Is the CIA Directing Sabotage Attacks in Russian Territory?

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The CIA has been using a European NATO country’s intelligence services to conduct sabotage attacks inside Russia since the February invasion of Ukraine, investigative journalist Jack Murphy reported on Saturday, citing unnamed former US intelligence and military officials.

The report said that no US personnel are on the ground in Russia but that the operations are being directed by the CIA. The US is using an ally’s intelligence services to add an extra layer of plausible deniability, and a former US special operations official told Murphy that layer was a major factor in President Biden signing off on the attacks.

A fire at the Russian Aerospace Forces’ Central Scientific Research Institute in Tver in April, via TASS.

Murphy said he didn’t name the NATO country whose intelligence services were being used in the report because “doing so might endanger the operational security of cells that are still operational inside of Russia.”

The report appeared on Murphy’s personal website, and in a note at the end of the piece, he explained why it wasn’t published by a media outlet. “While working with editors at mainstream publications I was asked to do things that were illegal and unethical in one instance, and in another instance I felt that a senior CIA official was able to edit my article by making off the record statements, before he leaked a story to The New York Times to undermine this piece,” he wrote.

According to the report, the covert campaign inside Russia has been years in the making. Two former military officials said that the NATO country’s spy services had hidden a cache of explosives and equipment in Russia more than a decade ago, and some of the gear has been used recently.

A former US special operations official and US person briefed on the campaign said that the CIA didn’t get involved with the NATO country’s operations inside Russia until 2014. The first time sleeper cells entered Russia that were directed by both the CIA and the NATO ally’s spy service was in 2016, and more entered the country in the following years.

The NATO ally provided the undercover operatives with stories to explain their presence in Russia and documents to back them up. The report said that around the time Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the NATO ally’s spy service activated its sleeper cells inside Russia using covert communication, and they were ready for orders on what targets to strike.

It’s not clear how many attacks the sleeper cells have been responsible for, but there has been a series of mysterious explosions at Russian military facilities, powerplants, and railways since the invasion. The report suggested that the saboteurs could have been behind an April fire at the research institute of Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces, which killed over 20 people.

The sabotage operations that the CIA is overseeing require a presidential finding. President Obama signed a finding before he left office that allowed covert action against Russia over allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election, a claim that has never been proven.

According to The Washington Post, Obama’s finding allows “planting cyberweapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow.” Murphy cited a former CIA official who said the finding also allowed sabotage operations against Russia, although other former officials he spoke with said the current operations would have required an amendment or an entirely new finding.

A CIA spokesperson denied the allegations made in the report, but Murphy pointed out that the spy agency can legally deny the existence of its covert operations.

The CIA directing sabotage inside Russia risks a major escalation between NATO and Russia and could lead to a nuclear escalation. Ukraine has recently stepped up its own attacks inside Russian territory, and according to The Times, the Pentagon tacitly endorsed recent drone strikes that hit air bases deep inside Russian territory, adding to the risk of escalation.

In his note at the end of the report, Murphy said that he published the story to inform the public:

“Indeed, the Russian government knows perfectly well who is sponsoring these sabotage strikes. Moreover, the intelligence community wants them to know. The only party left in the dark is the public at large, left unaware of the shadow war taking place behind the scenes,” he wrote.

Murphy said that the article “went through a vigorous fact-checking process, and was deemed newsworthy as the strategic bombings of Laos and Cambodia or the CIA’s secret drone campaign in Pakistan.”

* * *

Note: Jack Murphy is a US special forces combat veteran turned journalist who specializes in reporting on clandestine operations, including investigative reports for Yahoo News and other major publications.

Students Speak Out On anti-White Woke

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

Florida may be “where woke goes to die,” according to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has repeated the line in many speeches.

A journalism student at a Florida university, who asked to be identified only as Mia, said professors on her campus openly disparage Christians, America’s founders, and whites. (Courtesy of Mia)

But talk of its demise is greatly exaggerated, according to some university students in the state and an organization that tracks progressive policies on college campuses.

Six conservative students attending a major Florida university told The Epoch Times, on condition of anonymity, about their frustration with the anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-American environment on campus and in classrooms that make them feel uncomfortable at best and threatened at worst.

Across the country, parents have pushed back against their community school boards for allowing radical race and gender theories in grades K-12. But experts told The Epoch Times that the same pushback hasn’t happened at the college level—the birthplace of Critical Race Theory (CRT).

CRT, the experts said, is rampant across the nation, not just in Florida. And that means conservative students nationwide are struggling to navigate college systems, where they face disdain for their beliefs and encouragement to reject their core values.

On a campaign stop in rural North Florida on Nov. 3, 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, scorns left-wing ideology, saying “Florida is where ‘woke’ goes to die.” (Nanette Holt/The Epoch Times)

Carol Swain, a retired political science and law professor at Vanderbilt University and a frequent television analyst on race relations, sympathizes with the struggle conservatives face at colleges.

But she urges students to think strategically before outing themselves as holding conservative views, which are often unpopular among or even demonized by fellow students and professors.

Conservative students should pick their battles carefully, Swain told The Epoch Times, to successfully finish college—because the country needs young conservative voices in the professional world.

“There are key players that you want in position—you want [conservatives] to become university professors, or whatever profession they’re trying to go into,” Swain said.

‘Extremist’ views

A Christian law student, who supports the National Rifle Association (NRA), told The Epoch Times he didn’t know he’d been reported as “an extremist” for expressing conservative views until FBI agents knocked on his apartment door. They questioned him about his political views for more than an hour.

A journalism student said she felt bullied by a professor who forced students to parrot her scorn for America’s “systemic racism” and affirm “progressive talking points” on immigration, gender-identity issues, “queer theory,” intersectionality, transgenderism, religious faith, and the ideas of Karl Marx, author of “The Communist Manifesto.”

I can’t write what I truly believe” about these issues, Mia said. “When I did that, I got an F. In order to pass a class, I have to affirm leftist ideas I don’t believe in. When I repeat all the talking points and present them as ideas I believe wholeheartedly, I get As.”

“It feels like being brainwashed when they reward you for repeating their ideas and punish you for saying things that go against their beliefs.”

A Florida university student, who asked to be identified only as Mia, sits with her Bible at home on Christmas break on Dec. 22, 2022. Expressing Christian views on campus draws scorn from professors, who openly talk about their “hate” for Christians, she told The Epoch Times. (Courtesy of Mia)

At the core of the students’ struggle is the university’s apparent glorification of CRT, a Marxist-derived ideology that substitutes race or gender for class struggle. The theory divides people into two groups—oppressors and the oppressed—based on factors such as skin color or sexual orientation.

One of the leading architects of modern CRT is Ibram X. Kendi, who attended Florida A&M University, and later taught at the University of Florida. Kendi’s book, “How to be an Antiracist,” promotes fighting racism by discriminating against groups that, according to Kendi, are “oppressors,” such as white males. Antiracism practices often are taught in classes and employer trainings that promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).

Students said CRT, gender theory, and other topics considered “woke” are flourishing at their Florida university.

That’s despite attempts by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to stop racial activism in education and workplaces in his state by formally banning CRT training and discrimination.

CRT controversy

In April, DeSantis signed the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act, also known as the Stop WOKE Act. The law prohibits discriminatory classroom instruction, such as CRT. And it prohibits employers from forcing workers to attend antiracism and CRT training.

The law bans instruction that implies someone is responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin. The measure also allows Floridians to sue if they believe their school or workplace has violated the law.

The Stop WOKE Act originated as a response to the spread of CRT and other social justice concepts widely promoted by works such as The New York Times’ 1619 Project, which paints America as a country founded on slavery and characterizes the nation’s Founding Fathers as racists.

While the 1619 Project has been rejected by many academics, historians, and politicians, its teachings have been embraced just as vigorously by many liberals and progressives. Many have held it up as a model of how history should be taught to children and college students.

New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of The 1619 Project, speaks as colleagues hold a rally outside The New York Times headquarters in New York City, on Dec. 8, 2022. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Under the Stop WOKE Act, Florida university faculty members who teach CRT could be fired as part of post-tenure reviews. A violation of the Stop WOKE Act would make schools ineligible for what is known as performance funding. That’s extra money awarded by the state for measurable successes, such as high graduation rates and impressive median earnings of alumni.The threat of facing those repercussions for teaching CRT has sparked legal challenges.

Several Florida college professors and students filed a lawsuit challenging the Stop WOKE Act. They claim the law chills free speech in the classroom, confuses professors, and violates their First Amendment rights.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction against the law in November. The DeSantis administration is appealing the decision.

Hostile Environment

Florida college students who spoke with The Epoch Times described a campus culture focused on race and social justice and hostile to conservative or Christian views. They asked to use pseudonyms to protect their identity, fearing retaliation for speaking publicly.

Jeff, a pre-law freshman, told The Epoch Times he felt pressure in an economics course to write about globalization as a “good thing,” even though he disagrees with it.

Globalization is a movement to reduce trade barriers and build closer political, social, and economic ties between countries. It has been criticized by conservatives, who warn it’s moving countries toward a one-world government that would strip away the sovereignty of nations.

Ellen, a Florida college freshman, said her classes have elements of gender theory, climate change, and race woven into teachings on business. One class defined professional attire by showing what would be appropriate for men, women, and people who identified as both genders, or neither.

Sam Brinton, shown at an event in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Nov. 17, 2019, was the first “gender fluid” person in federal government leadership. Brinton served under President Joe Biden as a deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy until being charged with luggage theft twice. (Tasia Wells/Getty Images for The Trevor Project)

In a required philosophy course, Ellen’s classmates seemed convinced they were doomed to die from what they were taught were human-caused climate changes, she said. The view that fluctuations in weather patterns might be a normal, natural occurrence that’s happened throughout history was not presented by the professor, she said.

And when the professor announced that President Joe Biden had recommitted the United States to the Paris Climate Accords, the room erupted in applause, she recalled. Unwilling to cheer, the moment made her feel alienated, she said.

In an introductory business course that focused on DEI, another student, Luis, said he was told to list all his “identities,” including being a white, heterosexual, Catholic male. The point of the assignment seemed to be to make white students feel ashamed, he said.

He ignored the risk of stigma and wrote that he would like to perpetuate his Irish-American bloodline.

Demonstrators denouncing “systemic racism” in law enforcement and calling for the defunding of police departments kneel in Maria Hernandez Park in the borough of Brooklyn in New York City on June 5, 2020. (Scott Heins/Getty Images)

Journalism major Mia spoke of a required class in which the professor emphatically spoke about “white privilege” and “systemic racism” as fact. If students wrote about views contrary to the professor’s anti-white, anti-establishment positions, their grades suffered, she said.

Speaking among themselves, classmates indicated they were afraid to ask questions or assert their true beliefs, she said.

One professor, who lauded the teachings of Marx, warned students on the first day of class that “hate speech,” which the professor didn’t define, would be reported to the dean, Mia said. It had a chilling effect.

The professor also warned students not to get “too comfortable” in writing about their beliefs in a journaling assignment, Mia said. That could lead to students being reported and punished, the professor promised, indicating she’d lodged formal complaints against students for such violations.

The professor praised students who acknowledged, with apparent regret, that their parents had not raised them to hold views similar to the professor’s but were thankful to finally be learning about progressive beliefs, Mia said.

Writing Satire for an ‘A’

The traditional belief that journalists should question authority and think for themselves was not taught in the required journalism class, Mia said. All assignments in the class would be “viewed through a lens of social justice,” students were told on the first day.

White people were described as “privileged” in readings assigned by the black professor, Mia said.

Students were told by the professor that it’s a “myth” that journalists must report both sides of a story. For example, if a journalist covers a story involving members of the Ku Klux Klan, the public doesn’t have to hear from them, the professor told the class, Mia said.

“Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people,” a slide from the professor proclaimed. “This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.”

In a required journalism class at a major Florida university, the professor spends most of the time teaching about race, class, gender-identity, and sexual orientation, rather than principles of journalism, according to a student who asked to be identified only as Mia. (Courtesy of Mia)

Students faced the ethical dilemma of choosing between turning in writings that affirmed the professor’s views, with which they disagreed, or failing the class, Mia said.

When she turned in a paper with views that opposed her professor’s, but were attributed to others, Mia received a failing grade. In that assignment, she defended Christianity as an institution that helped end slavery. That position was attacked by a teaching assistant, who penned scathing comments.

Desperate to pull up her grade, Mia came up with a plan. She’d pretend to agree, pursuing assignments as if writing for the satirical, social-media powerhouse, The Babylon Bee.

It’s horrible. I feel so fake,” Mia told The Epoch Times. “I’m not learning anything, except to write things I don’t believe.

Conservative on Campus

A Christian now studying law, Robert was only an undergraduate when he discovered the risk of being known as a conservative on campus. That revelation quickly became clear when two FBI agents knocked on his apartment door at 9 a.m. They told him they’d received an anonymous tip that he was “an extremist.”

“They did ask me if I was an extremist or was a member of extremist groups,” he told The Epoch Times. “I asked them to define it. When they hesitated, I asked if being a Christian or a member of the NRA qualified. They said, ‘No.’”

To their credit, Robert said, the two agents seemed to be “reasonable people.” They told him that, after speaking with him, they had no idea why someone would report him. He was told the case against him would be closed, he said.

Environmental activists rally on Capitol Hill in Washington, on March 25, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Robert, now a second-year law student, says Florida’s new Stop Woke Act is “toothless.” Teachings that applaud principles of CRT, such as the need for “social justice,” are ubiquitous on campus, he said. In law courses, students are taught to consider skin color with regard to crime and punishment.

Robert said that because blacks have suffered racism at the hands of whites, students debated if “systemic racism” should be considered when sentencing people of color.

Discussions centered on whether black people should be punished less severely than white people for similar crimes to compensate for historical oppression of blacks by whites, and because whites, on average, live longer, Robert said.

“The new trend is to see the difference and discriminate,” he said.

‘Tear up the Constitution’

Robert, who focuses on constitutional law, recalled students arguing that the U.S. Constitution was illegitimate from the start, and was written by racist, old, white men. The professor didn’t express that he condoned that point of view, but he didn’t offer a rebuttal, either, Robert said.

Law students, he added, “talk about how we should tear up the Constitution.”

A slide showing part of a quiz on bankruptcy law describes a scenario involving divorced lesbians, though gender and sexual orientation have nothing to do with the concept. (Courtesy of Chris)

Chris, a third-year law student, objects to the pervasive LGBT ideology woven into classes.

“What does homosexuality have to do with bankruptcy, right?” he asked. “They were literally just pushing this same-sex, homosexual agenda.”

When answering questions on timed exams, students often lose precious moments trying to determine if gender is pertinent to the legal concept, or if it’s just an attempt to “virtue-signal,” Chris said.

Legal textbooks routinely use “she” when describing situations in which gender is not specified, Chris said. That causes confusion.

“I had to get used to reading these textbooks constantly referring to a lawyer as she.”

Traditionally, it’s been considered correct to use “he” and “him” as gender-neutral pronouns. Progressives have insisted on using other pronouns such as “she” and “they” when gender is not specifically designated. And failing to use a person’s “preferred pronouns” has meant harsh punishments, such as expulsion for students and termination for instructors around the country.

Conchy Vasquez (R) and Jony Rozon, both engineers at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Newport, discuss the importance of using correct pronouns in a training video for the U.S. Navy. (Courtesy of the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service)

“The left preaches tolerance…until they become strong,” and then tolerance for opposing views ends, Chris said. “That’s what we saw with the communist revolutions.”

‘Our Policy is Not to Comment’

Ray Rodrigues, Chancellor of the State University System of Florida, assumed the post to oversee the state’s universities in November. He was asked by The Epoch Times about students’ claims that professors teach CRT and radical gender theory as irrefutable truth, and how students say they fear speaking out against such class material.

As you know, the legislature passed legislation regarding this issue, and we have prepared a regulation to implement that legislation,” spokeswoman Renee Fargason, an assistant vice chancellor for public affairs, wrote in an emailed response. “It has been enjoined by the Court, and our policy is to not comment on pending litigation.”

She directed The Epoch Times to the Board’s Statement of Free Expression.

The iconic Century Tower on the University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Fla. on July 30, 2022. (Nanette Holt/The Epoch Times)

Florida universities actively promote CRT, according to the Critical Race Training in Education database maintained by the Legal Insurrection Foundation.

Florida colleges follow CRT principles by renaming campus spaces after progressive icons, and they present race-based workshops and resources for students and staff, the organization says. The Sunshine State’s universities also have encouraged students to report each other for “biased” speech or beliefs, according to the database.

For example, the University of Florida in Gainesville made headlines for naming a study room on campus in honor of Karl Marx. The school removed the name after media attention in March.

At Florida State University in Tallahassee, the College of Education offers antiracism training resources, including a list of children’s books to “combat racism” in children as young as 3.

The college’s website cites Harvard research asserting that by age 5, “white children are strongly biased towards whiteness. To counter this bias, experts recommend acknowledging and naming race and racism with children as early and as often as possible.”

The University of Central Florida in Orlando was sued by Speech First in 2021 for creating rules and regulations that “suppress and punish speech about the political and social issues of the day.”

The lawsuit described a campus atmosphere where students reported each other for “biased” views, triggering investigations by the university. Students were forced to sit through lectures on university-approved speech that Speech First compared to a “reeducation camp.” The result was students became afraid to voice their views, the lawsuit stated.

Toeing the Line

Cornell law professor William Jacobson, founder of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, said the experiences of the Florida students are typical throughout the states.

Conservative students at Cornell and at institutions around the country have complained to him about the same issues, he told The Epoch Times.

The increasing popularity of CRT prompted him to launch CritialRace.org in 2020.

Students are being conditioned to go along with a professor’s political views and say whatever is necessary in order to survive their courses, even going against their own deeply held beliefs, he said.

“It’s a massive problem because one bad grade in a course can keep you out of graduate school. Students are mostly terrified of going against the professor. That’s something I hear all the time.”

As the reach of CRT has expanded, so has the scope of CriticalRace.org, Jacobson said. The database now includes private medical, military, and K-12 schools. It has examined hundreds of U.S. higher education institutions and documented critical race training courses.

The problem is that universities have developed what Jacobson calls “systemic repression.” By hiring politically progressive professors and mandating progressive policies, administrators create a culture that allows little room for dissent.

“That’s the complete opposite of what higher education is supposed to be about,” Jacobson said.

Students parrot materials and professors’ views to survive their courses, he said. Meanwhile, administrators pretend the students aren’t being pressured. And when students complain, administrators may demand proof that students were penalized for speaking against a professor’s beliefs.

“How are you going to prove it without putting yourself at risk?” Jacobson asked.

Pervasive Problem

Swain, who wrote “Black Eye For America: How Critical Race Theory is Burning Down the House,” agrees that student fear is a pervasive problem.

“I have often told conservative students that they have rights. They should be protected against discrimination,” Swain said.

Going along with racial and gender ideology to get through college is more common than people realize, Swain said.

The political left has persuaded many students to jettison whatever values and principles they’d held for most of their early lives, she added.

It starts with freshman orientation, the first day on campus, she said. That’s when established students and administrators let new students know that their past beliefs—based on their religion or family values—are unsophisticated.

To understand the opposition, conservative students should become familiar with Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” a guide of progressive beliefs, Swain said. The book advocates for deception, infiltration, and manipulation to win political power.

Read more here…

Chinese View on Russia-Ukraine Conflict

CHINA / DIPLOMACY
Russia-Ukraine conflict ‘could further escalate in 2023;’ negotiation impossible before ‘key change in battlefield’
By Yang Sheng
and Xu Yelu

Black smoke rises over Ukraine’s capital Kiev on October 10, 2022. Photo: VCG

Russia and Ukraine recently accused each other of having no sincerity for negotiations to end the conflict, and Russian President Vladimir Putin said he will sign a decree on retaliatory preventive measures against the introduction of a cap on prices for Russian oil on Monday or Tuesday. Analysts said the confrontation between Russia and the US and the military conflict in Ukraine could be further escalated in 2023.

“I think I will sign the decree sometime on Monday or Tuesday. These are precautionary measures,” Putin told reporters on Thursday, according to TASS. As of press time, there has been no information released by Russia about the decree.

The Russian side will wait until the final parameters of the EU embargo are clear, as it doesn’t understand what can take the place of Russian oil products in Europe, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said, according to TASS on Monday.

“Europe used to be a key market for the sale of our oil products. Let us wait and see what decisions they will make in the long run. So far, we don’t know what can take the place of our fuel,” Novak said.

On December 5, an embargo on maritime oil supplies from Russia to the European Union came into force. The EU, the Group of Seven (UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, USA, France, Japan), as well as Australia, agreed on a price cap for Russian oil supplied by sea at $60 per barrel. The US, EU and UK are banning their companies from providing transport, financial and insurance services to tankers carrying oil from Russia at a price above the “agreed level.”

Chinese analysts said Russia is showing its determination and strength for a long-term struggle with not only Ukraine but also the US and other Western countries, and not only in the military field but also in the economy. And in 2023, Russia may take decisive action to end the conflict as the Kremlin needs to create a relatively stable and positive environment for the 2024 presidential election. Meanwhile, to what extent the West can continue offering huge amounts of financial and military assistance to Kiev is in question, so it’s very likely that there will be a further escalation of the conflict next year, they noted.

Far from negotiations

Russia is ready to negotiate with all parties involved in the war in Ukraine but “Kiev and its Western backers have refused to engage in talks,” Putin said in an interview with Russian state media aired on Sunday.

“We are ready to negotiate with everyone involved about acceptable solutions, but that is up to them – we are not the ones refusing to negotiate, they are,” Putin told Rossiya 1 state television.

However, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said on his Twitter account that Putin needed to return to reality and acknowledge it was Russia that did not want talks.

The current deadlock over the Russia-Ukraine conflict is due to the fact that the Kremlin says it will fight until all its aims are achieved, and Russia will not abandon the territories it has already gained, while Kiev says it will not rest until every Russian soldier is ejected from all of its territory, including the Donbass region and Crimea, which Russia treats as its own territories, experts said.

Yang Jin, an associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that neither side wants to give up something it already has to make a deal with the other, which is why hopes for negotiations are still far away.

Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert and TV commentator, said, “If you can’t get it by force from the battlefield, then you won’t be able to get it from the negotiating table,” and this applies to both sides, which believe that they are able to further change the current situation by military means, and this is the reason why intense battles in the Eastern and Southern Ukraine continue, and Ukraine-launched attacks within Russian territories will also increase.

Cui Heng, an assistant research fellow from the Center for Russian Studies of East China Normal University, told the Global Times on Monday, “For Russia, 2023 is a crucial year, because the Putin administration needs to prepare for the 2024 election. If Russia cannot consolidate what it has gained or even makes too many compromises to the US and Ukraine, Putin’s 2024 agenda would be in trouble, so it’s impossible for Russia to adjust its conditions for talks.”

“For Ukraine and the US, room for negotiations is also limited, because Zelensky’s speech to the US Congress during his visit to the US has also set a high tone at the moment. At this point, US policymakers are pressured by ‘political correctness,’ so even if they want to talk to Russia to find a way to ease tensions and let the difficult economic situation at least take a break, they won’t dare change their tough stance against Russia,” Cui noted.

For US President Joe Biden and the Democrats, pulling support from Ukraine in 2023 is also unlikely. With a US presidential election taking place in 2024, the topic of Ukraine will not be challenged by Republicans too much due to “political correctness,” and when Biden performs poorly on domestic issues, he will not hesitate to use Ukraine as a card to serve his reelection chances, Cui said.

More importantly, US policymaking is greatly influenced by the military-industrial complex and the strategists who want to keep using Ukraine to weaken Russia and undermine the EU, so interest groups will also impose difficulties on any potential Russia-US talks, experts said.

But to what extent the economies of the US and other European countries can afford such large amounts of financial and military assistance is in question, and in 2023 the terrible economic situation and changing public opinion could weaken the Western support for Ukraine, analysts said.

Danger of greater conflict

With the deteriorating situation, some observers are concerned about a direct conflict between Russia and the US, as Washington has decided to deliver more weapons including Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine, and Russia has warned that it will destroy those US weapons once they have been transported to Ukraine.

“Of course, we’ll take them [Patriot systems] out, 100 percent!” Putin said in an interview on Sunday.

But some Chinese observers have different views on this.

Cui from East China Normal University said, “There is no necessity and no realistic condition for direct conflict between Russia and the US. It is in the interests of Washington to keep the conflict as a proxy war without massive US casualties.”

Song said there is one possible scenario where the US becomes directly involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. “If the US believes that targeting facilities in Russia and even its top leader will boost internal unrest to threaten the ruling position of the Putin administration, then Washington might take risky action to end the conflict, but this will surely cause an all-out conflict between two of the world’s major military powers.”

Dmitry Medvedev’s Predictions? or Wishful Thinking?

Predictions of Dmitry Medvedev given today (translated from his Telegram channel)

What could happen in 2023:

1. Increase in oil prices to $ 150 per barrel and gas prices to $ 5,000 per 1,000 cubic meters.

2. The return of the UK to the European Union.

3. The collapse of the European Union after the return of the UK and the abolition of the euro as the currency of the former EU.

4. The seizure by Poland and Hungary of the western regions of the former Ukraine.

5. The creation of the Fourth Reich on the basis of Germany and the satellites that joined it (Poland, the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, the Kiev Republic, etc. marginals).

6. The war between France and the Fourth Reich. The partition of Europe, including the new partition of Poland.

7. Separation of Northern Ireland from the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and accession to the Republic of Ireland.

8. The Civil War in the USA, the separation of California and Texas into independent states. Creation of the union State of Texas and Mexico. The subsequent victory of Elon Musk during the US presidential election in some of the states assigned to the Republicans after the Civil War.

9. Transfer of all major stock exchanges and financial activity from the USA and Europe to Asia.

10. The collapse of the Bretton Woods financial system, including the collapse of the IMF and the World Bank. Abandoning the euro and the dollar as world reserve currencies. The return of the gold standard. Transition to the active use of digital fiat currencies

Ex-Russian President, No Peace Before NATO Rolls-Back to Before 1997


In a lengthy article in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper, f
ormer Russian president Dmitry Medvedev summarized his thoughts on how the year 2022 has changed the world order forever. Dmitri Medvedev long end-of-year article, all in Russian, “‘Our people, our land, our truth’: Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev – on the results of 2022, which changed the world order”. “I will express my own position on current events. I do not pretend to be impartially detached, since I am a direct participant in them. Yes, it is impossible when it comes to the fate of your Motherland, our people and the whole world.”

He has accused Western powers of lying, causing a rift that will remain for decades to come, and convincing Moscow that there is no sense in trying to reach an agreement with them.
Medevedev, who serves as deputy chair of the national Security Council, wrote in a keynote article on Sunday that the year 2022 has shattered illusions about the West, proving that its promises and principles cannot taken at face value.

“Alas, there is nobody in the West we could deal with about anything for any reason,” he wrote.

Medvedev went on to say that nations that claim global leadership deceived Russia when they claimed NATO expansion in Europe posed no threat to it. They again lied when they backed a peace roadmap for Ukraine, which in reality was meant to give Kiev time to prepare for an eventual armed conflict with Russia, he added. The conflict in Ukraine is a war against Russia by a proxy, which was long in the making, Medvedev claimed.
The behavior of Washington and others this year “is the last warning to all nations: there can be no business with the Anglo-Saxon world [because] it is a thief, a swindler, a cardsharp (n.ed. trickster) that could do anything.”
For Russia, there will be no restoration of normal relations with the West for years or even decades to come, Medvedev predicted.

“From now on we will do without them until a new generation of sensible politicians comes to power there. We will be careful and alert. We will develop relations with the rest of the world,” he wrote.

However, Medvedev argued that the loss of Western leadership could be a net positive, considering what he called the moral bankruptcy of the US-led neo-colonial order. Elites that caused the financial meltdown of 2008 and the ongoing global crisis are unable to claim global leadership, he wrote.
“The West is incapable of offering to the world any new ideas, which would take humanity forward, solve global problems, or provide collective security,” the former president insisted.
Medvedev expects that several regional blocs will emerge in the near future, each with its own values and rules, and that Russia will have its place in the new order.

“The only thing that stops our enemies today is the understanding that Russia will be guided by [the doctrine] on nuclear deterrence. And if there is a real threat, we will act,”Medvedev wrote in the article published on Sunday night. In such a grim scenario there will be nobody left to argue about whether that was “a retaliatory strike or a preventive one.”
“Therefore, the Western world is balancing between a burning desire to maximally humiliate, dismember and destroy Russia, on the one hand, and the desire to avoid a nuclear apocalypse, on the other,” he explained.

Until Russia receives the security guarantees it has demanded, the world “will continue to teeter on the brink of World War III and nuclear catastrophe,” Medvedev wrote, noting that Moscow is doing “everything we can to prevent it.”

Is the West ready, through Kiev proxies, to unleash a full-fledged war against us, including a nuclear war?

Russia presented a list of security proposals to the US and NATO last December, including urging the West to impose a ban on Ukraine entering the military bloc, while insisting that NATO should retreat to its borders of 1997.
After the US and NATO flatly refused, saying they would only be interested in limited strategic arms control talks, it became obvious that Moscow had “no one to talk and nothing to negotiate about” Medvedev argued.
And when in February “Ukrainian junkies announced their desire to revive their nuclear arsenal,” Moscow had no other choice but to act, he claimed.

“Our world has changed, forever. And the main question remains… what kind of future begins today?” he wrote.

“New disarmament agreements are currently unrealistic and unnecessary,” Medvedev reiterated. “The sooner the guarantees of maximum security that suit our country are received, the sooner the situation will normalize.”
via RT

What’s Ahead in the War in Ukraine

by U. S. Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin via Russia Matters

The war in Ukraine has dragged on for nearly 10 months. After an initial Russian cavalry dash seized over 20% of Ukraine, Russian forces then smashed into determined Ukrainian resistance, ending in an embarrassing retreat from Kyiv. From then, the war became an attritional contest between Russia on one side and Ukraine fighting at the head of a Western coalition on the other. During the summer, Russian offensives captured Lyman, Lisichansk and Severo Donetsk. In the fall, Ukrainian offensives recaptured Kharkiv province and Kherson city, shrinking Russian control to roughly 50% of the territories they had captured since Feb. 24, according to one estimate. The opposing sides have adopted two opposing strategies: Russians are fighting a traditional firepower-centric war of attrition; Ukraine is pursuing a terrain-focused war of maneuver. These opposing strategies are as much a product of national resource availability as a deliberate choice. As freezing ground ushers in the winter campaign season, both sides will follow their strategies into limited offensives.

So far both strategies appear to work. Ukraine has recaptured large swaths of territory but exhausted itself during the fall offensive. It suffered frightful losses and depleted key stockpiles of equipment and ammunition. There is still capacity to replace losses and establish new combat formations, but those are rapidly withering.

I believe that neither side will achieve spectacular territorial gain, but the Russian side is more likely to achieve its goals of draining Ukrainian resources while preserving its own.

The Ukrainian Strategy

The Ukrainians’ terrain-focused war of maneuver is constrained by two factors: limited artillery ammunition and equipment production, and coalition considerations. Ukraine started the war with 1,800 artillery pieces of Soviet caliber. These allowed firing rates of 6,000 to 7,000 rounds a day against 40,000 to 50,000 Russian daily rounds. By now this artillery is mostly out of ammunition, and in its place Ukraine is using 350 Western caliber artillery pieces, many of which are destroyed or breaking down from overuse. Meanwhile, Western nations are themselves running out of ammunition; the U.S. is estimated to produce only 15,000 155mm shells a month. This constraint has forced Ukraine to adopt mass infantry formations focused on regaining territory at any cost. Ukraine simply cannot go toe to toe with Russia in artillery battles. Unless Ukrainian troops close to direct fire fights with Russian troops, there is a significant chance that they will be destroyed at a distance by Russian artillery.

Ukraine’s second constraint is the coalition nature of its warfare. Since running out of its own stocks, Ukraine is increasingly reliant on Western weaponry. Maintaining the Western coalition is crucial to the Ukrainian war effort. Without a constant string of victories, domestic economic concern may cause coalition members to defect. If Western support dries up due to depletion of stock or of political will, Ukraine’s war effort collapses for lack of supplies. In some ways, Ukraine has no choice but to launch attacks no matter the human and material cost.

Ukraine built an infantry-centric army of highly motivated conscripted troops with limited to no training. They support the core fighting force of the prewar professional army and about 14 new brigades equipped with Western-donated weapons and vehicles. On the battlefield, strike groups attack quickly, penetrating deep and fast, then hand over captured areas to draftees to defend. This tactic worked well in areas where the shortage of Russian manpower prevented a solid front, such as in the Kharkiv region. In the Kherson region, where Russia had sufficient density of forces, this tactic resulted in large casualties and little progress, until logistic issues caused Russia to retreat.

The Achilles heel of this strategy is manpower. Ukraine started the war with 43 million citizens and 5 million military-aged males, but according to the U.N., 14.3 million Ukrainians have fled the war, and a further 9 million are in Crimea or other Russian-occupied territories. This means Ukraine is down to about 20 to 27 million people. At this ratio, it has less than 3 million draftable men.A million have been drafted already, and many of the rest are either not physically fit to serve or occupy a vital position in the nation’s economy. In short, Ukraine might be running out of men, in my view.

The Russian Strategy

The Russian forces are limited by manpower but strengthened by massive artillery and equipment stockpiles enabled by a robust military industrial complex. While there have been numerous reports in Western media that the Russian army is running out of artillery ammunition, so far there’s been no visible slacking of Russian artillery fire on any front. Based on these factors, the Russian side has relied on a traditional firepower-centric war of attrition. The goal is to force an unsustainable casualty rate, destroying Ukrainian manpower and equipment, while preserving Russia’s own forces. Territory is not important; its loss is acceptable to preserve combat power. At Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson, the Russian army refused to fight under unfavorable conditions and withdrew, accepting the political cost to preserve its forces.

To execute this strategy, the Russian army relies on firepower, particularly its artillery. Each Russian brigade has three artillery battalions compared to just one in each Western brigade. Paired with correction by massed quantities of UAVs and quadcopters, Russian artillery pulverizes Ukrainian forces before infantry mops up survivors. It is a slow, grinding war, but with a casualty ratio that is significantly in Russia’s favor. Russia couldn’t attack because it lacked the manpower to secure the flanks of advancing troops. Up to now, Russians could only advance in Donbas, where advance did not extend the frontline. Even here the intent was more to draw in Ukrainian forces and destroy themrather than capture the city of Bakhmut. Mobilization has the potential to overcome Russia’s manpower shortages and enable offensive operations, while equipping its forces is possible due to the mobilization of industry. Precision munition production is also up, despite consistent doubt in Western press. Video of strikes by Russian “Lancet 3” loitering kamikaze drones is up up by 1,000% since Oct. 13, according to one estimate, indicating a major increase in production.

The Coming Winter

If the Ukrainians decide to launch a major offensive, they could do so in two places, in my view. The first is in the north, in the Kharkiv region, but limited crossing over the Oskil River generates the same logistical challenges the Russians faced at Kherson. The second is in the south, to cut off the Russian land bridge to Crimea,eventually capturing the peninsula. This is unlikely to succeed. The Ukrainian army would be attacking in terrain ideal for Russian artillery. It could become a repeat of the battle at Kherson, but without Russian logistics difficulties, stemming from a limited number of crossings over the Dnipro River, with just as little gain and the same heavy losses marked by whole mechanized companies wiped out, endless scenes of ambulance convoys and new cemeteries all over Ukraine. The levels of attrition would play right into Russian hands. The political pressure on the Ukrainian government to justify the losses taken from Russian artillery in Donbas by retaking territory elsewhere, as well as the pressure from the Western coalition, may drive Ukraine to attack regardless.

For the Russian leadership the question is: When and where to attack? The timing depends on Russian artillery ammunition stocks. If they are high, Russia may attack in winter, otherwise it may stockpile and attack in spring after the mud season. Timing is also driven by the training requirements for the mobilized reservists. Longer training increases the effectiveness of the reservists and reduces casualties, thus lowering political risk for the Kremlin. Ultimately, the pressures that the Russian leadership views as most important will decide the outcome. Will the pressure from domestic politics for a quick victory win out, or will military considerations favor delaying until the end of spring mud season in March/April? So far, the Kremlin has gone with military considerations ahead of political ones, suggesting that Russia will launch only a limited offensive this winter.

Location is another factor. The Kharkiv front is heavily wooded, restricting the effectiveness of firepower, and it is strategically meaningless without attacking the city of Kharkiv. This major urban center would take months to capture at very high cost. A limited attack to regain the Oskil River line would improve Russia’s defensive line but present no strategic gain. In Donbas, the Russian army is already maintaining pressure. Extra manpower and artillery units won’t speed up that offensive much. For the Russian army, the Zaporizhzhia front holds the most promise. The Pologi-Gulai Polie-Pokrovskoye railroad is ideally placed to supply a Russian offensive driving north from Pologi. Eventually capturing Pavlograd would allow the capture of Donbas by cutting off two main railroads and highways supplying the Ukrainian army in Donbas and attacking the Ukrainian army there from the rear. The open terrain is ideal for the Russian firepower-centric strategy, and a chance to draw in and destroy the last of the Ukrainian operational reserves and further attrite its manpower is directly in line with Russian objectives. Lastly, the hard frozen ground would make new defensive positions hard to dig without heavy equipment. The limited attack vicinity of Ugledar could be a shaping operation to secure the eastern flank of the future offensive.

Conclusion

Wars of attrition are won through careful husbandry of one’s own resources while destroying the enemy’s. Russia entered the war with vast materiel superiority and a greater industrial base to sustain and replace losses. They have carefully preserved their resources, withdrawing every time the tactical situation turned against them. Ukraine started the war with a smaller resource pool and relied on the Western coalition to sustain its war effort. This dependency pressured Ukraine into a series of tactically successful offensives, which consumed strategic resources that Ukraine will struggle to replace in full, in my view. The real question isn’t whether Ukraine can regain all its territory, but whether it can inflict sufficient losses on Russian mobilized reservists to undermine Russia’s domestic unity, forcing it to the negotiation table on Ukrainian terms, or will Russian’ attrition strategy work to annex an even larger portion of Ukraine.

AUTHOR: Alex Vershinin

United States Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin retired after 20 years of service, including eight years as an armor officer with four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and 12 years working as a modeling and simulations officer in NATO and U.S. Army concept development and experimentation. This included a tour with the U.S. Army Sustainment Battle Lab, where he led the experimentation scenario team.

After the Zelensky Spectacle – Let the Partition Begin!

by David Stockman via Antiwar.com

The spectacle in the US Capitol Building last night was downright retch-worthy. And we are not actually referring to the detestable little warmongering clown who preened at the podium in a sweatshirt and cargo pants, offering endless lies and hideously false promises about why American taxpayers and consumers are being bled to death in a pointless and unnecessary war.

No, we are referring to the pathetic gaggle of Representatives and Senators who applauded relentlessly and uproariously in response to the casuistry of the tinny poseur who stood before them, albeit one who should have never been granted that august platform in the first place.

After all, the mountebank who leads the rapidly decaying remnant of a nation that was never built to last anyway has been able to bring the world to the brink of economic catastrophe and even nuclear war for one reason alone: Namely, because the bipartisan duopoly on Capitol Hill has shoveled gargantuan sums of money into Ukraine and Washington’s proxy war on Russia with mindless negligence.

And on that score the numbers tell you all you need to know. To date, Washington has authorized $65 billion of economic and military aid, with other NATO nation’s throwing-in $32 billion additional. On top of that, the pending Omnibus Abomination will authorize $45 billion more, which Zelensky has already implied is not nearly enough.

Still, that’s $142 billion and counting, which in turn has no possibility of enabling the Ukrainian victory that Zelensky promised. And that’s also 91% of Ukraine’s 2020 prewar GDP of $156 billion, and an order of magnitude more than the under $100 billion GDP that is left before Russia’s impending winter offensive finishes it off completely.

Stated differently, these war-besotted fools are enabling the absolute destruction of the cities, towns, villages, countryside and economy of what was the world’s 30th largest polity, even as its soldiers and citizens on both sides of the front lines are being slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands.

Yet contrary to Zelensky’s deceitful rhetoric there is nothing at stake of importance to either humanity or the security of the “free world” or most especially the safety and liberty of the American homeland. Absolutely nothing at all – -and that includes all of the War Party’s cant, robotically repeated by Zelensky last night, about the rule of law, the sovereignty of borders and the freedom of the peoples of Ukraine and their neighbors.

As we have repeatedly documented, this is not a Russian invasion but a civil war in the “borderlands” territory (i.e. “Ukraine” in Russian) that prior to the communist tyranny of the Soviet Union was always a vassal and sometimes integral part of greater Russia. The present civil war, in fact, was instigated in 2014 by the illegitimate government installed in Kiev after Washington’s coup d’ tat against the duly elected and Russian-friendly president.

This Washington managed “regime change”, in turn, set the regions of the artificial state of Ukraine against each other based on long-standing differences of language, religion, ethnicity and economics, among others. And when the Russian speaking populations of Crimea, the Donbas and the Black Sea coastal areas sought separation owing to fears of repression by the Ukrainian nationalist and neo-Nazi politicians who took control of the government in Kiev, the latter brought the bloody violence of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including the overtly neo-Nazi Azov Brigade, down upon them.

That is to say, the Kiev instigated civil war against the Russian speaking populations of the east and south had been raging for eight years before Putin finally responded to their pleas for overt military assistance; and also after upwards of 14,000 separatist military and civilian personal had been killed by Kiev’s violent onslaught against what was purported to be its own population.

It also came 14 years after Putin had insisted (at the 2007 Munich Security Conference) that Ukrainian ascension to NATO and the emplacement of nuclear missiles within minutes from Moscow was a red line that could not be crossed, yet which action was virtually certain by February 2020.

Finally, the “invasion” also came after 10 days of massively stepped-up Ukrainian artillery attacks on the Donbas, which by every signal of military action and logistics implied that a Kiev “invasion” of the separatist republics was imminent.

In short, “partition” of what had been the tyrannical Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, an entity that had never existed until it was brought to life at the end of gun barrels by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev, had always been the end game. It was the clumsy hegemonist neocons of Washington who finally catalyzed the split-up after 2014 owing to their own profound ignorance of the region’s history.

Indeed, the die was cast during the last legitimate election in 2010, when the Russian-friendly candidate, Yanukovych, won the national election by a hair, on the back of 60-90% margins in the east and south (blue areas of the map) against the Ukrainian nationalist candidate, Tymoshenko, who won the less economically prosperous areas of the center and west by similar 60-90% margins (red areas).

Indeed, one merely needs to note the city names in the blue areas of the map to understand that the war in Ukraine is about partition, not “freedom”, as Zelensky so risibly suggested last night: Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol, Zaporizhia, Kryvyi Rih, and Odessa all voted blue big time in 2010, have been at the front lines of the civil war since 2014 and mostly voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia during the September referendums.

To be sure, the Washington hegemonists, neocons and warmongers will insist that these referendums were invalid, but that doesn’t explain the dog which is not barking. To wit, in the Russian-speaking blue areas of the map, there have been virtually no reports of a “resistance” movement among the local populations in opposition to the Russian “occupiers” and the purported quislings who run their separatist governments and militias. If anything, they believe they have been “liberated”, not “occupied”.

So here’s the ultimate insanity of last night’s spectacle and the $141 billion that the US/NATO will have poured into what amounts to a de facto genocide upon the peoples of what is now this wretched stretch of black earth. That is to say, the clear outlines of a diplomatic solution and the potential armistice borders were drawn by the people themselves in the 2010 election.

In fact, with Putin’s referendums already have been completed in most of the blue areas, what remains is to silence the guns, ratify the territorial status quo and enable an international peace conference to carry to its logical conclusion the partition of post-communist Ukraine that was implicit in the 2010 election results.

As it has happened, post-communist Yugoslavia did it and Czechoslovakia did it and all the effected populations are far better off. It’s now time for the borders created by Lenin from “New Russia” and from parts and pieces of the Czarist empire and post WWI Galicia, by Stalin from WWII era Poland, Hungary and Romania, and by Khrushchev from Russian Crimea to be assigned to the dust bin of history. That the world may draw back from the dangerous precipice on which it is now precariously perched, therefore, depends only upon revocation of the dead-hand of the Soviet butchers and tyrants.

The irony is that Putin would buy this solution in a heartbeat because he doesn’t want to rule (and heavily subsidize) the rump of Ukraine depicted by the red areas above, anyway. We doubt that he is as evil as Washington claims, but we are quite sure he is way too smart to want to rule what would be the hostile populations of Kiev and Lviv – to say nothing of the even more hostile peoples of Poland, the Baltics and western Europe.

Of course, Zelensky and his claque of bloodthirsty destroyers would scream to high heaven. Well, unless they were given safe passage to transport themselves and the billions they have stolen from American taxpayers and socked-away in secret bank accounts to safe havens far from the homelands they have destroyed by their obstinate promulgation of gigantic lies.

That is, this misbegotten war is not about freedom and democracy in the slightest. Ukraine is every bit as authoritarian and corrupt as Russia, and likely now more so. All of the opposition press has been shutdown or taken over by the state; most of Zelensky’s opponents have been arrested or killed; there are no longer any true opposition parties; the national security apparatus has been largely purged of dissenters; and Zelensky has lately even attacked the Russian Orthodox Church.

Still, there can be little doubt that the creepy little con man who last night recited the lines written by this neocon/NATO puppet-masters with just the right amount of Ukrainian accent could be bought off for even a small part of the billions he has already stolen. Surely, a man as small and unaccomplished as Zelensky would have a price equally modest.

No, the problem lies in last night’s audience, not the poseur at the podium. The neocon infested Republicans are trying to break the habit of embracing the Deep State’s Forever Wars, but the progress is painfully slow and limited to a few stalwarts like Rand Paul.

But there is hope for the GOP, even as the Dems remain steadfastly beyond rescue from the grips of the war fevers so pathetically on display in the House chamber last night.

You could see it as they continuously leapt to their feet and energetically slapped their hands together upon the slightest inanity emanating form the well of the House. That’s because not only is this war not about freedom and human rights, nor even the rule of law, border integrity or the rules of a peaceful, stable international order.

Actually, they were yelping in schoolboy fashion against the demonized President of the Russia who purportedly put Donald Trump in the White House and badly loosened their grip on political power for a longtime to come.

At the end of the day, the motive power of this deadly, despicable adventure is the Trump Derangement Syndrome. And given the everlasting damage it will thrust upon American taxpayers, workers and consumers – to say nothing of the global economy – that’s about as sick as it gets. The minor ruckus of January 6th doesn’t hold a candle.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

Russia’s Major Offensive in April?

Analysts of the German Ministry of Defense believe that Russia will launch a new offensive in Ukraine in April 2023.

According to the German defense ministry, there are two possible scenarios for the future campaign:

  1. In April, a massive offensive of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will begin with the aim of reaching the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. At the same time, Belarus is concentrating about 10,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, forcing the Ukrainian command to transfer part of its forces to the north of the country.

Further, Russian troops are entrenched in the recaptured territories, in order to maximize the complexity of Kiev’s counter-offensive actions, in parallel, the Kremlin offers the West a new round of negotiations.

  1. Russian troops together with the Armed Forces of Belarus will launch an offensive on two fronts: the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the Donbas, the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus in the Kiev direction. If the operation is successful, the next task will be to reach the western borders of Ukraine in order to block the supply channels of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine from the outside, as well as Russian troops will enter Transnistria.

It should be noted that for the Western think tank and military analysts of the Ministries of Defense, the date “April 2023” appears for the first time.

The Clash Between Russia and NATO: A Matter of Weeks (Days)?

There is an interesting article at a Russian site that claims NATO has taken the decision to enter the war when Russia begins its winter offensive, and perhaps even before that. This has apparently been reported by a number of high level (but anonymous) sources. The article claims that the U.S. will not accept defeat in Ukraine and it looks like its EU vassals in NATO will go along with the plan to enter the war.

 

via Rusre Info (Machine Translation)

According to several high-level sources (1), NATO has taken the decision to officially enter the conflict alongside Ukraine in the weeks or even days to come.

The main reason for this would be the very next general Russian offensive planned, according to NATO, and which, according to it, would decimate the Ukrainian army not only in the Donbass but also on the side of Kyiv (many Russian units are in a combat situation in Belarus on the borders with Ukraine).

But NATO has always been very clear: Ukraine CANNOT LOSE. For Washington, the only solution would therefore be for NATO forces to enter Ukraine, hoping that this would put an end to the Russian offensive. The calculation is that Vladimir Putin will not want to directly confront NATO with the possible (nuclear) consequences, and therefore will then back down.

But going to war may seem impossible in view of several things: On the one hand NATO itself speaks of the current shortage of ammunition and equipment following its massive deliveries to Ukraine. On the other hand the peoples of Europe are probably not ready to support a war, being currently more concerned about their winter survival.

We were able to interview, under various hats, several senior officers active in the French army:

1- “Currently, the French army is divided into three groups: the warmongers who are often office officers who have never seen a war near or far; those who want to be neutral because they consider that the army would do better to defend French interests; and those who have done the “field” in Africa or elsewhere who do not want to hear about it because for them this conflict does not concern us and we do not have to get involved in it.
The exercises to prepare for a “high-intensity war” have been going on since March. They first took place in central France on military bases in sparsely populated departments. The exercises consist mainly of urban guerrilla warfare and attacks!
If Macron wants a “truce” it is to replay it upside down to Putin. A truce will only serve to replenish the arms stocks of the USA and the EU which are almost bloodless and they need time to replenish them. This is the mistake not to commit because it will strengthen NATO. ”
According to him, if “Putin is smart” (and he has no doubt about it), he will strike massively now to prevent NATO from having time to turn around.
According to him, Macron sent 10 unfortunate Leclerc tanks to NATO. It seems to be the best (???)! Problem, spare parts come from China. So, if the Chinese play the game with Putin, we cannot fix them.
On the subject of ammunition: “Ammunition stocks being what they are, what are we going to fight with? »
In addition, the winter break would have been used to transfer Patriot and other systems that are not yet on the road.
2- According to other sources (French air base), Air Force officers receive intensive Russian language courses.
3 – According to other sources, (army) orders for ammunition for African countries have been canceled by the French authorities, instead ammunition was sent to Romania where French forces are stationed.
4- According to another senior officer in activity “There are 60 Rafale fighter planes left in France, of which at least 30 are no longer operational because we no longer have the financial means to maintain them. In fact, during the parade on July 14, all the airworthy planes gave their little demonstration to give the image of a country with a “strong” army, whereas we are completely exhausted. The American F35s have huge technical problems and are unusable. The 200 tanks in our possession are also not operational because they have been stored for a very long time in poor conditions and in addition, for lack of money, we cannot restore them”

The least we can say is that the French army is not very inclined to confront us. That said, the European and American governments have an agenda to follow, made urgent on the one hand by the predicted crash of the dollar and on the other hand by the current economic meltdown which will only worsen in Western countries. A state of war would trigger martial law and global population control as it has been developed in recent years under the pretext of “covid”. They may also think that a state of war would unite the citizens behind them.

We see today that Europe and the United States talk almost every daily about negotiations and the “Christmas truce”. This is of course a scam, such a truce would allow the Ukrainian forces to be refloated with new ammunition. In the United States the armament factories work day and night. Russia has repeatedly replied “no truce” and “there is nothing to negotiate as long as Ukraine remains on its positions”.

One hypothesis is that NATO imagines that its entry into the war will immediately make Russia capitulate out of “fear”. In this hypothesis, the Western countries will then take control of Russia and its resources, Putin having disappeared from the scene. A gigantic blow of bluff in short.

Another hypothesis is that all this is part of a NATO intoxication aimed at canceling the next general offensive of the Russian forces which already seems to be “terrorizing” the NATO forces.

In any case, this is a very bad calculation since it is clear that Russia will go through with the mission assigned by Vladimir Putin. Counting that our forces will retreat in the face of a few NATO regiments whose armament problems Russia knows is a ridiculous calculation… and which will very quickly prove to be extremely deadly.

On the ground, apart from the territories passed under Russian control, we are in fact in the same situation as at the beginning of 2022: Ukraine was heavily bombarding Donetsk and we knew that Ukraine was going to attack in March 2022; we therefore attacked the first, at the end of February. Today Ukraine is heavily bombing Donetsk and it seems possible that NATO is planning an all-out attack or trying to buy time while its stocks are replenished. What do you think we’ll do…?

We will be fixed very quickly and here is a small end-of-year gift which, I have no doubt, will interest the French authorities who read this article. Image extracted from a very complete file provided by French friends of Russia whom we warmly thank. This is just one example among many others and the French authorities will understand the situation of what will happen if (or when…) NATO enters the fray. French friends who live in the region should take a vacation…

I thank Valerya B. for her help in writing this article.

Boris Gennadevich Karpov
https://boriskarpov.tvs24.ru

(1) Sources: Senior active officer(s) in the French army Senior
managers of major French industrial groups
NATO General Staff
Polish
Ministry Ukrainian Ministry