Ukraine / Russia - Actions and Reactions

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
🚀 Let’s bookmark yesterday’s cheerful Financial Times headline, to check and see where we are next year this time: “Jake Sullivan says US military aid will help Ukraine mount counteroffensive in 2025.

image 6.png

Referring to Biden Administration optimistic plans about the war next year, Sullivan said Ukraine intends to “to move forward to recapture the territory that the Russians have taken from them.” Recapture the territory? Does he mean all the parts of Ukraine colored in red on the map below? I can’t wait.

image 7.png

Sure! It could happen. Jake Sullivan said so. I mean, since the last glorious counteroffensive went so well and everything.

Compared to last year’s Glorious Ukraine Counteroffensive, Russia now has even more troops, who are more experienced, more and better weapons, holds more territory, more fortified positions, and has more strategic options. And has a stronger war economy. Meanwhile Ukraine has fewer troops, who are less experienced, fewer and worse weapons, fewer fortifications, and fewer options.

Ukraine has no economy. So it’s not precisely clear how the New Glorious Counteroffensive could possibly improve on the previous one.

Later down the article, the Financial Times accidentally let slip the mask of official deceit:

Any new offensive in 2025 by Ukraine would be dependent on more funding from Congress, and approval by the White House. Zelenskyy said there is a plan for another counteroffensive but that it is contingent on more weapons, including from the US.​



Whose war is it again? Ukraine’s? I’m sure the Financial Times meant that “approval by the White House” would modify “more funding,” but unfortunately the sentence reads just as grammatically correct if “approval by the White House” qualifies “any new offensive.”

Anyway, we can all see what’s going on here. Zelensky hasn’t even gotten the current $61 billion in aid and he’s already mounting a rhetorical counteroffensive on next year’s glorious appropriations request.


 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
🚀🚀 This week we narrowly survived a near-nuclear showdown. On Monday, the Russians urgently started unscheduled nuclear drills after several NATO officials plus one moronic democrat House Minority Leader (Hakeem Jeffries) escalated tensions by stupidly threatening to send Western troops into Ukraine. Fortunately, NATO backed down, and by way of apology, everyone including Biden expressly recognized Putin as Russia’s legitimate leader.

Putin was inaugurated for his sixth term as President yesterday. His inauguration, plus the widespread recognition of his legitimacy, frames a pending crisis as the official end of Zelensky’s term looms on May 21st — yet no new president has been elected in Ukraine.

But the current state of the Proxy War can perhaps be best illustrated through two contrasting articles. The first ran under this Associated Press headline, now two weeks old: “Ukraine pulls US-provided Abrams tanks from the front lines over Russian drone threats.” Whoopsies.


image 8.png


Named for heroic World War II General Creighton Abrams, the M1 Abrams is the United States’ premier battle tank. Each high-tech tank comes with a hefty $10 million price tag, weighs in at a whopping eighty tons, and needs between four and eight hours of regular maintenance downtime after every single hour of runtime. Last year, we gifted the Ukrainians with over thirty fabulously expensive Abrams tanks.

At the time, Ukrainian warbloggers celebrated receiving the massive metal fighting machines as a sign the war’s tide would soon change.

But unexpectedly, as the AP’s headline made clear, the $10 million dollar Abrams tank has been beaten by $200 Russian drones. Not only that, but Russia has so far managed to capture at least six of the thirty-one American super-tanks. The problem seems to be that the eighty-ton beasts easily get mired in Ukraine’s thick rasputitsa — “mud” in the English — stranding hapless tank crews and making them into sitting kachky (i.e., ducks).

Meanwhile, creative Russian tank crews — allowed authority to jury rig their own experimental solutions to battlefield problems — ingeniously developed a cheap, ugly, but simple workaround to Ukraine’s drones: the turtle shield. In fact, the day before the AP published its swan song for the Abrams, Forbes ran a counterpointing story headlined, “The Russian Turtle Tank Is The Weirdest Armored Vehicle Of The Ukraine War. The Craziest Thing Is, It Might Actually Work.



image 9.png



The official narrative would have us believe that Ukraine’s real problem is lack of money to buy ammunition. But setting aside the crisis that Ukraine is getting down to the last Ukrainian, these two tank stories provide a stark metaphorical contrast between the two sides in the Proxy War. The scrappy Russian soldiers are demonstrating good old-fashioned American ingenuity and adaptability. But the Ukrainian/NATO War-by-Committee is mired in the slough of despond, bogged down in the sticky rasputitsa by unwieldy, morbidly obese, maintenance-heavy, finicky, non-interoperable, too-clever-by-half donated gear that isn’t practical.

The two articles highlighted the two modern philosophical problems that dog our political class the worst. The first one is the unshakeable belief in the long-discredited theory that more money can cure any conceivable problem: drug addiction, homelessness, and failing educational institutions all spring to mind. The second chronic philosophical failure is the equally mistaken belief that bigger, more ambitious, higher-tech solutions are always better than cheap, practical answers.

These two philosophical mistakes bog down the West — and its proxy warrior, Ukraine — in impractical, unaffordably-expensive thinking thicker than the Ukrainian rasputitsa. That’s the real problem.





M1 Abrams were not designed for Eastern block tactics and strategy of static defense in depth where they are sitting targets for $ 200 drones

At this point Ukraine would be better off with CHEAP Wheeled Vehicles with cheap 90 or 105 mm guns .....
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

DISCOUNT Obama Democrat Leader DECLARES GIVE Ukraine BILLIONS MORE Or US Troops Will Fight Russia!​



 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

NATO risks World War III in Ukraine — while lining the defense industry’s pockets



As RFK Jr. posted: “British Foreign Secretary David Cameron recently stated that Ukraine has the right to use British weapons to strike Russia. In return, Moscow warned the British ambassador that that would provoke Russian retaliation against London.” The New York Times reported last week that the U.S. secretly shipped ATACM missiles to Ukraine that can strike deep into Russian territory; not by coincidence, Russia announced training maneuvers using tactical nuclear weapons.

Does any of that make your blood run cold? It should.

None of the experts I have spoken with over the course of the last two years believe Ukraine can win this war. It’s long past the time to blow the whistle on the Ponzi scheme, end the game of nuclear “chicken” and enter into a negotiated settlement.

At some point, Putin is sure to tire of the game and drive straight into the oncoming vehicle. What then will be the literal fallout from that explosion?



This entire war is a result of European / NATO / US Intelligence Services and Businesses forking around in Ukraine
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
🚀🚀 Speaking of the Proxy War, alert C&C readers have long recognized that we are already enduring the early skirmishes of World War III, but corporate media has so far stubbornly refused to admit the obvious. So Bloomberg’s weekend op-ed headline — a major piece adorned with a dynamic, multi-media, animated photo gallery — was a startling surprise: “Ukraine Is Now a World War. And Putin Is Gaining Friends.

image 10.png

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve observed that Ukraine is the genesis of everything. It always was the prime mover, the sine qua non without which Fareed Zakaria's initial rosy expectations for the Biden term would have neatly been met. Yesterday, for the very first time, Bloomberg tentatively admitted what we’ve long known to be true: Ukraine is not any stand-alone conflict. It is the front lines of what Bloomberg labeled “the world proxy war underway.”

Proxy war is war. As the article’s sub-headline dramatically reminded readers, “Global proxy conflicts were a constant in Cold War I, and Russia’s invasion marked the first of Cold War II.” Superpowers, the article pointedly noted, “dueled indirectly because direct confrontation was too dangerous in the nuclear age.”

That’s why this World War is different. The cost of direct nuclear conflict is unaffordably dire. So instead, it’s proxy wars, sabotage, deniable attacks on energy infrastructure, psychological terrorism, cyber warfare, and unmoored cargo ships crashing into bridges.

Bloomberg’s author admitted that “since 2022” — the start of the Ukraine war — “the proxy war has expanded and been fully joined by both sides:”


Two vast alliances are squaring off, albeit indirectly, on European battlegrounds. The war in Ukraine wasn’t supposed to become a sprawling proxy war. But the fight in Ukraine has become the first global conflict of a new cold war.

“We want to see Russia weakened,” said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The US and its allies were pursuing their own safety by helping Ukraine wreak havoc on an aggressive but overextended enemy. Indeed, doing so was central to America’s global strategy.

This was what worried leaders in China, Iran and North Korea — members of the autocratic bloc that would soon coalesce behind Putin. These relationships helped keep Russia afloat when its war effort was foundering, and began imposing costs on the West.

Ukraine’s war has become the world’s war, too.



To liberals, including Bloomberg, the global stakes could not possibly reach any higher. This world war is critical, it’s a survival issue, it’s about preserving for all time U.S. hegemony along with its chimeric, euphemistic “rules-based international order.” Bloomberg summarized how Biden’s neocons view the conflict in a single quote. This war, Biden opined, is not just a regional territory dispute. It is “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.”

Democracy, we note, comes in many shapes and sizes nowadays. It can omit voting, free speech, freedom of association, and religious liberty whenever necessary. Whenever necessary to
preserve democracy.

Distressingly, when it came down to any rational prescription for pursuing sanity, the article veered wildly off the rails of reason. First, the author implicitly admitted that we’re losing. “For a time,” the article noted, “it looked like Ukraine and its allies were winning the fight.” But “these days, it’s not so clear. Russia holds the battlefield initiative; its forces are slowly grinding out gains.”

Despite acknowledging that ominous development, Bloomberg doubled down; it included not a single sentence advocating a peaceful resolution or even Cold War detente. Instead the financial rag spurred, we must “generate the urgency and capabilities to get ready for what comes next.”

I’m old enough to remember when liberalism meant giving peace a chance. Hippies, peace signs, flowers in rifle barrels, and all that sort of thing. But now, liberalism means fighting more urgently, building up our military capabilities, and getting ready for what comes next: the hot part of the cold world war.

The good news is that it is major progress to see a prominent corporate media acknowledgment that there is a problem. You can’t fix it until you admit the problem exists. President Trump has said that, if elected, he will end the war in 24 hours. I believe him. We pray that Fareed Zakaria is right.



 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
Top