The Situation in the Ukraine. #32

JohninMK wrote:GEROMAN -- Eyes -
@GeromanAT
·
5h
Negotiations of political advisers to the leaders of the countries of the Normandy Four began in Berlin. The Ukrainian delegation at the talks is represented by the head of the presidential office Andriy Yermak

Ended after 9 hours with no results

A bit long, specially the introduction, but very recommendable read

Russia wants peace, so it's prepared for war

Rostislav Ishchenko
11.02.2022, 09:46Exclusive

The latest facts and statements of the US authorities indicate that they are really preparing for a war in Ukraine. However, this action has its own background and certain plans that need to be discussed and that should be exposed before everything starts

In recent weeks, some colleagues have been trying to guess the fate of a potential military conflict in Ukraine. Someone is looking for advice from the inner voice, someone is carefully studying the location of the stars, someone is studying the facial expressions of Russian leaders, and someone is flipping a coin. The range of "foresight" ranges from the war will never start, to the war will start tomorrow. There are also "intermediate" proposals: the war will start, but not right now, but in six months, a year, two, three (who is more)? Recently, a popular date for the outbreak of war was the opening day of the Beijing Olympics. It didn't work out and now the same people confidently predict the beginning of the war on the day of the closing of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

The belief that any major international event is necessarily timed to coincide with certain significant dates, and you only need to guess which one, as soon as everything becomes clear (all the secrets will be revealed), is characteristic not only of marginal people who believe in "world government", "reptilians" and other conspiracy theories, but also of quite enlightened journalists, middle-level bureaucrats and experts. The proximity to sacred knowledge and the inability to comprehend it is precisely these latter groups that make them most vulnerable to the magic of significant dates.

In fact, the problem of "experts" who seek out hidden knowledge or hunt for "insiders" is that political leaders themselves, as a rule, do not know in what direction events will develop, whether it will be possible to resolve the next crisis in peace, or whether a military clash is inevitable, what will be the scale of this clash, when it will begin and how it will end. EvenHitler, who always clearly aspired to war, was forced repeatedly, for objective reasons, to postpone the start of most of his military campaigns, including the invasion of the USSR, which began almost a month and a half later than the originally scheduled date. Most politicians prefer to solve their problems peacefully, considering war as a possible but undesirable method of achieving the goal, used only as a last resort ("last argument").

It is also necessary to take into account the restrictions imposed by the current political rules formed after the First and Second World Wars. These rules sharply limit the legitimacy of war, hypocritically defining the aggressor as the one who first used force, even if he was forced to do so by the provocative behavior of the enemy. Thus, even when the inevitability of war becomes clear to political leaders, they still continue diplomatic maneuvers, no longer with the aim of canceling the inevitable, but to shift responsibility for "aggression" to the opponent.

A simple example from the current policy. When the USSR collapsed and the United States began to expand NATO and encouraged the expansion of the EU, they explained the progress of the military-political and economic infrastructure of the West to the Russian borders by saying that their system turned out to be the only main road of civilization leading humanity to a bright future, and therefore, as holders of sacred knowledge, bringing the light of truth to humanity, they simply must combine in one person the role of a global teacher, policeman, prosecutor and judge. Therefore, they say, they should be able to" project power " anywhere in the world, for which the corresponding infrastructure is being deployed.

Over the past three decades, the situation has changed, the United States has failed to meet its stated obligations, and a stronger Russia, which already makes the whole of Europe (and not just Eastern Europe) economically dependent, has politely asked the United States to curtail unnecessary infrastructure, since they can no longer be either a teacher, a policeman, a judge, or a prosecutor, and their system does not work, while the Russian We do not claim all of humanity, but we are ready to take some of them with us to a brighter future.

The United States rudely refused to recognize the new realities and began to demonstrate its readiness for armed defense of its "values" right on the Russian borders. In such a situation, can the forcible dumping of the US military occupying Europe and the puppet regimes they support into the Atlantic Ocean be considered Russian aggression? Based on the letter of international law, this will be aggression, but if we proceed from the spirit of the guiding documents of the UN and OSCE, the issue will be at least controversial.

But Russia, contrary to the dreams of militant Internet hamsters who sincerely believe that they will watch a nuclear war on the Internet and that it will not affect them, does not want a military solution. Not because he is afraid of being judged by the "world community". American thugs, who have assumed the right to judge others, have long been untrustworthy, and having lost the advantage of force, they have lost their only argument. Just a war, even a victorious one, is an extremely resource-intensive action that requires unproductive spending of a huge mass of scarce resources (human, material and economic, moral and political, etc.)

It is simply more profitable for Russia to achieve its goals peacefully. This is somewhat longer, but it does not lead to senseless destruction of the resource. On the contrary, given the dynamics of modern political and economic processes, every day of peace makes Russia stronger and its opponents weaker. There is, of course, the problem of clinical idiots who, when they hear the word "compromise" , immediately yell "agreement" and demand to "strike with missiles" (as if peaceful, mutually beneficial development is something shameful compared to the" heroic " post-nuclear desert, in which the survivors envy the dead in time).

But this is a problem that can be solved, because although people like the self-confidence of idiots who did not play enough in the war as a child, but each individual person definitely does not like to fight. Therefore, potential Bonaparts win elections only when they promise peace. Everyone likes to be proud of our flags over their defeated capitals, but no one wants to die for it unnecessarily. It is one thing to die defending your land, but another thing is to give up your life in the struggle for geopolitical ambitions that are incomprehensible to the majority of the population. Moreover, why fight and waste the lives of our already small population, if the same can be obtained peacefully.

But sometimes, a political opponent behaves in such a way that only a direct threat of war can force him to abandon the war. The United States is well aware that it is losing a peaceful competition to Russia. It would have been different, they would not have been nervous, would not have fussed with sanctions and would not have provoked a military clash in Ukraine. They, of course, have their own hawks, who are sure that "the accelbant fades from peaceful life, the silk of banners fades and fades", and also that "when shells explode day and night, they are more likely to give ranks and orders", but big business that controls politics knows perfectly well that winning without war wins more. Therefore, the American political system begins to strive for war only when it cannot maintain the previously achieved dominance peacefully.

Everyone knows the American tradition of fighting primarily with someone else's hands. If it is not possible to avoid being drawn into a war, avoid active combat operations for as long as possible, giving this "honorary right" to the allies, who not only bear the main losses, but also enrich American business and the state by purchasing weapons, raw materials, consumables — everything that is necessary for the war. Such and only such a war is the United States ready to wage for years and even decades.

And now, the flow of the Ukrainian crisis into a military conflict between Kiev and Moscow seems to the Americans desirable, but insufficient development of the current situation. Washington is aware that Ukraine will not stand for long. And even if Europe initially supports the United States, after Ukraine is erased from the political map, European allies will be able to tell Washington that they do not want to suffer because of an absent state, so they will not finally break with Russia, but will negotiate.

Therefore, the Americans need to get "evidence" of "Russian atrocities" and the "desperate struggle" of Ukrainians "for freedom"at the first stage, immediately, in the first minutes or hours of the collision. This is the only way to force at least some European countries to send troops at least to protect Galicia, Volhynia, Bukovina, Transcarpathia. I don't think that this week the American Embassy and the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine accidentally decided to take their documents (and the embassy and staff) to Western Ukraine. Obviously, they have reason to hope that important documents will be relatively safe there.

In the second stage, the United States will try to stabilize the front with the help of contingents from Eastern Europe and pressure from Western Europe. The ideal state for them is neither peace nor war, as it is now in the Donbass. The line of demarcation is somewhere along Zbruch, where there are periodic excesses that are unpleasant enough to keep Russia on its toes and small enough not to serve as a reason for breaking the truce. The main idea of turning the "Minsk process" 180 degrees is to force Moscow to keep the army in the field for years, using Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans as cannon fodder against it, supported (to demonstrate Western solidarity) by several rotating American and Western European battalions, as well as covered by American aircraft and air defense systems.
The United States is ready to wage such a war until Russian resources are completely exhausted.

In order to quickly persuade Russia to make peace on American terms, the third stage is also envisaged, which involves the deployment of a "resistance movement" in the part of Ukraine occupied by Russian troops — in fact, the creation of terrorist cells whose task will be to undermine the rear of Russian troops in Ukraine and attempt to organize a terrorist war on Russian territory proper. The "Ukrainian government" that fled from Kiev to Galicia will assume responsibility, and the real organization, financing, supply and management will be carried out by the United States.

By the way, so that there are no questions, how do I know all this? This is constantly told by the Americans and the British themselves in the form of" assumptions "("how Ukraine will resist"), as well as their Ukrainian puppets. The latter, out of stupidity, tell everything that they managed to learn from the British and Americans in detail and in detail. The same ones, although they do not give their puppets complete information about the plans, but they are quite enough to restore the entire drawing from the numerous fragments available.

It is clear that the Kremlin, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, the FSB, and the SVR are not children, and all these American plans are well known and understandable. Until recently, Russia tried to conduct explanatory work with the European allies of the United States. They were told the obvious — if they tried to continue sitting on two chairs, the Americans would not let them off the hook, supporting Washington in words, but in practice sabotaging the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions that Europe did not need and was dangerous for it. The United States will be able to create a public opinion in the EU countries that will force politicians who legitimized the American provocation to fully and unconditionally support the United States in its anti-Russian actions.

This is not profitable for Europe. To avoid US pressure and provocation itself, the EU leaders (France and Germany), as well as all the allies they can mobilize, need to declare that they will not under any circumstances support Washington in its confrontation with Moscow. This does not guarantee 100% protection from American provocation, but it will significantly devalue it.

France and Germany were not ready to take such a drastic step. They demonstrate their commitment to the previous policy, declaring support for Ukraine ("in the event of Russian aggression"), as well as "unity of the West" (that is, their readiness to continue following in the wake of US foreign policy), but at the same time they are trying to get their trade and economic cooperation with Russia out of the scope of potential US sanctions. Thus, they achieve the opposite goal - in fact, they convince the United States of the possible effectiveness of the prepared provocation. Washington can expect that, having received partial and conditional support from its allies at the first stage, it will quickly push them to fully and unconditionally agree to all American plans.

Recent actions of the West, including decisions to partially evacuate diplomats from a number of countries from Ukraine, the upcoming relocation of the American embassy to Galicia, preparations for the flight of Ukrainian state structures from Kiev, the deployment of additional contingents of Western "instructors", "advisers" and "specialists" in Ukraine, mobilization activities conducted by the Ukrainian authorities, etc., indicate that everything is ready for an American provocation in Ukraine and it can occur at any time, even without the knowledge of local authorities.

In these circumstances, Russia has no other way to try to keep the peace, but to demonstrate its readiness for war on a scale significantly higher than planned by the Americans. Washington is being made to understand that it will not be limited to Ukraine and that the United States will not get the stagnant front it needs somewhere between Vinnytsia and Lviv.

The beginning of this week was marked by a cascade of Russian signals, so clear that the West does not even need to decipher them — everything is transmitted almost in plain text.

First, the head of the SVR, Sergei Naryshkin, said in an interview with MK that the United States is preparing a white helmets-type provocation in the Donbas, which should become a pretext for a Ukrainian attack on the DPR/LPR. Thus, the head of the SVR legitimizes the Russian response with information: the United States is provocateurs, Ukraine is an aggressor, and Russia is defending itself.

Secondly, the always reserved Sergey Lavrov, after communicating with the British Foreign Secretary, publicly and in a completely undiplomatic form, explained that there was no one to talk about and nothing to talk about, since they did not want to hear us. This happened immediately after the United States and Britain disavowed Macron's proposals made during a meeting with Putin, bluntly stating that the French president was not authorized to speak on behalf of the entire NATO. Also at this time in Washington, Scholz was squeezed out of a public unconditional recognition of American leadership. So Lavrov did not respond to an illiterate minister of Her Majesty, but over her head to competent and understanding opponents, for whom Liz Truss is just another small puppet.

Third, at least two (and maybe more) MIG-31 fighters with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles have flown to Kaliningrad for deployment. Their capabilities increase the depth of the Kaliningrad group's defeat of NATO territory all the way to the Atlantic (including all of continental Europe and Britain).

Fourth, armored vehicles were spotted moving southwest on Russian roads leading from the central regions to the Ukrainian border. Either new units are being put forward to strengthen existing ones (in response to the transfer of additional American contingents to Eastern Europe), or the rear lines of already deployed units are being tightened.

Fifth, a group of Russian troops has been deployed in Belarus, which is comparable in size and far superior in capabilities to the Belarusian army. The troops are promised to withdraw at the end of the exercises, but so far no one has announced when they will end, and most importantly, the eternally penniless Lukashenko suddenly decided to "buy" for the Belarusian army all the equipment with which the Russian troops arrived. Not the new one, but the one you came from. It is clear that Belarusians do not need so much. In addition, they will master it for more than one year. But this makes it possible for Russia, even after the end of the exercises, to legally leave most of the equipment and personnel necessary for its maintenance in Belarus (allegedly for training Belarusians). In the event of a sudden escalation, it will be enough to quickly transfer personnel (by plane) in order to completely restore the grouping consisting of units that have already studied the terrain on which they will have to conduct combat operations in a matter of hours.

Sixth, six large landing ships of the Northern and Pacific Fleets also arrived in Sevastopol "as part of the exercises". Given that the Black Sea Fleet itself has seven BDK, the power of its amphibious vehicles increases by more than one and a half times. With the ships arriving, the Black Sea Fleet is able to simultaneously conduct an operation to land a marine brigade on an unequipped coast, reinforced with a tank battalion, a self-propelled artillery division and other units.
Given that such an amphibious operation cannot be an isolated act, but only involves seizing a bridgehead and creating conditions for the landing of the main forces, its further development requires a powerful airfield capable of receiving large transport aircraft. Only Odessa meets these requirements within the range of amphibious units of the Black Sea Fleet. In addition, Odessa is the gateway to Transdniestria, which may also be the target of a provocative attack initiated by the United States.

Obviously, the development of such an operation will require support from the Crimea, as well as the transfer of additional forces from the North Caucasus. Before breaking through the land corridor through the Kherson-Nikolaev-Crimea-Crimean Bridge, the supply of ammunition for such an operation can be supported by organizing an air bridge to the Odessa airport, as well as by means of BDK and civilian vessels concentrated in Sevastopol (according to the scheme worked out in the "Syrian Express").

Seventh, until February 19, under the pretext of exercises, the Black Sea Fleet closed to navigation areas that completely isolate the Sea of Azov,

Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, as well as closing the approach to Sevastopol.

Finally, back on January 28, when asked by journalists about the evacuation of Western embassies, Lavrov replied that since the Anglo-Saxons are taking out diplomats, it means they are preparing something and promised to think about evacuating part of the Russian diplomatic staff.

In general, Russia demonstrates its readiness to respond to any provocation with a deep operation, potentially extending beyond the borders of Ukraine. If we discard the form of statements by Lukashenko promising that Belarus will protect Russia from an attack by Ukraine, in fact, the Belarusian president said that at the first request of Moscow, he would not just enter the war, but also present the territory of Belarus for the deployment of Russian formations (they are already deployed there). In addition to the threat to the deep northern flank of Ukraine, coupled with the strengthening of the Kaliningrad grouping, this raises the question of breaking through the Suvalki corridor or through Lithuania to open a land connection with Kaliningrad.

According to NATO experts, such an operation with decisive goals should take three to five days before the Russian troops reach the western border of Ukraine. Among other things, this means that the West will have to make a decision about its reaction in conditions when it simply does not have time to carry out the main mobilization measures, and the line at which Russian troops are going to stop will be unknown. In addition, with such a rapid development of events, the contingents of Western "advisers", "instructors" and "specialists"deployed there will not have time to evacuate from the Donbass and from the left bank of the Dnieper. We are talking about dozens or even a couple of hundred Western military personnel who may begin to give public testimony about the tasks they performed in Ukraine.

For the sake of preventing war, Russia demonstrates its readiness not just to accept a military challenge from the West, but initially to bring the scale of the conflict to an unacceptable level for the West, when in the first hours (maximum in the first two days) of military operations, the United States will need to make a decision: either they mix in the conflict, taking on all the risk of confrontation with a nuclear power that has a qualitative superiority in the European Theater of operations over the United States and its allies, or they pretend that they have nothing to do with it, completely merging the situation and allies.

The Kremlin is on its toes explaining to an arrogant Washington that if the United States provokes a conflict, Russia, in a completely American manner, will raise the stakes and force them to choose between the bad and the worst.

What happens next depends on whether the Americans believe that Russia is serious, and whether they are willing to risk being dragged into an uncontrolled military crisis in the hope of not giving up. Their problem is that if the United States merges this crisis, it will be much more difficult for them to organize a similar next one, since the allies will feel much more independent.

The situation is similar to a frontal attack in aviation: someone has to turn away, but it happens that no one turns away.

https://ukraina.ru/exclusive/20220211/1033255121.htmld

Sad thing is they are not even that... a 51st state would at least get some voting rights...

Voting what ? In the US ?

LMFS wrote:A bit long, specially the introduction, but very recommendable read

Russia wants peace, so it's prepared for war

Rostislav Ishchenko
11.02.2022, 09:46Exclusive

The latest facts and statements of the US authorities indicate that they are really preparing for a war in Ukraine. However, this action has its own background and certain plans that need to be discussed and that should be exposed before everything starts

In recent weeks, some colleagues have been trying to guess the fate of a potential military conflict in Ukraine. Someone is looking for advice from the inner voice, someone is carefully studying the location of the stars, someone is studying the facial expressions of Russian leaders, and someone is flipping a coin. The range of "foresight" ranges from the war will never start, to the war will start tomorrow. There are also "intermediate" proposals: the war will start, but not right now, but in six months, a year, two, three (who is more)? Recently, a popular date for the outbreak of war was the opening day of the Beijing Olympics. It didn't work out and now the same people confidently predict the beginning of the war on the day of the closing of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

The belief that any major international event is necessarily timed to coincide with certain significant dates, and you only need to guess which one, as soon as everything becomes clear (all the secrets will be revealed), is characteristic not only of marginal people who believe in "world government", "reptilians" and other conspiracy theories, but also of quite enlightened journalists, middle-level bureaucrats and experts. The proximity to sacred knowledge and the inability to comprehend it is precisely these latter groups that make them most vulnerable to the magic of significant dates.

In fact, the problem of "experts" who seek out hidden knowledge or hunt for "insiders" is that political leaders themselves, as a rule, do not know in what direction events will develop, whether it will be possible to resolve the next crisis in peace, or whether a military clash is inevitable, what will be the scale of this clash, when it will begin and how it will end. EvenHitler, who always clearly aspired to war, was forced repeatedly, for objective reasons, to postpone the start of most of his military campaigns, including the invasion of the USSR, which began almost a month and a half later than the originally scheduled date. Most politicians prefer to solve their problems peacefully, considering war as a possible but undesirable method of achieving the goal, used only as a last resort ("last argument").

It is also necessary to take into account the restrictions imposed by the current political rules formed after the First and Second World Wars. These rules sharply limit the legitimacy of war, hypocritically defining the aggressor as the one who first used force, even if he was forced to do so by the provocative behavior of the enemy. Thus, even when the inevitability of war becomes clear to political leaders, they still continue diplomatic maneuvers, no longer with the aim of canceling the inevitable, but to shift responsibility for "aggression" to the opponent.

A simple example from the current policy. When the USSR collapsed and the United States began to expand NATO and encouraged the expansion of the EU, they explained the progress of the military-political and economic infrastructure of the West to the Russian borders by saying that their system turned out to be the only main road of civilization leading humanity to a bright future, and therefore, as holders of sacred knowledge, bringing the light of truth to humanity, they simply must combine in one person the role of a global teacher, policeman, prosecutor and judge. Therefore, they say, they should be able to" project power " anywhere in the world, for which the corresponding infrastructure is being deployed.

Over the past three decades, the situation has changed, the United States has failed to meet its stated obligations, and a stronger Russia, which already makes the whole of Europe (and not just Eastern Europe) economically dependent, has politely asked the United States to curtail unnecessary infrastructure, since they can no longer be either a teacher, a policeman, a judge, or a prosecutor, and their system does not work, while the Russian We do not claim all of humanity, but we are ready to take some of them with us to a brighter future.

The United States rudely refused to recognize the new realities and began to demonstrate its readiness for armed defense of its "values" right on the Russian borders. In such a situation, can the forcible dumping of the US military occupying Europe and the puppet regimes they support into the Atlantic Ocean be considered Russian aggression? Based on the letter of international law, this will be aggression, but if we proceed from the spirit of the guiding documents of the UN and OSCE, the issue will be at least controversial.

But Russia, contrary to the dreams of militant Internet hamsters who sincerely believe that they will watch a nuclear war on the Internet and that it will not affect them, does not want a military solution. Not because he is afraid of being judged by the "world community". American thugs, who have assumed the right to judge others, have long been untrustworthy, and having lost the advantage of force, they have lost their only argument. Just a war, even a victorious one, is an extremely resource-intensive action that requires unproductive spending of a huge mass of scarce resources (human, material and economic, moral and political, etc.)

It is simply more profitable for Russia to achieve its goals peacefully. This is somewhat longer, but it does not lead to senseless destruction of the resource. On the contrary, given the dynamics of modern political and economic processes, every day of peace makes Russia stronger and its opponents weaker. There is, of course, the problem of clinical idiots who, when they hear the word "compromise" , immediately yell "agreement" and demand to "strike with missiles" (as if peaceful, mutually beneficial development is something shameful compared to the" heroic " post-nuclear desert, in which the survivors envy the dead in time).

But this is a problem that can be solved, because although people like the self-confidence of idiots who did not play enough in the war as a child, but each individual person definitely does not like to fight. Therefore, potential Bonaparts win elections only when they promise peace. Everyone likes to be proud of our flags over their defeated capitals, but no one wants to die for it unnecessarily. It is one thing to die defending your land, but another thing is to give up your life in the struggle for geopolitical ambitions that are incomprehensible to the majority of the population. Moreover, why fight and waste the lives of our already small population, if the same can be obtained peacefully.

But sometimes, a political opponent behaves in such a way that only a direct threat of war can force him to abandon the war. The United States is well aware that it is losing a peaceful competition to Russia. It would have been different, they would not have been nervous, would not have fussed with sanctions and would not have provoked a military clash in Ukraine. They, of course, have their own hawks, who are sure that "the accelbant fades from peaceful life, the silk of banners fades and fades", and also that "when shells explode day and night, they are more likely to give ranks and orders", but big business that controls politics knows perfectly well that winning without war wins more. Therefore, the American political system begins to strive for war only when it cannot maintain the previously achieved dominance peacefully.

Everyone knows the American tradition of fighting primarily with someone else's hands. If it is not possible to avoid being drawn into a war, avoid active combat operations for as long as possible, giving this "honorary right" to the allies, who not only bear the main losses, but also enrich American business and the state by purchasing weapons, raw materials, consumables — everything that is necessary for the war. Such and only such a war is the United States ready to wage for years and even decades.

And now, the flow of the Ukrainian crisis into a military conflict between Kiev and Moscow seems to the Americans desirable, but insufficient development of the current situation. Washington is aware that Ukraine will not stand for long. And even if Europe initially supports the United States, after Ukraine is erased from the political map, European allies will be able to tell Washington that they do not want to suffer because of an absent state, so they will not finally break with Russia, but will negotiate.

Therefore, the Americans need to get "evidence" of "Russian atrocities" and the "desperate struggle" of Ukrainians "for freedom"at the first stage, immediately, in the first minutes or hours of the collision. This is the only way to force at least some European countries to send troops at least to protect Galicia, Volhynia, Bukovina, Transcarpathia. I don't think that this week the American Embassy and the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine accidentally decided to take their documents (and the embassy and staff) to Western Ukraine. Obviously, they have reason to hope that important documents will be relatively safe there.

In the second stage, the United States will try to stabilize the front with the help of contingents from Eastern Europe and pressure from Western Europe. The ideal state for them is neither peace nor war, as it is now in the Donbass. The line of demarcation is somewhere along Zbruch, where there are periodic excesses that are unpleasant enough to keep Russia on its toes and small enough not to serve as a reason for breaking the truce. The main idea of turning the "Minsk process" 180 degrees is to force Moscow to keep the army in the field for years, using Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans as cannon fodder against it, supported (to demonstrate Western solidarity) by several rotating American and Western European battalions, as well as covered by American aircraft and air defense systems.
The United States is ready to wage such a war until Russian resources are completely exhausted.

In order to quickly persuade Russia to make peace on American terms, the third stage is also envisaged, which involves the deployment of a "resistance movement" in the part of Ukraine occupied by Russian troops — in fact, the creation of terrorist cells whose task will be to undermine the rear of Russian troops in Ukraine and attempt to organize a terrorist war on Russian territory proper. The "Ukrainian government" that fled from Kiev to Galicia will assume responsibility, and the real organization, financing, supply and management will be carried out by the United States.

By the way, so that there are no questions, how do I know all this? This is constantly told by the Americans and the British themselves in the form of" assumptions "("how Ukraine will resist"), as well as their Ukrainian puppets. The latter, out of stupidity, tell everything that they managed to learn from the British and Americans in detail and in detail. The same ones, although they do not give their puppets complete information about the plans, but they are quite enough to restore the entire drawing from the numerous fragments available.

It is clear that the Kremlin, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, the FSB, and the SVR are not children, and all these American plans are well known and understandable. Until recently, Russia tried to conduct explanatory work with the European allies of the United States. They were told the obvious — if they tried to continue sitting on two chairs, the Americans would not let them off the hook, supporting Washington in words, but in practice sabotaging the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions that Europe did not need and was dangerous for it. The United States will be able to create a public opinion in the EU countries that will force politicians who legitimized the American provocation to fully and unconditionally support the United States in its anti-Russian actions.

This is not profitable for Europe. To avoid US pressure and provocation itself, the EU leaders (France and Germany), as well as all the allies they can mobilize, need to declare that they will not under any circumstances support Washington in its confrontation with Moscow. This does not guarantee 100% protection from American provocation, but it will significantly devalue it.

France and Germany were not ready to take such a drastic step. They demonstrate their commitment to the previous policy, declaring support for Ukraine ("in the event of Russian aggression"), as well as "unity of the West" (that is, their readiness to continue following in the wake of US foreign policy), but at the same time they are trying to get their trade and economic cooperation with Russia out of the scope of potential US sanctions. Thus, they achieve the opposite goal - in fact, they convince the United States of the possible effectiveness of the prepared provocation. Washington can expect that, having received partial and conditional support from its allies at the first stage, it will quickly push them to fully and unconditionally agree to all American plans.

Recent actions of the West, including decisions to partially evacuate diplomats from a number of countries from Ukraine, the upcoming relocation of the American embassy to Galicia, preparations for the flight of Ukrainian state structures from Kiev, the deployment of additional contingents of Western "instructors", "advisers" and "specialists" in Ukraine, mobilization activities conducted by the Ukrainian authorities, etc., indicate that everything is ready for an American provocation in Ukraine and it can occur at any time, even without the knowledge of local authorities.

In these circumstances, Russia has no other way to try to keep the peace, but to demonstrate its readiness for war on a scale significantly higher than planned by the Americans. Washington is being made to understand that it will not be limited to Ukraine and that the United States will not get the stagnant front it needs somewhere between Vinnytsia and Lviv.

The beginning of this week was marked by a cascade of Russian signals, so clear that the West does not even need to decipher them — everything is transmitted almost in plain text.

First, the head of the SVR, Sergei Naryshkin, said in an interview with MK that the United States is preparing a white helmets-type provocation in the Donbas, which should become a pretext for a Ukrainian attack on the DPR/LPR. Thus, the head of the SVR legitimizes the Russian response with information: the United States is provocateurs, Ukraine is an aggressor, and Russia is defending itself.

Secondly, the always reserved Sergey Lavrov, after communicating with the British Foreign Secretary, publicly and in a completely undiplomatic form, explained that there was no one to talk about and nothing to talk about, since they did not want to hear us. This happened immediately after the United States and Britain disavowed Macron's proposals made during a meeting with Putin, bluntly stating that the French president was not authorized to speak on behalf of the entire NATO. Also at this time in Washington, Scholz was squeezed out of a public unconditional recognition of American leadership. So Lavrov did not respond to an illiterate minister of Her Majesty, but over her head to competent and understanding opponents, for whom Liz Truss is just another small puppet.

Third, at least two (and maybe more) MIG-31 fighters with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles have flown to Kaliningrad for deployment. Their capabilities increase the depth of the Kaliningrad group's defeat of NATO territory all the way to the Atlantic (including all of continental Europe and Britain).

Fourth, armored vehicles were spotted moving southwest on Russian roads leading from the central regions to the Ukrainian border. Either new units are being put forward to strengthen existing ones (in response to the transfer of additional American contingents to Eastern Europe), or the rear lines of already deployed units are being tightened.

Fifth, a group of Russian troops has been deployed in Belarus, which is comparable in size and far superior in capabilities to the Belarusian army. The troops are promised to withdraw at the end of the exercises, but so far no one has announced when they will end, and most importantly, the eternally penniless Lukashenko suddenly decided to "buy" for the Belarusian army all the equipment with which the Russian troops arrived. Not the new one, but the one you came from. It is clear that Belarusians do not need so much. In addition, they will master it for more than one year. But this makes it possible for Russia, even after the end of the exercises, to legally leave most of the equipment and personnel necessary for its maintenance in Belarus (allegedly for training Belarusians). In the event of a sudden escalation, it will be enough to quickly transfer personnel (by plane) in order to completely restore the grouping consisting of units that have already studied the terrain on which they will have to conduct combat operations in a matter of hours.

Sixth, six large landing ships of the Northern and Pacific Fleets also arrived in Sevastopol "as part of the exercises". Given that the Black Sea Fleet itself has seven BDK, the power of its amphibious vehicles increases by more than one and a half times. With the ships arriving, the Black Sea Fleet is able to simultaneously conduct an operation to land a marine brigade on an unequipped coast, reinforced with a tank battalion, a self-propelled artillery division and other units.
Given that such an amphibious operation cannot be an isolated act, but only involves seizing a bridgehead and creating conditions for the landing of the main forces, its further development requires a powerful airfield capable of receiving large transport aircraft. Only Odessa meets these requirements within the range of amphibious units of the Black Sea Fleet. In addition, Odessa is the gateway to Transdniestria, which may also be the target of a provocative attack initiated by the United States.

Obviously, the development of such an operation will require support from the Crimea, as well as the transfer of additional forces from the North Caucasus. Before breaking through the land corridor through the Kherson-Nikolaev-Crimea-Crimean Bridge, the supply of ammunition for such an operation can be supported by organizing an air bridge to the Odessa airport, as well as by means of BDK and civilian vessels concentrated in Sevastopol (according to the scheme worked out in the "Syrian Express").

Seventh, until February 19, under the pretext of exercises, the Black Sea Fleet closed to navigation areas that completely isolate the Sea of Azov,

Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, as well as closing the approach to Sevastopol.

Finally, back on January 28, when asked by journalists about the evacuation of Western embassies, Lavrov replied that since the Anglo-Saxons are taking out diplomats, it means they are preparing something and promised to think about evacuating part of the Russian diplomatic staff.

In general, Russia demonstrates its readiness to respond to any provocation with a deep operation, potentially extending beyond the borders of Ukraine. If we discard the form of statements by Lukashenko promising that Belarus will protect Russia from an attack by Ukraine, in fact, the Belarusian president said that at the first request of Moscow, he would not just enter the war, but also present the territory of Belarus for the deployment of Russian formations (they are already deployed there). In addition to the threat to the deep northern flank of Ukraine, coupled with the strengthening of the Kaliningrad grouping, this raises the question of breaking through the Suvalki corridor or through Lithuania to open a land connection with Kaliningrad.

According to NATO experts, such an operation with decisive goals should take three to five days before the Russian troops reach the western border of Ukraine. Among other things, this means that the West will have to make a decision about its reaction in conditions when it simply does not have time to carry out the main mobilization measures, and the line at which Russian troops are going to stop will be unknown. In addition, with such a rapid development of events, the contingents of Western "advisers", "instructors" and "specialists"deployed there will not have time to evacuate from the Donbass and from the left bank of the Dnieper. We are talking about dozens or even a couple of hundred Western military personnel who may begin to give public testimony about the tasks they performed in Ukraine.

For the sake of preventing war, Russia demonstrates its readiness not just to accept a military challenge from the West, but initially to bring the scale of the conflict to an unacceptable level for the West, when in the first hours (maximum in the first two days) of military operations, the United States will need to make a decision: either they mix in the conflict, taking on all the risk of confrontation with a nuclear power that has a qualitative superiority in the European Theater of operations over the United States and its allies, or they pretend that they have nothing to do with it, completely merging the situation and allies.

The Kremlin is on its toes explaining to an arrogant Washington that if the United States provokes a conflict, Russia, in a completely American manner, will raise the stakes and force them to choose between the bad and the worst.

What happens next depends on whether the Americans believe that Russia is serious, and whether they are willing to risk being dragged into an uncontrolled military crisis in the hope of not giving up. Their problem is that if the United States merges this crisis, it will be much more difficult for them to organize a similar next one, since the allies will feel much more independent.

The situation is similar to a frontal attack in aviation: someone has to turn away, but it happens that no one turns away.

https://ukraina.ru/exclusive/20220211/1033255121.htmld

This article certainly connects some of the dots, but its main conclusion I object to

Russia is not raising the stakes for the US. If it conducts a full-scale invasion, one way or the other that would be a win for the US-UK and pals, even if they suffer some collateral damage tactically. Russia on the other hand will have on its hands the illegal occupation of a massive territory and ensuing insurgency.

The only Russian goal that makes sense is knocking sense into the Ukraine and Europeans, to disavow any such US plan and not go through with any provocations. Then on the contrary, the US will be left blue-faced over all its tall claims of imminent Russian aggression, and France/Germany will be able to distance the EU from Washington

There are early indications that Russia appears to be succeeding. Macron worked out some proposals with Putin. Zelensky appeared receptive. The 9-hour talks although they ended without agreement, did end up with the Ukrainians stating that the Minsk process must be adhered to (even if in somewhat their 'own' interpretation). There are more talks scheduled in 2 weeks from now. The contact line is quiet.
The US meanwhile has just called for all US citizens to leave the country, spreading panic about invasion again to put pressure on Kiev.

A Russian invasion of Ukraine would be more costly than its worth, what type of fool would think they want to invade?.

Do you have any idea how costly Ukraine would be to their budget? Do you have any idea how many Russian troops will die during insurgency attacks?.

Its easy to talk big and say Russia should invade, when you don't have to die for it.

Russia will not invade unless they feel there is truly no other choice, the political repercussion alone and all the heat they would draw isn't worth Ukraine.

If the EU can agree with Russia for a Neutral Ukraine then Putin will accept that deal, he merely wants it out of NATO he doesn't want the land its self. If you want to sit there and yell they should invade then sign up for the army and lay down your life.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:A Russian invasion of Ukraine would be more costly than its worth, what type of fool would think they want to invade?.

Do you have any idea how costly Ukraine would be to their budget? Do you have any idea how many Russian troops will die during insurgency attacks?.

Its easy to talk big and say Russia should invade, when you don't have to die for it.

Russia will not invade unless they feel there is truly no other choice, the political repercussion alone and all the heat they would draw isn't worth Ukraine.

If the EU can agree with Russia for a Neutral Ukraine then Putin will accept that deal, he merely wants it out of NATO he doesn't want the land its self. If you want to sit there and yell they should invade then sign up for the army and lay down your life.

There is no other choice. EU and US already rejected russian proposals and ukrainians are still talking about NATO membership. It's already too late, Putin has made its decision.

Cost will be low compare to what Ukraine will have to pay.

Invasion doesn't mean occupation. Attack, blow up their bases, destroy the political regime and leave.

Its easy to talk big and say insurgency will go die during attacks on russians, when you don't have to die for it.

So attack Ukraine....then leave and pretty much ensure it goes to NATO, the only way to remove the government is full blown occupation.

Your plan is Grade A stupid and that's putting it nicely.

Only in fantasy land is such a plan feasible.

Yeah that's exactly what they did in Georgia and it worked pretty fine.

Isos wrote:Yeah that's exactly what they did in Georgia and it worked pretty fine.

Lol They did not take over Georgia and they left that government intact and look at how that is working for them.

NATO also isn't really interested in Georgia and Putin better be thankful for that because they do want to join NATO, but it is interested in Ukraine because of its location.

Your remarks are very clueless and the fact you have no international experience shows.