The Situation in the Ukraine. #30

Maybe that's all they have ...

Belarus announces joint military drills with Russia along its southern border with Ukraine: https://www.belta.by/society/view/belarus-planiruet-s-rossiej-uchenie-po-prikrytiju-juzhnyh-granits-472085-2021/

Lukashenko indicates Belarus will support Russia if there is a war in the Donbas: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1465311079790174217

"Zelensky to allow foreign armies on Ukrainian soil"
https://www.rt.com/russia/541629-zelensky-submitted-bill-armed-forces/

About those "red lines"....

Ukraine demands Germany pay up for WWII damage

Getting pretty desperate

VARGR198 wrote:Ukraine demands Germany pay up for WWII damage

Getting pretty desperate

By that logic shouldn't they both be paying?

PapaDragon wrote:

VARGR198 wrote:Ukraine demands Germany pay up for WWII damage

Getting pretty desperate

By that logic shouldn't they both be paying?

Well Russia is considered the defacto successor state to the Soviet Union taking on all its former obligations then by that logic Ukaine should get nothing and all compensation payments go to Russia.

The compensation issue was one of the Postdam Treaty subjects and is resolved for a long time.

"Zelensky to allow foreign armies on Ukrainian soil"

The real irony is that unless he is bluffing and is actually really good at Poker then that foreign army is likely to be Russia...

But in all seriousness... he is trying to push buttons... he wanted the EU to allow the Ukraine to join but they don't want them, so he tries to join HATO and they don't want them either... his goal was probably to enrage the Russians into doing what Sakashvili did in 2008, except he envisions that HATO will come in like the Russian Army did and sweep up the bad guys...

He is desperate and probably realises his time in power is running short so dying a martyr is the best that he can hope for.

The EU and HATO on the other hand don't want to be dragged into a hot war with Russia, and will likely drop the Ukraine like the hot potato it has become as soon as they are able... they will become Russias problem and they can enjoy themselves planning sanctions and banning them from sports and all sorts of other things they couldn't really justify before...

They wont stop buying gas of course... and Russia occupation would make Ukrainian transit cheaper and more reliable.

kvs wrote:While delusional western propagandists spout tin foil hat theories how Putin is desperate to invade Ukria because it is
slipping from his grasp into the bosom of freedom, NATzO, in reality it is the Kiev regime that is slipping since its anti-Russian
project is totally bankrupt.   After 7 years of hate spew and gross human rights violations, the Kiev regime has achieved
nothing.   Instead Ukria's economy now fully flushing down the toilet and people are literally freezing in the dark.   It is
obvious that baiting Russia into an invasion is their only option left to launder their failure.   They need to unload their
epic failure onto Russia.   See, them Moskals invaded and ruined our glorious achievements.

NATzO itself is also desperate.   It cannot afford to maintain the Ukria failed state.  So it needs to dump it back into Russia's
lap and have Russia spend $200 billion per year to keep it from totally disintegrating.   Both NATzO and its quislings in Kiev
are utterly delusional.   No amount of their cheesy propaganda is going to get Russia to invade and take care of this
tar baby.   The Kiev regime forces are not going to roll over the Donbass and crush it like a bug.   Javelins, Stingers and
Bairaktars are not going to bring them victory.   Also, there was a referendum in the Donbass about joining Russia and
the majority voted against reunification.   So Russia is not obliged to save the Donbass at all costs and is not going to
invade to achieve reunification.   Those residents of the Donbass who got Russian passports can move to Russia.   They
are more useful as a resource than the Donbass real estate.   Coal mines and chintzy "shale" gas deposits are nothing to
write home about.  

I think it was mostly because Russia was seeking a buffer state sort of. In this regard, LDNR is sufficient to hold their ground and Russia is actually protecting it to a degree.

War will come to you, whether you want it or not, whether you're prepared for it or not.

The empire is somehow supposed to die a slow death... and leave their enemies alone as if none the wiser to the ticking clock. The U.S and their EU poodles flipped the Ukraine for a reason, not simply to let it fail by inertia. They will extract every single drop of geopolitical value out of that piece of land. Good ROI so far, with the nuclear option (not to be confused with nuclear war) still on the table. Can't ask for more honestly.

This is a sort of "decent" article.... obviously avoid putting any credibility to specific dates and other flowery nonsense like "begging" coming out of the author's behind etc. But the central idea is on point. Is it not competent to try to deceive your rival to commit strategic mistakes at the negotiating table? Only in Russian double-speak, feel good nonsense propaganda from propagandist is it pictured as something a competent statesman must not do with its rivals.

https://thesaker.is/to-see-putin-and-die/

If you're preparing for war (or in this case, setting off war), then it begets to get the information war going well in advance, and set the narrative to your liking. Can't get anymore by the books. Obviously understandable that Russians are irritated to see the campaign succeed. Kremlin mouthpieces spend more time fending off accusations than actually setting the narrative - that's when you know you've lost the info war. No initiative, just reactionary. Kinda funny seeing RT pump one article after another - same gist. Not fun to be at edge of your seat at a moments notice when the empire feels like it. The Russian leadership has no one but themselves to blame... as if 2004 wasn't enough of a massive warning shot. Weakness and appeasement doesn't usually work - the American chicken hawks are right on that. Quite the "phenomenon" common of Russian leadership behavior of the last 40-50+ years of ignoring the known intentions of its rival(s), and then act surprised feeling cheated, crying foul when shit hits their head. Then again, some would characterize that as impotency, the fear to act and face your enemy masquerading as ignorance.. which boils down to weakness as general descriptive term. A proper send off to "Ukraine". Comprador elites in Ukraine better make their move quick, if they care enough....sort themselves out and take control, otherwise it's a one way ticket to Albion or Tel Aviv - as bigger poodles than they already were. Then again, the U.S owns them in one way or the other... it pays to control worldwide finance. They're really in a pickle now.....rebel and be punished or comply and watch the cow die and burn for good.... beautiful greed. Kinda funny how the FBI's investigation into Kolomoisky dispersed from the news as soon as the man dialed down betrayal rhetoric (going back to Russia's arms). It appears the parties reached an amicable extortion-able agreement. It's no longer a matter of the elites/oligarchs simply rebelling from the U.S, and seeking Russian milk, and honey. The U.S simply won't let them, "you're our bitch now". Rinat Akhmetov is being made aware of it... I believe soon....no poodle too big for a good slap.

dp

https://www.reuters.com/markets/stocks/putin-warns-russia-will-act-if-nato-crosses-its-red-lines-ukraine-2021-11-30/

Putin is drawing a red line in Ukraine regarding the deployment of US / NATO offensive systems.
The best part is that the West does not have hypersonic missiles or modern IRBMs. It is very doubtful that they would deploy ballistic missiles in Ukraine. Even in Poland, they did not do it as GBI

Electronic warfare stuff spotted in Rostov oblast.

ATLASCUB wrote:This is a sort of "decent" article.... obviously avoid putting any credibility to specific dates and other flowery nonsense like "begging" coming out of the author's behind etc. But the central idea is on point. Is it not competent to try to deceive your rival to commit strategic mistakes at the negotiating table? Only in Russian double-speak, feel good nonsense propaganda from propagandist is it pictured as something a competent statesman must not do with its rivals.

https://thesaker.is/to-see-putin-and-die/

That article is by Ischenko and, as is normal, it is head, shoulders and waist above customary emomarxist, defeatist whining about the weakness of Putin...

LMFS wrote:

ATLASCUB wrote:This is a sort of "decent" article.... obviously avoid putting any credibility to specific dates and other flowery nonsense like "begging" coming out of the author's behind etc. But the central idea is on point. Is it not competent to try to deceive your rival to commit strategic mistakes at the negotiating table? Only in Russian double-speak, feel good nonsense propaganda from propagandist is it pictured as something a competent statesman must not do with its rivals.

https://thesaker.is/to-see-putin-and-die/

That article is by Ischenko and, as is normal, it is head, shoulders and waist above customary emomarxist, defeatist whining about the weakness of Putin...

Putin is not a weak president. Nothing is black or white. History will be kind to him when looking at his track record domestically. However, on foreign policy his record is extremely mixed. And that is partly due to the fact that the competition and power-tussle is no longer an internal matter but external - stakes increase, better minds compete.
Compared to utter, criminal incompetence like Gorbachev or Yeltsin he would obviously appear as the second coming of Christ on the foreign policy front but he's not. He can be applauded for slowly rebuilding allegiance networks that disappeared after the collapse of the USSR and reviving Russia's standing. In the same breath it has to be noted that poor decisions in foreign policy under his watch have been taken from a position and sense of weakness - a lot of hesitation has allowed things to be worse than they should've been. Ukraine's subject matter falls into his foreign policy record. Considering how sensitive and close to home the Ukranian saga is the more so. In a calendar year it can be at times months consuming just on the media cycle alone. So this subject will continue to draw criticism his way - even if in an underhanded way by domestic fans and critics alike. The Orange and Maidan revolution happened under his watch... twice. There is no way to sugar coat this even if rooting for the home team - at some point you gotta be honest. They even tried to get away with it in Belarus. Which American president would survive as president if a coup in Canada is successful in installing a Russian/China aligned puppet regime that's aggressive towards them (after having ample notice).... none. Yet, Putin is still president. That's just for perspective.

The author use of language to describe the empire and its leadership compared to Putin is actually favorable. But even behind all the hidden superlatives you can't hide what's apparent. The Americans will do what they must to maintain their empire. As a rising power facing a declining empire, in theory, it should be Russia's job to challenge the Americans everywhere imaginable and not imaginable. Instead we hear "detente" talk. Detente is a win for the empire vis a vis Russia, unlike with China. The obvious problem is taking too much of the burden while the Chinese bank the 21st century on Russia's back.

The Chinese are finding out that you need more than just money and "time on your side" to win battles. You also need allegiances - which take time to build. Not everyone wants to "correct their mistakes" cause the CCP said so. They're finding that out with Taiwan.

ATLASCUB wrote:Putin is not a weak president. Nothing is black or white. History will be kind to him when looking at his track record domestically. However, on foreign policy his record is extremely mixed. And that is partly due to the fact that the competition and power-tussle is no longer an internal matter but external - stakes increase, better minds compete.
Compared to utter, criminal incompetence like Gorbachev or Yeltsin he would obviously appear as the second coming of Christ on the foreign policy front but he's not. He can be applauded for slowly rebuilding allegiance networks that disappeared after the collapse of the USSR and reviving Russia's standing. In the same breath it has to be noted that poor decisions in foreign policy under his watch have been taken from a position and sense of weakness - a lot of hesitation has allowed things to be worse than they should've been. Ukraine's subject matter falls into his foreign policy record. Considering how sensitive and close to home the Ukranian saga is the more so. In a calendar year it can be at times months consuming just on the media cycle alone. So this subject will continue to draw criticism his way - even if in an underhanded way by domestic fans and critics alike. The Orange and Maidan revolution happened under his watch... twice. There is no way to sugar coat this even if rooting for the home team - at some point you gotta be honest. They even tried to get away with it in Belarus. Which American president would survive as president if a coup in Canada is successful in installing a Russian/China aligned puppet regime that's aggressive towards them (after having ample notice).... none. Yet, Putin is still president. That's just for perspective.

The author use of language to describe the empire and its leadership compared to Putin is actually favorable. But even behind all the hidden superlatives you can't hide what's apparent. The Americans will do what they must to maintain their empire. As a rising power facing a declining empire, in theory, it should be Russia's job to challenge the Americans everywhere imaginable and not imaginable. Instead we hear "detente" talk. Detente is a win for the empire vis a vis Russia, unlike with China. The obvious problem is taking too much of the burden while the Chinese bank the 21st century on Russia's back.

The Chinese are finding out that you need more than just money and "time on your side" to win battles. You also need allegiances - which take time to build. Not everyone wants to "correct their mistakes" cause the CCP said so. They're finding that out with Taiwan.

You write very well, but I cannot agree and frankly find it ever amusing how people ponder about the performance of maybe the best statesman of our time (and the one that had to play with a weakest hand), as if they could see transparently through it and had done it better every time, as if turning the rotting corpse of Russia into today's world power was unavoidable... that is simply ludicrous, and each time more difficult to sustain in the face of the embarrassing defeats of the West and rise of Russia. Most people simply do not understand the kind of strategic game the Kremlin plays and that is obviously not only a result of Putin's inspiration, but of many brilliant, professional and committed people that can see through the stunts of the West and give them a response which is systematically smarter and deeper thought.

I will not mince words: there are many points you are making which are dead wrong IMHO:

- Obviously Putin's Russia performance in foreign policy is outstanding, those better minds you refer are certainly not in the West, which is taking a beating even starting with such advantage that not even in their worst nightmares they could imagine being surpassed on every aspect as they are being. Ischenko himself makes the point that the window of opportunity for the West is closing fast, that is the whole idea behind the article.
- Ukraine was a bold attempt by the West which has led nowhere for them and now is a failed state rotting under their responsibility, how is that a defeat and a shame for Russia? They get the best Ukrainian people, eliminate concurrence in many fields, got Crimea and now only have to wait to see the Nazi regime in Kiev collapse under its own ineptitude and corruption. Without even moving a finger.
- Of course  Russia tries to win time, because they are winning the peace and of course it is US that is in a hurry, so detente of course is a victory for Russia.
- Russia cannot challenge the US anywhere that is not really close to their territory, and even then the escalation would benefit those who hold financial privileges, not to Russia

Etc etc

LMFS wrote:

You write very well, but I cannot agree and frankly find it ever amusing how people ponder about the performance of maybe the best statesman of our time (and the one that had to play with a weakest hand), as if they could see transparently through it and had done it better every time, as if turning the rotting corpse of Russia into today's world power was unavoidable... that is simply ludicrous, and each time more difficult to sustain in the face of the embarrassing defeats of the West and rise of Russia. Most people simply do not understand the kind of strategic game the Kremlin plays and that is obviously not only a result of Putin's inspiration, but of many brilliant, professional and committed people that can see through the stunts of the West and give them a response which is systematically smarter and deeper thought.

I will not mince words: there are many points you are making which are dead wrong IMHO:

- Obviously Putin's Russia performance in foreign policy is outstanding, those better minds you refer are certainly not in the West, which is taking a beating even starting with such advantage that not even in their worst nightmares they could imagine being surpassed on every aspect as they are being. Ischenko himself makes the point that the window of opportunity for the West is closing fast, that is the whole idea behind the article.
- Ukraine was a bold attempt by the West which has led nowhere for them and now is a failed state rotting under their responsibility, how is that a defeat and a shame for Russia? They get the best Ukrainian people, eliminate concurrence in many fields, got Crimea and now only have to wait to see the Nazi regime in Kiev collapse under its own ineptitude and corruption. Without even moving a finger.
- Of course  Russia tries to win time, because they are winning the peace and of course it is US that is in a hurry, so detente of course is a victory for Russia.
- Russia cannot challenge the US anywhere that is not really close to their territory, and even then the escalation would benefit those who hold financial privileges, not to Russia

Etc etc

I think you make quite a few mistakes in characterizing the objectives and value of Ukraine for the empire and the EU poodles (mainly Germany/France and Poland in this case). Specifically the objectives.

1st: Stop the Eurasian Economic Union from expanding West (which is why they got EU support as EU poodles saw their EU project threatened). Like they like to say, stop the revival of the USSR under a new name on their watch....stop Russia's economic/political Westward expansion dead in its tracks. Success.

2nd: Create a source of instability around Russia's border that's time and resource consuming for the enemy to fix/get rid off. Also create a hot war trip-wire that's highly consuming in resources for the enemy if the need arises. Use this trip-wire as blackmail bait, and as a paralyzing tool in negotiations if the need arise. End goal being: to extract strategic concessions if possible or force a costly war on the enemy - while exhausting none ourselves. Success.

3rd: Worsen economic ties between Russia and the EU to deprive the Russian economy of markets for import, export and economic integration (which leads to political integration and ties). The sanctions war and economic effects of it is a testament to do this - on top of stopping Ukraine from becoming part of the EEU and a future "Union State" candidate.Success.

4th: Win the information war by manufacturing the Russian boogeyman to strengthen the Atlantic allegiance structure of the US with Europe... which indirectly benefits from worsened economic ties as in pt #3. Just look at the military build up in the former Warsaw pact states. NATO/U.S military entrenchment in Eastern Europe. Success.

5th: With Ukraine's addition, effectively encircle Russia in a network of allegiances and states hostile to Russia in case of the unimaginable - hot war between the U.S/Russia. Strategic advantage as a buffer, expendable pawns that preoccupy and tie enemy resources. NATO ascension not required, although preferable. Success.

6th: Embolden elites in Russia's traditional sphere of influence/former USSR territories to become western oriented. Mixed.

7th: Create a governable state in line with "successes" in former Warsaw pact states in Eastern Europe like Poland, Romania etc... Failed.

8th: Create psychological damage in Russian elite circles with regards to western superiority, power - the fear effect. Encourage treason and division from within. Effects of bullying more or less on a target. Mixed.

9th: Get Russians to kill each other and fight each other - the easiest one to understand I suppose. Now you could say that those dying are distinctively Ukrainian and not "Russian".... or those on the Ukie side are all Ukrainian, and all of those on the side of the rebels are Russians etc.... it's of no consequence to the empire. Lets just settle on slavic "brothers" killing other slavs while the Anglo-saxons, Poles, Germans/French watch in delight. Success.

I could think of other layers I'm probably forgetting now as it's multifaceted in so many ways but I'm not writing a white paper on this. Needless to say that to claim this little project "failed" as you described is myopic, fails to understand real motives and objectives and it's thus 100% absolutely wrong. The cost of maintaining this "failed" enterprise is printed numbers on a federal reserve balance sheet in a computer. In other words, nothing, merely crumbs for the Empire's IMF.

============================================================================
As for Detente..... it's a slippery rope of assumptions. I'm not a fan of it for a rising power like Russia that has more to earn with the U.S completely out of the picture as a collapsed empire (the sooner the better) than with the rise of China as the undisputed #1 as an oversized consequence of Russia's efforts.

But here is your assumption: the more time Russia has on its side to peacefully develop, the better off it will be vis a vis the U.S.

Counter: The U.S benefits from having detente with Russia, in its quest to battle China and crush it. Without Russia as a threat in Europe, Latin America etc, it's free to focus all its resources and efforts on a rich, yet isolated China and merely postpone coming after what it perceives to be a weaker Russia. The American empire will be stronger without a second front. Thus the problem of getting rid of the U.S as an oversized empire is not addressed by detente nor does Russia's hand strengthen with a possible eventual demise of a fallen China as potential result of this detente. Given the fact that the U.S has effectively walled off the EU from Russia, Russia needs China to be a strong and healthy economic player for Russia's own rise as a power - you're both interlinked (China/Russia).

Detente did not serve the Soviet Union when the U.S needed it in the 70s reeling from the Vietnam War. Detente will not serve Russia now that the U.S wants it (on their terms again - and they will only accept Detente on their terms - they're not myopically stupid - unlike previous Soviet leadership).

Russia can challenge the U.S everywhere it's possible. Obviously efforts and resources scale on region and capability. Aggressiveness is the only thing required.

So the counter against Detente: The more tangled the U.S is everywhere in the word, defending its interest and client regimes the more exhausted it will become as its resources are split in all different directions to stop the incoming tide against it.... the faster it will deteriorate and collapse which means the faster Russia will be free of an oversized U.S.A hostile to its interest everywhere in the world. Detente is merely the deceit of a feigning truce.

The obvious problem is China, who likes to keep their hands clean and let others get their hands dirty while furthering their interest indirectly. So Russia must balance this dance, instead of working for free for the CCP in Beijing.

Quote folks directly instead of making straw mans indirectly. And avoid bursting into emotion and rages of intellectual superiority when merely a midget, well aware of the fact.

Joe tasked CIA officials to arrange meeting with Putin and they have been shuttling for weeks now

Usual idiots are interpreting this as some kind of hardball move by USA in favor of 404 but reality is that Joe simply doesn't trust his own staff not to leak details to press and shit the bed on the whole thing

This says it all

ATLASCUB wrote:Ukraine's subject matter falls into his foreign policy record. Considering how sensitive and close to home the Ukranian saga is the more so. In a calendar year it can be at times months consuming just on the media cycle alone. So this subject will continue to draw criticism his way - even if in an underhanded way by domestic fans and critics alike. The Orange and Maidan revolution happened under his watch... twice. There is no way to sugar coat this even if rooting for the home team - at some point you gotta be honest. They even tried to get away with it in Belarus. Which American president would survive as president if a coup in Canada is successful in installing a Russian/China aligned puppet regime that's aggressive towards them (after having ample notice).... none. Yet, Putin is still president. That's just for perspective.

The Orange revolution failed miserably. As for the Maidan I guess it still remains to be seen what the end result will be. But getting a country of 35 million people to go down to 20 million is no mean feat. Turning an industrial powerhouse into irrelevance isn't insignificant either. Like someone else used to say, don't get in the way of your enemy while they're making a mistake.
One good example is Saakashvili in Georgia. He is now persona non grata in Georgia for being a destabilizing influence who provoked a war which led to the loss of territory. The current administration placed him in jail. It remains to be seen what will happen to the current clique in power in Ukraine.

ATLASCUB wrote:The author use of language to describe the empire and its leadership compared to Putin is actually favorable. But even behind all the hidden superlatives you can't hide what's apparent. The Americans will do what they must to maintain their empire. As a rising power facing a declining empire, in theory, it should be Russia's job to challenge the Americans everywhere imaginable and not imaginable. Instead we hear "detente" talk. Detente is a win for the empire vis a vis Russia, unlike with China. The obvious problem is taking too much of the burden while the Chinese bank the 21st century on Russia's back.

The Chinese are finding out that you need more than just money and "time on your side" to win battles. You also need allegiances - which take time to build. Not everyone wants to "correct their mistakes" cause the CCP said so. They're finding that out with Taiwan.

The USSR failed to win against the US led block while it had all its territory plus the Warsaw Pact countries. What makes you think it will be easier now? Russia just needs to invest its resources wisely and wait for opportunities to present themselves. As the US empire overextends itself it rots from the inside.