by Germán Gorraiz- Political Analyst

The Ukrainian conflict amounts to a return to the Cold War between Russia and the US and a return to the Doctrine of Containment, the basis of which was set out by George F. Kennan in his essay “The Sources of Soviet Behavior”, published in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1947, and whose main ideas are summed up in the quote “Soviet power is impervious to the logic of reason but very sensitive to the logic of force”.

This includes Finland’s entry into NATO’s military structures and the increase in military forces with four new battalions deployed on the European border with Russia, and Russia’s response with the installation in Belarus of Iskander-M missiles equipped with multi-purpose warheads as well as S-400 anti-aircraft missiles following the Cold War dynamic (action-reaction).

We are also witnessing the fifth phase of the deployment of the missile defence shield in Europe (Euro DAM), which began in May 2016 when the Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic defence system went into service at the Deveselu base in Romania, just 600 km from the Crimean peninsula. For its part, Russia is said to have installed Iskander M missiles with multi-purpose warheads and S-400 anti-aircraft missiles in Kaliningrad, which, in the words of political scientist Vladimir Abramov, would mean that “Kaliningrad province will once again play the role of a gun to the temple of Europe as it did two decades ago”.

Moreover, if NATO closes the Soviet enclave of Kaliningrad’s exit to the Baltic Sea, the Kennedy-Khrushchev Missile Crisis (October 1962) could be repeated, with Kaliningrad as its epicenter.

In this context, Putin, in a message to the Federal Assembly, warned that “Russia could also use the hypersonic Tsirkon missile, which with a speed of Mach 8 and launched from submarines could reach any US Command Centre in five minutes, as well as the Burevestnik cruise missile and the nuclear submarine drone Poseidon”.

Will Zelensky be the collateral victim of the new US scenario?

As for the US, the Democrats’ loss of control of Congress after the mid-term elections in November will mean that Republicans will scrutinise future arms aid to Ukraine, estimated to date at $71 billion and in effect until June, and increase the thorough tracking of such weapons to prevent them from entering the arms black market, as well as a growing wave of political disaffection with Zelensky that will span the entire US political spectrum.

Thus, the Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in an interview in the “New Statesman,” stated that “the US is sending 113 billion dollars to Ukraine when a quarter of American citizens go to bed hungry”.

On the other hand, Republican candidate and former president Donald Trump claimed on his networks that “we have never been so close to World War III” and that there must be a “total commitment to dismantle the globalist neoconservative power group responsible for dragging the world into endless wars”. Similarly, Republican candidate Ron Desantis said that “Washington has many vital national interests, but further entangling itself in the territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them”.

Consequently, a Republican victory in 2024 would represent the end of the Atlanticist strategy of Biden and Soros, who are determined to oust Putin from power, the signing of a peace agreement in Ukraine and a return to the Doctrine of Peaceful Coexistence with Russia.

This would entail the enthronement of the G-3 (US, Russia and China) as “primus inter pares” in global governance and the end of the obsessive dream of the globalists led by Soros and the Open Society Foundation (OSF) to achieve the balkanization of Russia, “the white whale that Soros has been trying to hunt for decades”.

In the Democratic camp, signs of Biden’s senility, runaway inflation and the economy’s possible entry into recession in the coming year have sunk the Democratic leader’s popularity to 30 per cent, which could facilitate Donald Trump’s triumphant return in the 2024 presidential election.

However, Biden could plot a new war in the Middle East with the dual aim of drying up China’s energy sources and boosting his popularity ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

But, a new conflict in the Middle East would absorb the entire US military budget in the next three years, which could speed up the personal meeting between Biden and Putin that would lead to a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia by the end of 2023 that would put an end to the Ukrainian dispute, already considered by the US to be a drag due to the unbearable expense it entails.

For his part, Putin is seeking a peace agreement, stating that Ukraine will not join NATO and that the Ukrainian dispute will be settled by dividing Ukraine into two halves, with the east of the country, including Crimea, the Donbas, Zaporiyia and Kherson, remaining under Russian control while the centre and west of today’s Ukraine will be under Polish control. Putin will gain full control of the Sea of Azov and Ukraine will secure its exit to the Black Sea, while the imaginary line linking Kharkov, Zaporiyia, Bakhmut and Rubizhne will become the new Berlin Wall of Cold War 2. 0.

This agreement will try to be torpedoed by the plot led by Zelensky, Poland and the Baltic States to involve NATO in the Ukrainian conflict, which will make the illustrious Zelensky a burden for the US that it is advisable to get rid of immediately, and it is not out of the question that he will be accused of corruption and forced to go into exile in the US.

by Stash Luczkiw via Kyiv PostStash Luczkiw is a US-born, European-based correspondent and editor for Kyiv Post.

Russian ultranationalist Igor Girkin, in one of his increasingly critical videos, accused Wagner founder and chief Yevgeny Prigozhin of being “a project” propped up by an influential group within Putin’s inner circle.

The accusation comes on the heels of news that Prigozhin had been in contact with Ukrainian military intelligence and offered to reveal the positions of Russian troops in exchange for their withdrawal from Bakhmut.

Girkin even went so far as to say Prigozhin was “not Russian by nationality,” insinuating that like the “majority of Bolsheviks,” he was of Jewish origin and posed a threat to Russia.

Also known as “Strelkov,” Girkin is a former officer in the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence. He came to prominence in Ukraine as one of the operatives behind Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea. In the wake of Crimea’s annexation, he led the Russian attempt to establish a Nova Rossiya (New Russia) from Kharkiv to Odesa.

“The threat is great,” Girkin said. “There are very serious forces behind Prigozhin. According to some of my informants, [Sergey] Kiriyenko, is directly behind him.”

Kiriyenko, Vladimir Putin’s Deputy Chief of Staff, oversees the occupied Ukrainian lands and controls the entire process of formation of Russia’s modern “elite,” according a ZN,UA news analysis. Kiriyenko’s influence has grown over the year since the full-scale invasion began, and now he is an independent figure.

“And Kiriyenko is backed by the Kovalchuk brothers, people who are part of the President’s inner circle,” Girkin added, referring to Yury and Mikhail Kovalchuk, both of whom are considered Putin’s “personal bankers.” Yury Kovalchuk is the chairman and the largest shareholder of Rossiya Bank.

Kovalchuk’s group, which strongly promoted the idea of invading Ukraine, ZN,UA estimates, has been strengthened over the past year.

They have been “transformed into the Kovalchuk-Kiriyenko group, which includes the chairman of the government of the Russian Federation Mikhail Mishustin, the Secretary of the General Council of United Russia Andriy Turchak, the owner of Wagner PMC Yevgeny Prigozhin and others.”

Girkin describes Prigozhin as “not just a man whose eyes were suddenly opened and began speaking the truth,” but as someone “they are making a project of.”

Elaborating on the Kremlin intrigues, Girkin said: “Kiriyenko is openly at war with [Defense Minister Sergei] Shoigu, which is why Prigozhin attacks the Defense Ministry.”

Girkin also put into question Prigozhin’s Russian nationality, which in Russia has historically been a scarcely veiled accusation of being Jewish.

“Who is Prigozhin?” Girkin asked rhetorically. “Is he Russian? He is not a Russian person. He isn’t even a Russian by nationality.”

Prigozhin’s father and stepfather are reported to have been of Jewish descent.

Following the oblique reference to Prigozhin’s Jewish ancestry, Girkin goes on to expatiate on the canard [sic] that the early Bolsheviks were mostly non-Russians. “The majority were Jews with an admixture of Georgians,” he said.

Girkin is known to be a history buff who participates in reenactments of historic battles. He’s also an admirer of the Black Hundreds, an early 20th-century Russian nationalist monarchist organization, to whom the notorious rally cry, “Kill the Jews and save Russia!” has been attributed.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is of Jewish origin and has long been a target of anti-Semitic insinuations – not just by pro-Russian apologists but even by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov himself.

by STEPHEN BRYEN via weaponsGeneral Valerii Zaluzhny. Photo: Twitter

General Valerii Zaluzhny, appointed in July 2021 to be Ukraine’s chief of the armed forces, also became a member of Ukraine’s National Security Council. Zaluzhny mysteriously went missing some weeks ago. Now, apparently, he has reappeared, if you believe a brief video released by the Ukrainian government.

There were many rumors about Zaluzhny. The earliest one was that he was killed, along with a number of other senior Ukrainian officers, in a meeting at a command post somewhere in eastern Ukraine. That rumor soon was followed by another – that in fact he was badly wounded at the same command center when it was hit by a Russian Iskander missile. Some elaborating rumors followed saying that Zaluzhny had survived the blast but required multiple operations and, while he would recover, he would never again be available to command Ukraine’s army.

Ukraine is planning a major offensive to be launched “soon.” Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland says that the US collaborated with Ukraine on the plans and operations for the coming offensive. That puts additional pressure on Zelensky to carry it out.

He has been hesitating – even though 12 brigades have been organized, nine of them equipped with American and European weapons, including Leopard tanks.

Many analysts think that the Russians significantly outnumber the Ukrainian forces and have good equipment and many advantages. The most optimistic assessment is that the Ukrainians may make some modest gains, but at heavy cost.

These assessments help explain Zelensky’s nervousness.

There are other rumors pointing to an ongoing struggle in Ukraine between military and civilian leaders. That struggle is said to have emerged from the heavy losses recently experienced by Ukraine’s army, the almost complete depletion of Ukraine’s air force and the degradation of Ukraine’s air defenses.

If an offensive is launched, Ukraine will have to go mostly without air cover for any advance and will face a heavily electronically jammed battlefield where Western smart weapons may not work as advertised.

Perhaps most divisive of all is what happened in Bakhmut. Despite all the self-serving propaganda, Bakhmut was a major defeat for Ukraine the country poured so many soldiers into the battle and suffered huge casualties.

Ukraine’s military was against trying to hold Bakhmut, the place both sides called a “meat grinder.” Zelensky was the main proponent of the Bakhmut battle (he even visited Chasiv Yar, a small town close to Bakhmut that was used as a staging and supply area) and of the rotation of troops in and out of the city. Reports say that Ukraine rotated its troops six or seven times, and units sent there took heavy casualties.

Many of the Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut wore green armbands (some wore green on their helmets, too) indicating they were new recruits. Many of them were poorly trained. The 12 brigades that will be used in the upcoming offensive also has a lot of green-armband guys, not a good way to launch a big operation. Ukraine is low on trained manpower.

This brings us to Zaluzhny. He is regarded as a first rate commander, admired by his troops and extremely smart and capable. But where is he?

The Military Summary Channel (found on YouTube) is a generally reliable and objective source for war news. The Channel reviewed the new Zaluzhny video and found a major discrepancy, questioning its authenticity.

Judge for yourself. Is it the same person> Photos: Government of Ukraine

The Ukrainian-released video clip, which is only a few seconds long, shows Zaluzhny sitting at his desk.

The video shows him waving to the cameraman and chatting, but there is no sound.

The waving motion also is rather strange. It is hard to recall a military or civilian leader waving at a cameraman.

As you can see, the above photo is a screenshot from the video with two insets: on the right is an inset of a known photo of Zaluzhny. On the left is an inset taken from the screen shot.

In the authentic photo Zaluzhny has blue eyes. In the latest video, he has brown eyes.

There also are some facial differences if you look carefully, especially the nose.

Is the video Zaluzhny a double? We live in a time of deep fakes where AI tech can emulate almost any video image.

With questions arising like those proposed by the Military Summary Channel, we will have to wait for convincing evidence about the general.

Another mystery: the Ivan Khurs case

The same sort of problem has arisen about the fate of the Ivan Khurs, the Russian spy ship that was attacked by three Ukrainian sea drones stuffed with explosives. The Ukrainians have produced a video that alleges that the Ivan Khurs was hit by one of the drones and sunk.

The Russians have produced a video showing the Ivan Khurs arriving back into Sevastopol harbor, without any evidence of damage.

The Russian ship Ivan Khurs is pictured entering Sevastopol .It appears undamaged and operating on its own power (no tugs). Photo: Russian government / Twitter

Which is true?

My own point of view is that if a Russian ship were broadsided by a drone at sea, the Russians would send rescue crews and aircraft immediately. None have been seen. I also wonder how the Russians got their video if the ship was sunk. Not possible.

The ship’s gun was an automatic naval version of the 14.5 mm Vladimirov KPVT (SARP model) that can fire armor piercing and incendiary shells at a rate of 70 to 80 rounds per minute. That gun on the Ivan Khurs was remotely controlled, stabilized and linked to the ship’s radar.

Unlike the case with Ukraine’s sinking 0n April 14, 2022, of the Russian cruiser Moskva – where either the crew was sleeping or the radar was subjected to electronic countermeasures supplied by a US P-8 aircraft – the attack on the Ivan Khurs obviously was spotted by the ship’s lookouts and radar.

So I think that the Ukrainian version of the Ivan Khurs story is fake. So is the Zaluzhny video.

Stephen Bryen is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. This article was originally published on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy.

PMC Wagner published a detailed report on liquidated fighters and equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine since March 2022 by the Wagner group alone!

Ed. Note: Wagner fought in the battles of Popasnaya and Bakhmut. So these numbers should reflect those two battles. Not sure if they were in any other battles. 

So everything else from Kharkov Oblast in the North to Mariupol and Kherson in the south was Russian Armed Forces and LDPR Forces. 

Those battles incurred a great deal more losses to the Ukrainian army.