly suggesting that Russia is a universal threat that requires absolute victory over evil.


Susan Glasser of the New Yorker, and Fiona Hill, late of President Trump’s National Security Council, believe that “we’re already fighting the Third World War with Russia,” though we don’t know it yet. This is folly. As Daniel Larison has remarked, if we’re fighting World War III, there’d be no doubt about it — we would probably already be dead.

America is indeed fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, as the Soviet Union fought a proxy war with the United States in Vietnam, and America fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. During the Cold War, however, both Soviet and American leaders were extremely careful to prevent such proxy wars from turning into direct war between the superpowers, bringing with it the imminent threat of mutual nuclear annihilation. They did this in part by eschewing proxy warfare on the continent of Europe, where the vital interests of the superpowers abutted each other in a way that was not true in most of Asia.

There were two occasions in which the United States came close to using nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The first was in Korea, when the U.S. Army appeared to be facing defeat on the ground and General MacArthur asked for the use of nuclear weapons against China. This was rightly refused by President Truman as the overwhelming majority of observers have concluded. The second was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place close to the very shores of the U.S. mainland and was averted by intense eleventh hour diplomacy. Both affected America and Americans directly in a way that the present war in Ukraine, for all its horrors, quite obviously does not.

In this context, we should take note of the great differences between the proxy wars of the past and the present war, as seen from Moscow. In the words of Dmitri Trenin, former director of the Carnegie Russia Center, comparing the present crisis to the Cuban Missile Crisis:

“On the surface the root cause of both confrontations has been acute feelings of insecurity created by the expansion of the rival power’s political influence and military presence right to the doorstep of one’s own country: Cuba then, Ukraine now.
This similarity, however, is almost as far as it goes. The salient feature of the Ukraine crisis is the vast asymmetry not only between the relevant capabilities of Russia and the United States, but even more importantly between the stakes involved. To the Kremlin, the issue is literally existential.”

One of the reasons why such irresponsible statements as those of Glasser and Hill are being publishedis precisely that there are so few people left who remember what World War II was like. In Russia, the Soviet leaders after Stalin had all served or (in the case of Gorbachev) had been children during the war. In America, most U.S. presidents until George W. Bush had served, and President Eisenhower had commanded. It is easy to imagine Ike’s incredulity had anyone told him that our present situation in any way resembles the war in which he fought.

But of course, if we were to end up in a nuclear exchange with Russia, our situation would come to resemble not World War III, but something much worse. Blurring the line between proxy war and direct war is therefore not just irresponsible, but dangerous. If this belief took hold among U.S. policymakers, we could find that we had crossed that line without realizing that we had done so — until it was too late to go back.

Fortunately, the Biden administration does appear to understand the difference, and has taken a good deal of care to avoid direct clashes with Russia. The problem is that while Washington has given massive support to Ukraine, it has not established any goals or limits on how far Ukraine should go in defeating Russia.

If Ukraine wins more victories and recovers the territories that Russia has occupied since February, Putin will in my view probably be forced to resign, but Russia would likely not use nuclear weapons. If however Ukraine goes on to try to reconquer Crimea, which the overwhelming majority of Russians regard as simply Russian territory, the chances of an escalation to nuclear war become extremely high.

This points to another danger of the “World War III” language: it suggests a universal threat, and the need for, and the possibility of, absolute victory over absolute evil, as in World War II. But the war in Ukraine is nothing like that. It has become a post-colonial struggle over local ethnic borders, of which there have been so many examples (often waged by U.S. allies) since the fall of the Ottoman, British, French, and Soviet empires.

As for absolute victory, not one American war since 1945 has ended that way. All have led to draws, compromises, long civil wars, or eventual outright defeat. The search for absolute victory in Ukraine points towards either unending war, or the Russian use of absolute weapons in response.

Moreover, a central characteristic of both world wars — which is why they have been called world wars — is that every great power in the world was eventually drawn in on one side or the other in response to its own ambitions or fears. Glasser and Hill should remember that they are being read not just in Washington and Moscow, but also in Beijing.

If the Chinese government becomes convinced that America is in fact waging a war for the complete defeat of Russia and the overthrow of the Russian state, then fears for the effect on their own vital interests seem all too likely to lead them to give the kind of enormous military aid to Russia that America has been giving to Ukraine — at which point the balance of forces could swing back hard against Ukraine.

Finally, we need to consider the effect on our own political culture and public discourse if the notion that we are actually at war takes hold, for as Aeschylus remarked almost 2,500 years ago, “in war, truth is the first casualty.” Journalists and analysts who genuinely believe that their countries are at war may well also feel, if only subconsciously, that they have a positive duty to write war propaganda instead of seeking objective truth.

No blob, we are not 'already fighting' World War III - Responsible Statecraft

[david44]

I am sure the murdered bereaved and maimed know what kind of threat Russia is.

Those who defend apologise or accommodate murderers are little better, anyone who has the luxury to live in a democracy should be ashamed to defend Putin and crawl back into a dark place where such dictators thrive and be eschewed by sentient beings.