I was listening to Arestovich (dangerous, he was military intelligence and is a capable liar), and it reminded me that I have no real idea of what Putin wants specifically.
Does an end of the SMO have to lay the groundwork for a new security architecture for Eastern Europe (which is wrapped up in EU and NATO) including Russia + Belarus (the Union State) or will a new Ukrainian government with Constitutional Amendments suffice?
I don’t know what Putin will do if Trump tries to play hardball with Russia. Very interested to find out.
Want to see the defense pact with Iran signed, although the current Iranian President is a weak man, IMO.

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Dec 24 2024 1:10 utc | 304

So there will remain a part that Russia don’t want, because population structure and because capacity.
Posted by: wp007 | Dec 24 2024 1:05 utc | 317
Yes, but Russia will insist that part is entirely demilitarized and no peacekeepers, just cops. They’ve previously floated the idea that those lands might revert to Poland and Romania, but again with zero troops or arms. IMHO the true fascists are less than 10% and the rest are just ethnic Ukrainians that have been force-fed Russophobia for over a decade.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 1:13 utc | 306

@TJandTheBear – maybe, but 10% are still a lot of ppl, the more, when the West still supports them.

Posted by: wp007 | Dec 24 2024 1:17 utc | 308

I believe Odessa has a lot of ethnic Russians, thus under the rule of annexing areas with agreeable people, the Odessa region would be candidate. As for taking the whole place, following WWII Russia gained control of Eastern Europe and held control for almost fifty years. In all that time control of the place was never more than a nuisance to Russia. I believe that if Russia takes the ethnic Ukrainian areas where Russia is actively disliked, they will get what they got when they controlled Eastern Europe, a constant nuisance that never really settles.
Thus, as I see it, there really are no good outcome in the western area. As most of the industry, mineral wealth and a lot of the farmland is in the eastern part, if Russia annexes those areas the rest of it would still be an okay place to live, but a land locked country of no great wealth. Russia can try this that or something else when it comes to governing the western part of the country, but I suspect whatever they do the results will not be all that good. Insist that NATO stay out and all that, but otherwise if they can’t make it nice, make it weak.

Posted by: Jmaas | Dec 24 2024 1:29 utc | 310

@TJandTheBear – maybe, but 10% are still a lot of ppl, the more, when the West still supports them.
Posted by: wp007 | Dec 24 2024 1:17 utc | 325
Two can play that game, and that game’s been afoot for quite some time now.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 1:31 utc | 312

Russia has and will have no power to create anything like that.
Putin will not last as President of Russia to this time next year.
Posted by: Philly | Dec 24 2024 1:33 utc | 333
Russia already has it and has for some time now. It’s NATO that’s powerless to do anything about it.
Putin will still be there. OTOH, Biden/Trudeau/Macron/Schulz/Starmer are all on their way out.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 1:46 utc | 314

Except Russia cannot force NATO out of west Ukraine in such a situation – unless it uses force.
Posted by: Philly | Dec 24 2024 1:45 utc | 336
To continue this friendly debate… NATO isn’t in Western Ukraine in any significant numbers.
Yes, they have a number of unidentified “advisers” helping mind some hardware and relay ISR but otherwise those do not constitute any appreciable force and thus wouldn’t even pose a bump in the road. Should the AFU collapse as I proposed those advisers would be whisked out of the country faster than Z himself because they wouldn’t want them embarrassingly falling into Russian hands.
Now, we can argue how many multinational sheep-dipped mercs are there but those aren’t going to matter either.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 2:03 utc | 316

As missiles are making carriers obsolete will space based nukes (if possible) make land based missiles obsolete?
Back to MAD?

Posted by: Michael J | Dec 24 2024 2:07 utc | 318

As missiles are making carriers obsolete will space based nukes (if possible) make land based missiles obsolete?
Back to MAD?
Posted by: Michael J | Dec 24 2024 2:07 utc | 343
Carriers are obsolete, yes. Oreshnik makes tripwire NATO bases obsolete. Nukes are not needed. Whoever uses the next nuke will risk being a satanic pariah state forever and will automatically lose whatever conflict the nuke has been used in furtherance for. RU will not use Oreshnik outside of Ukr for now IMHO. RU has hit foreign embassies in Kiev with a love tap, to my great surprise. Ballsy move. So the signal is “we will use Oreshnik on the command centers in your embassies.” Not much music coming from UK and USA right now. Interesting times.

Posted by: frithguild | Dec 24 2024 2:18 utc | 320

So if the USA tries something like that without being able to do so, the satellite (or carrier) will probably be disposed of pretty quickly.
Posted by: wp007 | Dec 24 2024 2:20 utc | 346
PREACH! I would expect our ISR advantage to disappear within hours of the start of WWIII.
The wildcard there is what our X-37B has been up to. It’s spent a LOT of time in space and I doubt it’s all service calls.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 2:25 utc | 322

CRIMEA WAS OWNED AND MANAGED, ie FULLY CONTROLLED by Kiev.
Posted by: Englishman in NY | Dec 24 2024 2:30 utc | 349
Again, we’re splitting hairs over relative control. Had Ukraine actually had any substantive presence there it wouldn’t have been so ridiculously easy to switch it back. Even the local bureaucrats were all Russian.
Regardless, I’ll willingly concede the point as it has no bearing on current circumstances. Russia’s never giving it up.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 2:56 utc | 324

To Waymad 3:46 utc post # 136
USGS isn’t the best site to check other countries. Maybe try EMSC or Volcano Discovery.

Posted by: Vivacious Recluse | Dec 24 2024 3:00 utc | 326

Signed, Brazilian in Qatar.
Posted by: Englishman in NY | Dec 24 2024 3:03 utc | 355
LOL! Also happy with how Crimea played out.
Always found Ukraine & NATO’s Crimean narratives particularly hypocritical given Guantanamo.

Posted by: TJandTheBear | Dec 24 2024 3:10 utc | 328

*** He is living in a Bubble.
Posted by: Philly | Dec 24 2024 2:44 utc | 350
Pot meet kettle.
After quoting the Gospel of Rand, you better have genuflected.

Posted by: frithguild | Dec 24 2024 3:16 utc | 330

Signed, Brazilian in Qatar.
Posted by: Englishman in NY | Dec 24 2024 3:03 utc | 35
Ding dind ding ding! We have a winner! Most humorous post of the month!
Being from NJ i don’t like NYers much and my ancestors were Irish, so kind of an epigenetic reaction reaction i guess 🙂
Putting aside legalities of 1954, which can be debated, it seems to me there is no equivalence to arguing about the extent of Crimean sovereignty before and after the disappearance of the Communist party. Kind of silly to say the Ukrainian SSR governed anything because it didn’t even rise to the level of a Suzerainty during the times of the Party.

Posted by: frithguild | Dec 24 2024 3:33 utc | 332

…The English would be capable of that if they believe Putin would keep quiet…
Posted by: wp007 | Dec 24 2024 1:10 utc | 319

What to be quiet about? POWs will keep calling themselves volunteer cooks, orderlies and drivers. Plain humanitarian effort.

Posted by: Rutte | Dec 24 2024 3:43 utc | 334

@ burak | Dec 24 2024 4:37 utc | 367
russia really needs to shot that global hawk down..

Posted by: james | Dec 24 2024 4:40 utc | 336

YESSS!

Posted by: burak | Dec 24 2024 4:44 utc | 338

Was busy with holiday stuff, but just caught up with the DS kerfuffle.
Seems like the military high command is cracking down on DS. Not surprising really. And explains the sparse reporting. Last real report was from 19DEC. (There was a 21 DEC report, but it was tiny, likely missing things, and some people say they are not showing geolocations they should.)
There was some LARPy speculation that DS was killed in the Holiday Inn strike. Unlikely, since they’ve Telegrammed since. But the TG stuff, while not giving a clear discussion of what was going on, did sort of complain about how they’d tried to do right thing and reading between lines, seems to confirm the conflict.
There was also speculation about them being mobilized to the infantry and/or trying to escape to Rumania. I suspect that is LARPing as the Rumania picture is old.
Big picture, I agree with DPA that they are the best map around and that many other sources (including pro Russian) use them as a baseline. And if you just rely on the “first, first” cheerleader types like Ayden or Divgen, you’re going to see a lot of wrong advances also. DS wasn’t perfect, like the long delays in Robotyne. But overall, I found them pretty trustworthy in the main areas of advance, especially if you take gray zone into account.
Hoping they get unleashed, but looking more and more like they are toast. That will not play well in the West, either.

Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 24 2024 4:56 utc | 340

@ Philly | Dec 24 2024 5:21 utc | 373
there are so many wrong assumptions in your post phillis, it is hard to know where to start..
ps – regarding your post on the previous ukraine thread @ Philly | Dec 22 2024 4:13 utc | 694 – i am sorry your response didn’t make it thru..

Posted by: james | Dec 24 2024 5:30 utc | 342

@ LoveDonbass | Dec 24 2024 5:31 utc | 376
i think you are being very picky on freds use of the word man or men… it was in reference to everyone.. are you a women by chance? it really doesn’t matter… you appear to completely lose the plot in what fred had to say and instead become involved in ”identity politics’.. that is a shame..

Posted by: james | Dec 24 2024 5:42 utc | 344

Armchair warriors at Deep State finally get a chance to show how to die in a loud, grotesque, military manner.
Wonder if any of them happen to infect this bar? Could use a cleanup.

Posted by: Suresh | Dec 24 2024 6:23 utc | 346

While Putin says he wants to be “partners” with the USA and NATO and wants them to “compromise” a little. In what universe does that happen? 🙂
Posted by: Philly | Dec 24 2024 5:21 utc | 373
Perhaps in a universe where know it all ‘smarter than the average’ ‘clerisy’ such as frequent venues such as this do something really useful and proactive about educating the people and giving them a voice.
In fact in a world of people rather than raving lunatic politicans and oligarchs russia IS ‘partners’ with anyone, anything you care to name. For the people by and large, very much by and large, are in favour of precisely that: peace. Partnership.
To scoff at the very idea it might ever happen is commonplace today and arises from a very clear phenomenon: to take it as set in stone that we shall always be rule/manipulated by lunatic oligarchs, politicians, thieves, gangsters and the people will have no voice and the people’s clerisy will be totall f***king useless.
Well sure. That’s how it looks it is and will be. But that is not how it should be and we might at least pay lip service to the possibility that it may be otherwise.

Posted by: arthur brogard | Dec 24 2024 7:07 utc | 348

Would the USA really support NATO countries against Russia?
.
Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO countries feel protected by the USA because the NATO treaty contains Article 5, which supposedly protects all NATO members from attacks by other countries. This is not true and Ukraine is already receiving the help it would receive under Article 5.
The most important myth about NATO is that NATO countries protect each other in the event of an attack by another country. An attack on a NATO member would be treated like an attack on all NATO members and would mean a joint response from all NATO countries, the West always says. This is also the official reason why the Ukrainian government is so keen to join NATO: it says that it would then be protected by NATO and in the event of a conflict with Russia, the whole of NATO would fight on Ukraine’s side.
However, this is nonsense, as anyone who looks at Article 5 of the NATO treaty can immediately see.
So let’s look at what Article 5 actually regulates and what in truth has been the real meaning of NATO since its creation.
Article 5 does not contain an obligation to provide assistance
Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; they therefore agree that in the event of such an armed attack, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, shall assist the Party or Parties attacked by taking promptly, individually and in cooperation with the other Parties, such measures, including the use of armed force, as it considers necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any armed attack and any countermeasures taken in response thereto shall be immediately notified to the Security Council. The measures must be stopped as soon as the Security Council has taken the steps necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
There can therefore be no talk of an unconditional and automatic promise of assistance in the NATO Treaty. By allowing each country, i.e. each contracting party, to “take the measures, including the use of armed force, that it considers necessary”, Article 5 gives a lot of leeway instead of a mutual and unconditional promise of assistance that the public is always told about.
In plain language, this means that in the event of a so-called NATO defense case, a NATO state can even decide not to help at all. There is no obligation to help in the NATO Treaty.
As always, this is not my imagination or “Russian propaganda”, but you can read it exactly as it is, for example, at the Federal Agency for Civic Education. It says there (emphasis mine):
“Even if an alliance case – i.e. of an attack on the Alliance, i.e. on all NATO member states – there is no automatic obligation to provide assistance. If a NATO state is attacked, this attack must be recognized as such by all NATO members. Only then is the alliance case declared jointly in the North Atlantic Council. At the national level, the measures and extent of support and contributions must be decided in accordance with the respective constitution. In this way, national principles and rights can be respected and observed. This makes different types of support possible: States can provide military assistance with soldiers and weapons, but also financial resources or other assistance. Member states can also decide against direct support if they do not consider it necessary. However, the political costs of refusing assistance would be high. However, Article 5 does not give a legal right to assistance and military support from member states.”
What this means for Ukraine
In plain language, this means that Ukraine is already receiving exactly the same level of help from NATO states that it would probably have received if it had already been a NATO member in February 2022. The NATO countries are providing Ukraine with arms and financial support. And as stipulated in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, each government of the individual NATO countries takes the measures “that it considers necessary”.
Hungary, for example, does not consider any aid or measures to support Ukraine necessary.
ch and therefore delivers nothing. Hungary could have handled it that way if Ukraine had already been a NATO member in February 2022. And even if Ukraine had been a NATO member at the time and NATO had even declared a state of defense at the time, each NATO country could then have decided whether and in what form it would have helped Ukraine.
So far, no NATO state is prepared to officially send its regular soldiers to Ukraine. And even if Ukraine were a NATO member, it would probably have been little different, because hardly anyone seriously believes that the Poles, for example, want Russian missiles to hit Warsaw because of Ukraine.
Incidentally, this is even more true for the USA, but we’ll come to that in a moment.
What this means for Europe
So we can see that NATO’s “defense promise” is not a promise at all, but just a very loose commitment that does not commit to anything. You have to keep that in mind when you think of all the claims made by European politicians who always say that in an emergency the USA would come to the aid of the Europeans against the evil Russians (or against whoever).
And now everyone has to ask themselves: would the USA really intervene with all military means and the corresponding consequences for its own country if there was a war between a NATO state and Russia? Would the USA then really sacrifice Washington for Warsaw, Houston for Hamburg, Los Angeles for Lisbon, Las Vegas for London, Phoenix for Paris and so on if push came to shove?
Or would the USA then rather stay out of it and stick to arms deliveries and financial injections?
The answer is clear, because even during the Cold War the USA’s aim was to limit a war, even a nuclear one, to Europe. This is now common knowledge.
NATO only serves to protect the USA, not Europe
And here too, this is not my imagination or “Russian propaganda”, but you can read it exactly like that at the Federal Agency for Civic Education. There we learn about the creation of the NATO Treaty and specifically about the creation of Article 5 (emphasis mine):
“From a historical perspective, the negotiations on Article 5 and the weighting of the alliance case within NATO were not an easy process. British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin was considered a pioneering force and played a leading role in drafting Article 5. The aim was to bind the USA to the security and stability of European states and to preserve US security guarantees against the threat posed by the Soviet Union in the long term. Originally, the wording on collective defense was to be taken from the Brussels Pact of 1948. However, this was criticized, particularly by the USA, because it provided for an automatic obligation to provide military assistance. The USA argued that the extent and means by which a NATO state would provide assistance should remain in national hands. With Article 5, NATO member states agreed on a compromise between the European states’ desire for US security guarantees and political acceptance by the USA.”
Even during the Cold War, the USA wanted to avoid being drawn into a major war with the Soviet Union against its will. If such a major war were to occur, it would only happen if the USA itself wanted it. Due to the common borders (at the time between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, today between Russia and some NATO states), this war would definitely be fought in Europe, not in the USA.
With NATO, the USA created an instrument that was primarily intended to secure the support of the Europeans for itself if a conflict were to arise between the USA and the Soviet Union, but the USA never wanted to take the blame if a European state wanted to take on the Soviet Union (or today Russia).
NATO is therefore, and this must be made clear, not an organisation that is supposed to protect the European states. Rather, NATO’s only purpose is to draw the European states into a war between the USA and the Soviet Union (or today Russia) if necessary.
Anyone who objects that the Europeans cannot offer the USA much militarily because Europe supposedly cannot defend itself and needs the USA to do so has not understood what is at stake. The Europeans can offer the USA something that the USA does not have on the same scale: tens of millions of potential soldiers that the USA can send to war against Russia.
What this means in practice today
Unfortunately, the political and, above all, historical education of Europe’s political elites is at an unbelievably ridiculous level today. The European politicians who are now making big claims
quaintly demanding the deployment of troops to Ukraine because they believe that the USA would help them in the event of a conflict with Russia, have evidently never read the NATO treaty, or simply do not understand it.
How else can one explain that it is mainly leading politicians from the Baltic states who are now offering to send their soldiers to Ukraine to fight against Russia if other European states join in? Why are the Baltic states, who could not wage war for three days in the event of a war with Russia, the ones driving the deployment of troops to Ukraine?
Quite simply: because they feel big and strong, because they believe that the USA would help them.
And the German politicians who are currently thinking out loud about sending German soldiers to the contact line in Ukraine as “peacekeepers” in the event of a ceasefire are certainly only doing so because they have either not read or understood the NATO treaty, because if there were incidents on the contact line, the USA would say that this is not their problem, but the Germans’ problem.
This is why the USA is demanding that European soldiers go to Ukraine as “peacekeepers”, while Washington is clearly refusing to send its own soldiers there. After all, this is exactly what Trump’s alleged peace plan envisages.
So why is Russia afraid of NATO?
Russia is not afraid of NATO, but warns that NATO’s expansion to the Russian border could lead to a major war. But Russia never speaks of the European countries, but of the USA as the driving force.
The USA would support any NATO state that gets into a war with Russia without US involvement in the same way that it is now supporting Ukraine: with arms deliveries, money and warm words. But no more than that.
The danger that Russia is warning about is that the USA could at some point believe that it could risk a war with Russia, because the European vassals would hardly be able to stay out of such a war. As we have seen, that was the reason for the founding of NATO: the USA wanted the military support of the Europeans (especially in the form of millions of soldiers) in the event of a possible war with the Soviet Union.
Russia therefore spoke out against NATO expanding to the Russian border in the best interests of the people of Europe, because as long as there was a “buffer zone” of neutral states between NATO and Europe, the USA could not easily drag the Europeans into a war with Russia, because that requires a common border where a war can be started, which leaves the Europeans no choice but to go to war on the side of the USA against Russia.
But the European politicians did not understand that. And now they are allowing the USA to persuade them to send their soldiers to Ukraine, even though the USA itself does not want to send soldiers there.
The USA has almost achieved its goal: the Europeans may soon be fighting a war to weaken Russia in the interests of the USA – and the USA does not even have to send its own soldiers.
When the NATO treaty was founded, the USA would never have dared to dream that things would go so well for them and that the Europeans would be so blindly prepared to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the USA.
.
https://anti-spiegel.ru/2024/wuerden-die-usa-laendern-nato-laendern-gegen-russland-wirklich-beistehen/

Posted by: ossi | Dec 24 2024 8:10 utc | 350

Posted by: Milites | Dec 23 2024 19:39 utc | 253

Russia also had access to western mining and drilling technologies, whose own was, like most things, decades behind regarding technological developments.

Good point, though I think the Russian knew about those technos but couldn’t implement them on a large scale due to, well due to Marxism.
Another big thing from those years in Russia that people in the West don’t realize is that Russia implemented probably the largest transfer of wealth from State to people of all history when the State gave away all those millions of apartments and houses for a token amount of money to the families occupying them as their own property. That is one of the least well known aspects fo Russia’s liberation from Marxism in th 90s, that regular people, normal people, received real estate nearly for free. Regular people in the West has to save for many years and then get into debt for 10 to 30 years to possess and apartment or a house.

I went to Pizza Hut after visiting the museum of the Revolution, in Moscow. The museum was tomb-like the pizza place packed, don’t knock Russia’s initial desire for Western status commodities, people killed for them, literally!

Regular Russians are back from that, enjoying capitalist prosperity but not buying all the ideological BS we produce here in the West, but the funny thing is, Ukrainians, after 30 yr, are still killing and dying for a dream of becoming Westerners, for coca-cola and Mickey Mouse, gay parades and drag queen hour at schools.

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Dec 24 2024 8:44 utc | 352

In addition, the German media reported that it was supposedly ONLY loaded with empty containers… Trojans, after all.
For years, a sanctioned Russian cargo ship has transported military material to Syria. Now it apparently had a new mission – but capsized.
A Russian cargo ship sank off Spain after an explosion in the engine room. 14 of the 16 crew members were rescued – two sailors are missing, reports “The Maritime Executive”. At the time of the accident, the sanctioned ship was said to have had empty containers on board, the boat’s captain stated – an indication of the possible purpose of the trip.
Ship capsizes off Spain
On Monday at around 12.30 p.m., the “Ursa Major” was traveling east in the Strait of Gibraltar. Then something exploded in the belly of the ship. The cargo ship slowed down, went off course and began to capsize.
The “Sparta IV”, also a sanctioned Russian cargo ship, came to the ship’s aid. They were also joined by several fishing vessels operating in the area, as well as two Spanish Navy boats: the warship Clara Campoamor and the naval patrol boat Serviola. This is according to AIS (Automatic Identification System) data, which provides information on the movement of ships.
The 14 rescued sailors arrived in the port of Cartagena at midnight, reports the Spanish newspaper La Verdad.
“Moscow’s Trojan Seahorses”
The Ursa Major is operated by a subsidiary of the sanctioned Russian arms company Oboronlogistika. The ship was a key pillar on the Russian supply route to Tartus, the Russian Navy’s base in Syria.
The Ursa Major, previously registered as Sparta III, was for years part of a series of ships also known as “Moscow’s Trojan Seahorses.” These merchant ships circumvent blockades and transport heavy military equipment for Moscow. The US Treasury Department sanctioned the ship in May 2022.
SYRIA-SECURITY/RUSSIAN-BASES-SATELLITE IMAGES
Enlarge image
Russian naval base in Tartus: Is Russia withdrawing its soldiers from Syria? (Source: Maxar Technologies/reuters)
According to official information, the “Ursa Major” left Saint Petersburg on December 11th and was expected in Vladivostok, Russia, on January 22nd. Nothing is known about the ship’s mission, but it is likely that it was heading for Syria, as it has done many times before. It is possible that the empty ship was supposed to load military equipment there. This is indicated by two large cargo cranes that the ship had on deck. This is shown by photos taken at the beginning of the journey.
Russia’s future in Syria
After the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad, it is unclear whether Russia can maintain its military presence in Syria. Moscow is currently negotiating this with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the victorious rebel group. According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), the Russian military has withdrawn from all positions in Syria. According to the report, the military currently only remains at the Hmeimim airfield and the port of Tartus, both bases on the Syrian coast.
But the journey of the “Ursa Major” and “Sparta IV” had already given rise to speculation before the capsizing that these bases would also be dismantled and that Russia would withdraw from Syria completely.

Posted by: ossi | Dec 24 2024 9:18 utc | 354

ossi @ Dec 24 2024 8:10 utc | 386
Great analysis and sorely needed here, much appreciated!
When considering when and how US would get active it is critical to understand US global interest. Doctrine is based on Monroe and Wolfowitz doctrines as well as “Heartland” and “World Island” theories.
USA is sitting on an island between Atlantic and Pacific, isolated from where most of world history happens. While this splendid isolation is somewhat fortunate it happens to make international dominance quite an effort. All trade, politics, colonism happens on other continents, USA can be drawn as peripheral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
Since WW2 carrier battlegroups and strategic bombers and missiles were the primary means of long-range domainance in the military sphere. In the economic sphere trade balances, trade flows petrodollar, globalism, credit and gold are the primary tools of influence. Soft power is established by media/propaganda, UN dilpomatic effort as well as covert operations of the CIA/NSA.
All those tools have been used to an extend the world developed strategies to counter or evade so these are somewhat blunt. The main issue of empires always was logistics and communication creating a periphery that has to be maintained.
Europe is such a periphery – Africa, D Day, and Anzio as well as Pacific island hopping demonstrate how valuable bridgeheads are and how hard these are to create. USA are maintaining a foothold around the globe they would not be able to recreate to the same extent.
At this point USA still feels strong enough to deter the next two “near-peer competitors” from fully dominating their local spheres of influence. A large part of US policy is to deny that anyone besides them can have any such sphere while the USA sphere is the whole globe plus space.
Europe is both a tool to contain and pressure Russia, as ossi said an army to send into the fight. It can be protected until needed, to be expended if necessary. Europes value is in being a bridgehead having some depth and resilience proportional to Russias strength. Right now Russia would not be strong enough to threaten or even Europe, not that Russia would even be too interested.
There should be some value in Europes logistical and industrial capacity, this unfortunately also means Europe is a competitor. USA can not allow Europe to grow too successful so some of the excess can be directed against Russia – this has been brought up here plenty of times.
USA is seeing China as a bigger threat and something it depends on which is psychologically worse. US bridgeheads in EastAsia are more tenuous than in Europe, South Korea and Japan are staunch Us vassals, Philippines somewhat. Unfortunately Japan and SK are also competitors, culturally much further than Europe and have a stron nationalistic streak.
War against China is definitely something on a peer level as units can only be prepositioned and maintained on a certain level, strategic depth is hard to achieve, sea blockade of US war materials is always possible with relatively few missiles and mines. Unless the entire Chinese seabord gets glassed on day one China would totally outproduce USA in any scenario.
This also leaves other flashpoints: the Middle East, Africa (which I think is neglected in Western thought right now, so that’s where Black Swans will happen) and India. All of these are severe drains on US resources. Look at how long it took to build the British Empire and what happened to it after WW3.
All together these can only be managed with the divide and rule strategy common to all empires.
So what does this mean for Europe?
USA is severely resource constrained so they will want EU to fight for them as ossi rightly said. Counting on “millions of EU soldiers” would be misadvised though as even a few coffins would seriously blow up current governments and control.
The only way to get there is dragging EU into an existential fight – which has been observed by the bar over and over again. Unfortunately that coin can only be spent once with unknown but hardly beneficial outcome. EU war would be a last stand kind of conflict of a retrating Empire.
Right now, drunk on power and fueled by Elon’s cocaine Trump is eyeing the world with greedy little pig eyes. Reality check incoming. US internal conflict is at a level where sending boots on the ground to Europe might topple the entire system. Pressuring EU with energy and tarrifs is probably where things are at, EU will drag their feet and weaponise disunity.
It is probably prudent for Trump to “support” Europe – aka the Ukraine recipe. We will see if EU citizens are equally willing to be spent as the Banderists. At least Germany is stupid enough to still accept 50k US troops and MRBM missile and drone bases.
We should also take careful note that the “freefall nukes” in Europe would not be able to even reach the front with the Tornado and Eurofighter (4th gen at best) platforms. These were always to stop 60ies Russian tank attacks in the Fulda gap, never to reach Russia.
EU self defense would require a million well funded soldiers and 5% GDP for a dozen years, not sure this is politically palatable.
“Saving” Europe is out of the question, “support” means trading with BlackRock, nukes would put US cities in danger. What quandary..

Posted by: SOS | Dec 24 2024 9:54 utc | 356

Posted by: Englishman in NY | Dec 24 2024 10:06 utc | 395
.
.
That HE is calling on Europe and Russia to make peace, even trade…
You don’t believe that yourself.
It’s more likely that he’s trying to send Europe (West) into war, “their problem” and keep the USA out, NO missiles on Boston or New York…Warsaw or Berlin Paris would be pleasant for him and not INDIGNANT, but rather welcome.
A trade with Russia and Europe would be the END of the USA!
.
And since making peace in Ukraine would mean a defeat for the USA in ANY CASE, if Putin sticks to his plan, which is to be expected, because he obviously won’t…that would be his END in his own country, the hardliners would take over.
So if Putin stays tough…Trump’s only option is war…in the best case, waged for him by the vassals in Europe.
Section 5 of NATO…I have explained that this IS NOT BINDING for the USA and its wording too…
This section is only intended to guarantee the USA one thing…millions of soldiers against its opponents!
Feedback geben
Seitenleisten
Verlauf
Gespeichert

Posted by: ossi | Dec 24 2024 10:15 utc | 358

Let’s call a spade a spade.
Of course RF is afraid of nato (north American terms only). Otherwise the security guarantees demanded in 2021 wouldn’t make sense.
Specifically, RF is more afraid of nato’s military capacity if placed under the correct configuration (e.g. Ukraine) than from a domain where it is even more hegemonic (financial)
By this I’m not saying that nato might win, but that Russia might lose (and the us take that as a win)
Why am I discussing this? Because we must be clear on discussing things? Can Ukraine win the SMO? No.
Can nato avoid a Russian win in Ukraine? Depends on what is called a win, depends on Europe wanting to go to war , depends on us wanting to go to war.
Also depends on RF being willing to go to war with Western Europe (it is if it must), and if RF is willing to go to war with the us (and that is the trillion dollar question)
Often we discuss how the us/uk might seem to be pushing for WWIII, and that is a distinct possibility if things continue the way they’re heading, but that should not be something that even the most deranged idiots in London and DC only play with, not really really wanting to believe that would be the end state. Not without placing enough firepower for a devastating and neutering first strike.
Now, limited, and mostly localized, exchange is a completely different thing, and would wound RF even if it won.
So yes, RF is afraid of a minefield it has to cross without leaving too many parts strewn across the field. It is not scared of any and all adversaries per se, but must be cautious at all times. Afraid is good, afraid keeps you alive, and It is the ability to act in spite of fear that is called courage, not recklessness .
Now as we return to the trillion dollar question , if neither the RF nor us want to exchange blows then it is time a truce is made. And remember that a strong AFU ready to bolt was the casus belli, it is the non negotiable point, as probably some adjustments within the 2021 framework.
That’s as good as nato can get, but those are not North American terms only…

Posted by: Newbie | Dec 24 2024 10:21 utc | 360

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Dec 24 2024 10:21 utc | 397
That is exactly the point that the West (via Ukraine) makes to Russia. Your vessels are no longer allowed to freely navigate.
The western cheerleaders do not understand that it works both ways.

Posted by: alek_a | Dec 24 2024 10:54 utc | 362

https://www.flightradar24.com/GTI9646/3877d4a1

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Dec 24 2024 11:06 utc | 364

@ossi | Tue, 24 Dec 2024 10:15:00 GMT | 396

Section 5 of NATO…I have explained that this IS NOT BINDING for the USA and its wording too…
This section is only intended to guarantee the USA one thing…millions of soldiers against its opponents!

No treaty is ever truly “binding” since they can’t really be enforced. But a state’s reputation is on the line if it reneges on treaty agreements. To paraphrase Tony Montana in Scarface, all a state has in this world are its balls and its word.
This makes Article 5 tricky for NATO members. They don’t want to invoke it against a peer state like Russia, because then they have to face that dilemma – a war they cannot win, that may eventually go nuclear, or a just kidding about that whole alliance thing, we aren’t really an alliance, moment – which renders NATO, de jure and de facto, a useless entity.
Anyway, NATO is a joke, and it will never invoke Article 5 against Russia over Ukraine. If the US under Trump buck-passes to the EU (or European NATO, which is essentially the same thing), then the collapse of NATO, where they don’t invoke Article 5 and say just kidding about that whole alliance thing, will happen that much faster.

Posted by: James M. | Dec 24 2024 12:03 utc | 366

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Dec 24 2024 11:06 utc | 402
One of the main characteristics of being an empire is that it controls the sea trade. This means that you guarantee freedom of navigation only for those that pay their dues to you as an empire. Hence the global “free trade” system that we had for many years that massively benefitted the western market mechanisms and which coincided with the US as empire. It is going away because impossible to maintain by governments with institutions that are nearing zero efficiency now.
In time of clashing empires, or transitions like now, piracy is normal as well as “accidents”. It saps great portions of wealth.
That the empire has more assets is true but are they enough in numbers and effectiveness to stop harassment of “their” trade and logistics vessels? How do the costs relate to the results?
Eventually no one benefits from the current situation and Trump his incoming admin sees this. They cant guarantee free seas without more tribute. They can guard their own vessels at great cost but not everyones. They cant spread “democracy” ideology, the costs are too high. They cant go on pretending that that old values system is all right, morally justifying any costs, what Biden and his admin did (like petulant children).
It doesnt mean that you can attack US vessels at will but some of the weaker allies will see more accidents.

Posted by: alek_a | Dec 24 2024 12:32 utc | 368

It is not about 1/3 or 1/4, but about security for Russia, and Russia cannot achieve that if NATO has a foothold in the Black Sea, …. So Russia needs the entire Black Sea coast as a guarantee of life.
Posted by: wp007 | Dec 24 2024 0:55 utc | 316
That’s a tall order for Russia given that Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are all NATO members and all have considerable Black Sea frontage. In fact NATO is closer to being a NATO lake than a Russian lake.

Posted by: HB_Norica | Dec 24 2024 13:11 utc | 370

As to the statute of Crimea. The legal Crimea region parliament voted for autonomy a few weeks before the official independence of Ukraine in 1991 already. The new Ukraine did not recognise this vote.

Posted by: Teraspol | Dec 24 2024 13:50 utc | 372

Dima’s last couple of videos have been rather threadbare in terms of map changes. It seems he may have over-relied on Deep State. The biggest takeaway is that Velika Novasilka (spelling?) is now cutoff from supply roads, so it is just a matter of time.
One of the biggest mysteries of this war that historians will grapple with is why the Ukrainians are so stubborn in trying to hold territory when it is obviously a hopeless cause. It would be smarter to save men and materials for other fronts. My theory is that other than media victories, it is perhaps due to Russia being too forgiving in letting them slip out of encirclements rather than just killing anything that moves.

Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Dec 24 2024 14:49 utc | 374

One of the biggest mysteries of this war that historians will grapple with is why the Ukrainians are so stubborn in trying to hold territory when it is obviously a hopeless cause. It would be smarter to save men and materials for other fronts. My theory is that other than media victories, it is perhaps due to Russia being too forgiving in letting them slip out of encirclements rather than just killing anything that moves.
Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Dec 24 2024 14:49 utc | 413
The first thing that comes to mind is the Ukrainians may be getting rid of their ethnic Russian population by dumping them into threadbare territorial guard units and putting them on the front line while Ukrainians serve as a reserve / blocking force.
The second is the price of US/EU aid is not giving up and continuing to fight. The USA is fine with Zelensky and crew skimming 50% off the top as long as they keep fighting … stop fighting and they’ll not only lose their cash cow but be left to the wolves.

Posted by: HB_Norica | Dec 24 2024 15:14 utc | 376

@ Ghost of Zanon | Dec 24 2024 14:49 utc | 413
When it comes to OSINT mapping, corroboration of close-to-first-party intel is indispensable. DS was the only reliable pro-NATO/AFU mapping project (with its own bullshit quirks, but still). Without them, there is nothing even remotely trustworthy with AFU sources. On top of that, OpSec is still a thing. AFRF and AFU do not talk about their own active operations much, leaving a puzzle requiring mutual reports to solve.
With all that said, weirdly enough, nobody benefits from DS closure. We all will be left with even more fog of war and so-called-ukraine will install other ways to bullshit its population anyway.
Now, DS was full of motivated russophobic banderites long before the SMO. They finally have a chance to fulfill their dreams on the frontline. So, you lose some you gain some.

Russia being too forgiving in letting them slip out of encirclements rather than just killing anything that moves.

AFU soldiers’ giving interviews do not sound particularly forgiven. One of the quotes was “We lose as much men on retreat as on attack”.

Posted by: boneless | Dec 24 2024 15:21 utc | 378

DS map update is out, on 23DEC. Looks pretty normal actually. And the “encirclement” from few days ago, is still in the history, but OBE now as that town was taken by RFA. Not seeing any videos of massive POW surrender, so just assuming the UFA slipped out, like they always do.
https://deepstatemap.live/en#11/47.8603975/36.6476440
Total was 54.6 kmsq. Two days from last report, so the comparable is a 46 kmsq at the NOV pace. So RFA had a strong outcome last couple days, exceeding previous pace.
Advances S to N:
1. Large advance, converting a pocket well to the E of Velyka Novasilka. Call it the Zhelane Pole front. This is an area with bright green on the map. RFA was all the way to ZP before the UFA counteroffensive. Then pushed back. Now is moving back to old lines. (Similar to Robotyne, Velyka Nova, etc.)
2. Large pocket filled S of Velyka Novasilka. The controversy-encircled town of Makarivka was converted. Also most of the next town N (Storozheve) has been taken as well.
On the more strategic front, RFA has gray zone now covering the W (last remaining) road to VN. That gray happened 21DEC, but I’m reporting now. But interesting to see it persist. This is dangerous for the whole VN complex. Keep on eye on, especially if it converts to red. The Grinches are threatening the town.
3. Decent conversion on what I guess we will call the Sukhi Yaly River front (used to be Uspenivka pocket, then before that the Vuhledar front). Towns of Zelenkivka and Sukhi Yaly converted.
RFA is now basically close to taking everything S of that river. Have to see what the plan is after that. E.g. crossing downstream (which is N in this area)? Harder, but more strategically beneficial. Or slow work down from Dalnie in the N? Or up the flanks from Uspenivka (where already on both sides). I expect RFA to convert it, but will be slower. River helps the UFA now.
4. Small gain in Kurakhove. Still definitely taking time to pick through the city.
5. Medium gain N of Stari Terny. Is a pocket that needs to convert to the N of it. (Starting.) Seems like RFA will dot hat first, versus trying to move on Shevchenko (to the W). Also looks like blowing the dam (by UFA most likely) has made it hard to move S from Stari Terny and menace Kurakhove from the W.
6. Large gains along the whole “W moving” part of the broader Pokrovsk salient. All the way from Zoria up to Novotroitske. There is a supply road that the RFA want (for own use) and now they hold the N half of it.
7. Medium gain on the NW “close to Pokrovsk front”. To the NW of Shevchenko (a different Shevchenko…poor Ukrops can’t afford different town names!)

Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 24 2024 15:23 utc | 380

Posted by: Fremlins | Dec 24 2024 14:34 utc | 412
Your mention of treaty reminded me of a recent visit to the museum of indigenous art in Baltimore. One display from a local tribe had in the decription a summary of the treaties made with the US settlers. The anecdote was that the tribe never broke a treaty, and the US never kept one.
There was a major cultural divide between the natives and the inroading Europeans. The tribal people lacked, or to say it in a more neutral way, simply didn’t have strong tribal leadership. So much so that tribal agreements were largely a fiction. If the agreement were with the tribal chief, it was thought by the natives to be only with the tribal chief. Individual braves had so much autonomy that they would not feel bound by an agreement made with the tribal chief. Thus if a brave formed a warrior band and went out pillaging the whites, by the understanding of the natives it wasn’t breaking the treaty, because the treaty was with the chief, not the brave who led the warrior band.
Eventually us Europeans figured it out and when attempting a treaty would get together as many braves as possible and attempt to have them all agree to whatever the terms were. Usually gifts (bribes) would be involved. Going by conduct, it appears that eventually everybody knew the treaty wouldn’t hold. The natives went along for the sake of the gifts, and the whites used the agreements to avoid the appearance of outright theft of the tribal land.
What was taken at the time to be the final solution to the treaties being routinely broken isn’t generally brought up because it doesn’t fit the white man bad–native good narrative. It was thought that moving the natives to reservations that were other side of the Mississippi River would secure for the natives a permanent territory. That exposed the more peaceful eastern natives to the very warlike horse warriors of the plains, most notably the Comanche. The Comanches raided the newly settled Indians so much that they effectively terminated many of the tribes.

Posted by: Jmaas | Dec 24 2024 16:09 utc | 382

My theory is that other than media victories, it is perhaps due to Russia being too forgiving in letting them slip out of encirclements rather than just killing anything that moves.
Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Dec 24 2024 14:49 utc | 413
My take on the situation is that the Russians think about war somewhat differently than we do. They stress attrition. A favorable kill ratio is had when troops are surrounded. Plus if it is a three sided surround there is the additional benefit that comes with the ability to kill troops as they attempt to leave. Better still, even more can be killed if the other side sends in more troops to hold the pocket, as Zelensky tends to do.
The Russians would like the Ukrainians to surrender, no doubt about that. But I don’t believe their kindness extends to the extent of trying to spare the lives of those who are still active combatants.

Posted by: Jmaas | Dec 24 2024 16:28 utc | 384

I watched Alex Christoforou’s video from today. In it, he mentions that when Maia Sandu, the “re-elected” Moldovan leader, arrived at her inauguration ceremony, only 7 people who weren’t security were there.
The mask of democracy continues to fall off.

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Dec 24 2024 17:08 utc | 386

Recently, elections have been stolen in Moldova and Romania, and they tried in Georgia.

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Dec 24 2024 17:10 utc | 388

Ffs, someone in Dneipropetrovsk must know if it is still functioning. 10,000 employees suddenly stood down, or 1,000 didn’t come home that day, and noone has let that out??? Not a single City bus driver has posted “I’ve lost my job due to some fkn earthquake thingy at Yuzhmash”. Beyond believable.
Posted by: Englishman in NY | Dec 23 2024 23:20 utc | 299
There was a mention at the time that the employees had been stripped of their reserve status and were liable for callup. Not sure what transpired.

Posted by: JohninMK | Dec 24 2024 17:25 utc | 390

Kirillov, was murdered by terrorists – because he exposed the USA’s Bio-Labs in yYoucrain Kirillov handed in, report after report on them to the UN – and the US found it increasingly difficult to counter the reports – so they had the source of the reports murdered using proxy terrorists from U.
Now the US has focused its Eye of Sauron (with regards to Bio-weapons labs to Africa, and there a concerted effort by R00sshhi-a and cCh-in-a to counter these bio-labs – there are eighteen African countries – where US (CDC) labs are currently functioning, these labs are capable of producing bio-weapons; Djibouti, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Zambia, South Africa, and Guinea – are among some of the countries involved.

Posted by: Republicofscotland | Dec 24 2024 18:01 utc | 392

Posted by: Vragtes | Dec 23 2024 16:55 utc | 216 Ukraine OT 24-306
The MIC and its minions decide on US policies both foreign and domestic.
<= The MIC has not represented the American way of life since 1865 when Lincoln was shot. In 1913 the American way of life was blocked by the greedy. American voters had no clue their President was a Prisoner in his white house. When Eisenhour warned about the MIC few understood IKe's warning. The effort to free the president from house arrest began after JFK was murdered. Voters went for Obama’s CHANGE CAMPAIGN thinking Obama’s idea of change
was to free the President from his bondage by the Class 1 persons. Obama’s election secured total control by the MIC over the office of the President.
It seems to me, House arrest of the President by the military, industrial, intelligence, and AIPAC [MIIA] groups has prevented the elected President from seeing or hearing things. It seems to me like the President has no control over the use of the official seal of the President unauthorized doings keep happening.
If Trump asserts his elected mandate against the MIIA, they will kill him. If Trump doesn’t over power the MIIA, then those who elected Trump may kill him. I would not want to be in Mr. Trumps shoes at this time.
Posted by: guest from franconia | Dec 23 2024 16:58 utc | 217 Ukraine OT 24-306
Fascist terror regimes only ever emerge from so-called democracies.
<=It seems fascist terror regimes rise whenever those with the ideology of Economic Zionism (greedy, wealthy, king of the mountain type persons) gain access to political system that regulates economic production. Capitalism is often mistaken for democracy. Posted by: sean the leprechaun | Dec 23 2024 19:57 utc | 259 Ukraine OT 24-306 the Brits abolished slavery before the US, then used it as a tool to attack the South, as the northern US had sided with the Brits to end Slavery. Just another tool in the Colonial tickle trunk. <= I recall 6 Russia ships protected the Southern Eastern Coast and the Pacific West coast from Yankee invasion.. I cannot recall why the Czar supported the South. Posted by: frithguild | Dec 23 2024 23:52 utc | 306 Ukraine OT 24-306 And [British ruled] India became the main source of raw, cotton imports, after Indian weaving tanked, all just in time for mills in the Midlands experienced parabolic growth. How convenient. Posted by: frithguild | Dec 24 2024 1:06 utc | 318 Ukraine OT 24-306 the West Has been grabbing for Crimea since 1853. <=please more on that what in 1853 was the grab all about? Posted by: Philly | Dec 24 2024 1:11 utc | 321 Ukraine OT 24-306 Questions arise like what does Russia do with the entire Ukraine territory, it's borders with NATO nations, and it's previous demands for Security treaties with NATO and the USA? <= that's easy, you gift the lands to the nations adjacent(Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Hungry, Romania and Moldova) with security stipulation no military anything allowed in the areas given away.. all military bases on the western borders of the Ukraine to be moved to the western most borders of the recipient nations and the Russian land grant recipients agree to peaceful use only of the their parts of the Black Sea and the recipient nations agree to purchase Russian oil and gas.. piped through Ukraine as part of the deal and the recipient NATO nations obliged to invest $X dollars each year in their respective parts of the Russia spoils of war land grants made to recipient neighbors. Dividing the Western Ukrainian land up with Western neighbors allows NATO to exit without egg on its face and Russia to keep the better parts of Ukraine, Crimea, etc. also it allows Russia to recover its oil and gas markets in Western Europe. Plus there will be little need for Russia to govern the divided up and divvied up Eastern Ukraine territories. Posted by: Philly | Dec 24 2024 1:33 utc | 333 Ukraine OT 24-306 Russia is in no position - absent the use of overwhelming military force directed at US/Nato - to dictate what happens in Ukraine if that govt and it's armed forces collapse. <= I beg your pardon? Trump has said he will end the war in Ukraine. to do that settlement will need to be mostly on Russian terms. in one day.. Posted by: Fred | Dec 24 2024 4:47 utc | 371 Ukraine OT 24-306 I am not pro Russia. I am pro Justice. <- I too am pro justice not pro Russian. I consider myself an observer. I am very much concerned about the Mafia currently governing America and making its foreign policy. Congress cleared its halls of Gatez, the man often defending Americans against Congressional over intentions; Gatez was the person who forced a change in the speaker of the house. Congress is claiming Gatez' sexual exploits exceeded those of Clinton? I note that the fellow who shot the United Health Care President pleaded not guilty? My bet is the judge in that case is going to have a really difficult time, assembling a jury of peers of the accused willing to find the accused guilty of Terrorism. The case seems more like a case of justice administered American style? Treating this case as a Terrorism case has the potential to escalate America into Chaos as Americans are already angry at the Mafia's use of rule of law, 24/7 surveillance, open immigration, using inflation to retire the give away created national debt, and controlling access to medicine as governing tools. The media has thus far played down the American justice angle.. I don't think Americans are buying Terrorism.. mostly Americans see the accused as a person who willingly sacrificed the rest of his life IOT wake people up to need to stop the atrocities installed into the medical system by Class II providers IOT make a profit. Posted by: ossi | Dec 24 2024 8:10 utc | 386 Ukraine OT 24-306 Would the USA really support NATO countries against Russia? <= a much bigger question is Would Americans allow the USA to continue its support of NATO in Ukraine after Trump takes office? Trump promised no more war in Ukraine. Americans voted for Trump based on that promise, everyone is waiting for that Promise to come true. Jan. 21st 2025 is the drop dead date.
Posted by: SOS | Dec 24 2024 9:54 utc | 393 Ukraine OT 24-306
Reality check incoming. US internal conflict is at a level where sending boots on the ground to Europe might topple the entire system.
<= I agree, conflicts are increasings, most Americans are very angry at USA support for genocide and for the trillions given to Ukraine and to Israel at a time when Americans are homeless, penniless and locked out of educational institutions because of privatized higher ed costs. Each dollar given to foreign projects inflates further the prices consumers are required to pay for must have consumables. Most of my friends were hoping the Congress would fail to fund the government over the holidays. Posted by: HB_Norica | Dec 24 2024 13:11 utc | 409 Ukraine OT 24-306 That's[make safe the black sea] a tall order for Russia given that Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are all NATO members and all have considerable Black Sea frontage. In fact NATO is closer to being a NATO lake than a Russian lake. <=Maybe?

Posted by: snake | Dec 24 2024 19:07 utc | 394

Surprised to see that China allow US flights from Rzeszow to South Korea to overfly their territory, especially when they’ll almost certainly be picking up weaponry for Ukraine.
https://www.flightradar24.com/GTI9646/3877d4a1
If the return flight goes over China, it’ll make the no limits partnership seem a trifle limited.

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Dec 24 2024 19:50 utc | 396

Dima says AFU positions SW of Velyka Novosilka have been demolished, RUAF has free access to the west and NW of the village now, and it is already blocked from the north. So Velyka Novosilka could change hands soon.

Posted by: unimperator | Dec 24 2024 20:28 utc | 398

Posted by: Trubind1 | Dec 24 2024 16:02 utc | 420
Yea the lying liars lied all year, didn’t they? Bullshit stories about ceasefires that were always “90% there” or on the ten yard line, to use a football analogy.
They expect the people to just eat this garbage like it’s filet mignon. This was the year that the western media finally beclowned themselves into irrelevance.
@unimperator – glad to see you back. DS is back, as well …or is it just the death throes?

Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Dec 24 2024 20:48 utc | 400