Ukraine Weekly Update, 17th January 2025: May be useful to some: https://robcampbell.substack.com/p/ukraine-weekly-update-406

Posted by: The Busker | Jan 19 2025 14:17 utc | 3

Posted by: The Busker | Jan 19 2025 14:17 utc | 3
Thanks a lot, Rob. Always informative and highly readable!

Posted by: Avtonom | Jan 19 2025 15:06 utc | 5

Excellent post, as ever, from Rob Campbell.
.
No doubt the fascists will pile in, as ever.

Posted by: Merkin Scot | Jan 19 2025 15:13 utc | 7

Thanks a lot, Rob. Always informative and highly readable!
Posted by: Avtonom | Jan 19 2025 15:06 utc | 6
Excellent post, as ever, from Rob Campbell.
.
No doubt the fascists will pile in, as ever.
Posted by: Merkin Scot | Jan 19 2025 15:13 utc | 8
Many thanks for your support.

Posted by: The Busker | Jan 19 2025 15:40 utc | 9

The LA Fires and Governor Newsome are showing Ukraine how better to self destruct without weapons, foreign money and a lot of deaths.
You’d think the EU would be envious and figure out a way to save their money. What is the graft getting them? It looks like the US is the primary beneficiary.

Posted by: Acco Hengst | Jan 19 2025 15:54 utc | 11

After the beginning of Russia’s special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine in February 2022, the only reason for Ukraine’s existence has become its war with Russia, says Andrei Pinchuk in an interview for the Ukraine.ru news outlet on January 4.
Posted by: Red Star | Jan 19 2025 14:02 utc | 1

That was already true in 1918 when you had the series of ephemeral Ukrainian states.
The whole concept of “Ukraine” can only be sustained through stoking rabid hatred of everything Russian. Once you stop doing that, it will be quickly reabsorbed.
You can see it in Belarus – Lukashenko took power two years into its independence, and nipped the nascent extremely anti-Russian Belarussian nationalism movement in the bud. Which was admittedly much easier in that case because Belarus never got to the point of having its own Bandera and Shukhevych back in the days and a large diaspora in Canada and the US waiting to come back and take over.
The result is that if back then it was 80% of people speaking Russian in Belarus, now it is 95%, and the language that the Soviets created for them is on its way to rapid extinction. Nobody repressed the Belarussian language, it is still taught in schools and is everywhere in official documents and labels, but if you don’t actively fight the Russian cultural influence, things inevitably evolve on their own towards their natural state, which is full reabsorption into the Russian cultural sphere. And eventually political reunification.
The same would happen in Ukraine. Zelensky’s fame as an actor was built on movies and comedy shows entirely in Russian (which now cannot be shown without re-dubbing). Google search in Ukraine is still mostly in Russian (the one measure that we have that is objective about the real situation, as it this is private activity and people are not faking it).
If you let it be a normal country, within a decade everybody east of Ivano-Frankovsk and Ternopol, and even many people in Galicia and Volynia, will be speaking Russian everywhere, and a couple generations down the line we would be talking about peaceful reunification.
Which is what both Ukrainian elites and the West fear, so there will never be anything but a white Slavic ISIS/Al Qaeda there ever again.
The only people who don’t seem to get it are the same people who didn’t finish off ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria, and we saw how well that worked out…

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 19 2025 16:04 utc | 13

Increasingly, it becomes evident that the EU’s clearest existential danger is not China but the United States, whose interference in European political affairs is blatant—an axiomatic reality since the end of World War II. Yet, as the US edges closer to oligarchy, with its Supreme Court elevating the presidency above the law and its next leader self-identifying as “authoritarian,” the EU must critically reconsider its dependencies. Not out of hostility, but to safeguard democracy and the rule of law, the EU should position itself as an autonomous, operational, and ideological system—one designed not to imitate but to independently embody these principles at their most advanced.
Such autonomy demands that the EU reject its “umbilical” connectivity to the US. As Trump unintentionally framed it, the EU must be a bloc to be courted or resisted—not subsumed. To thrive, the EU must build itself as both a reflection of democracy at its best and a bulwark against its erosion elsewhere. This requires careful engineering of an independent system, outwardly transparent but fundamentally proprietary—its governance untethered from any external power, be it ally or rival.
China’s self-conception offers a relevant contrast. Through a framework blending practical humanism and strategic autonomy, China projects a pacific approach to most global exchanges, balancing ideological independence with systemic intelligibility. Similarly, the EU must act not from superciliousness, envy, or enmity, but to preserve and advance the West’s greatest achievements. Historically, the West has teetered on self-annihilation through imperial overreach—a catastrophic “jihad” against itself during its apogee of global power. The EU’s survival as a bloc depends on its ability to avoid repeating this pattern.
In the case of Russia and Ukraine, this hypothetical EU would not face a binary choice between US hegemony and Russian satellitism. Instead, it would embody a self-proprietary political and cognitive system, mastering the technologies and material frameworks necessary to advance authentic democracy—rejecting simulations of freedom that placate the governed while perpetuating hidden dependencies. Under such circumstances, the decision to integrate Ukraine would hinge on the reciprocal benefits or costs to this autonomous EU.
Ultimately, the question is whether a multipolar order—balancing the US, EU, Russia, and China—offers humanity greater security than a unipolar system dominated by an oligarchic US. The latter, cloaked in its apologetics, positions itself as humanity’s best hope, yet risks devolving into an Orwellian simulation of democracy. This simulation, scaling human perception itself, would collapse into a Matrix-like plaything for a ghostly, permanent tech aristocracy.
For the EU, then, the task is clear: to step beyond its current role as a subordinate appendage of the US and establish itself as a truly autonomous bloc. Only as a mirror and counterweight to other powers can it secure not only its own future but also the principles it ostensibly stands for: democracy, rule of law, and the civilizational ideals of the West. Without such independence, the EU risks being absorbed into the same spectacle it claims to resist, perpetuating a global order that prizes simulation over substance and control over freedom.

Posted by: Ludovic | Jan 19 2025 17:33 utc | 15

Posted by: Ludovic | Jan 19 2025 17:33 utc | 15
That text is as empty of substance as is Europe empty of ideas. There is nothing here that can galvanize renewal, just old ideas rehashed with new dictionaries.
People forget that we live in a post-industrial society that lost its ability to tackle challenges.

Posted by: alek_a | Jan 19 2025 17:58 utc | 17

LoveDonbass | Jan 19 2025 17:52 utc | 16
“America is the UK’s puppet”
Come on, man !
When deluded people (of whom there are many) here in the UK spout about Russian weakness, I point out that the kind of sanctions applied to Russia would flatten the UK in a fortnight.
I vaguely remember Obama telling us that if we voted for Brexit, the US weren’t going to be doing us any favours.
How exactly does basket case UK, whose economy consists of selling houses and coffee
to each other, exert control over the US?

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Jan 19 2025 18:16 utc | 19

Posted by: Ludovic | Jan 19 2025 17:33 utc | 15
Don’t forget the Euro Army, snort! An alternative scenario is that the artificial construct of the EU that predictably metastasised well beyond its original purpose, like all good bureaucracies, is recognised as a tumour and cut out.

Posted by: Milites | Jan 19 2025 18:34 utc | 21

Posted by: xox | Jan 19 2025 19:19 utc | 22
###############
The beauty of the Chinese approach is that with time all of their enemies will destroy themselves.
The haste to act immediately in a big way is driven by emotion, not strategy.
The EU is undergoing the inevitable unraveling as we see happening in the US, and previously happened to the USSR.
There is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by: LoveDonbass | Jan 19 2025 19:28 utc | 23

LoveDonbass | Jan 19 2025 17:52 utc | 16
*** Meloni saying that the capital of the EU should be in Rome.***
Whole shit-spouting lot of them, whatever nationality — and particularly UK establishment — are and always have been fanatical devotees of the Roman Empire.
And even people posting here (not just meaning the bots and trolls) play along with their centuries long propaganda — ‘bad’ is of course “barbarian”. Not Roman! Says who?
No, the worst regimes around act like imperial Rome, and that’s their aspirational holy-cow blueprint.
So fuck Rome … way beyond time that dump was nuked in revenge for the multiple forms of destruction it inflicted. Meloni herself should be sent with VdL and Merkel as bargain-basement merchandise to slave-markets its proxies now run in some countries that fell to its present day NATO manifestation.
What did imperial Rome basically run on? — slaves.
And to hell with propagandist “religions” derived from the Middle East — lies, myths and incantations originally cobbled up there by various evil conniving bastards as instruments of psychological warfare and megalomania.
PS : other so-called “religions” adopted by pretentious killer-chimps are no better; just as ridiculous and corrupt as their other fake religion ie. what’s become reduced to drivel as modern mainstream “economics”.

Posted by: Cynic | Jan 19 2025 20:00 utc | 25

YetAnotherAnon | Jan 19 2025 18:16 utc | 19
*** How exactly does basket case UK, whose economy consists of selling houses and coffee
to each other, exert control over the US? ***
Flattery and grovelling plus an endless supply of “cunning plans”?

Posted by: Cynic | Jan 19 2025 20:09 utc | 27

Reposting from old thread:
The Ukro-tards have themselves a dilemma!
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-halts-production-pokrovsk-coal-mine-russian-troops-near-sources-say-2025-01-13/
They’ve shut down the Pokrovsk coal mine owned by Metinvest Oligarch, but now they face a choice:
1. Abandon it, and all that equipment and resources becomes Russias.
2. Dig in with troops, try to turn it into a fortification. But, it is already in range of tube artillery and this will just invite total destruction.
It’s Zugzwang for Zelensky!

Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Jan 19 2025 20:26 utc | 29

OMG. Lucky 13 for once. Comment 13 by Anon2022 is the first time he has made an accurate, flawless , sane post. I agree with every word. Its a miracle!
Under the same guise they banned all the most popular Russian popstars from performing in Ukiestan.

Posted by: Winston | Jan 19 2025 20:48 utc | 31

Posted by: Stonebird | Jan 19 2025 20:56 utc | 33
Well, thanks for that update. So, its door number 1! I suspect they’ve rigged a lot of it with explosives, as well. They probably don’t care about the owner and figure he can file a claim with Trump to get reimbursed.

Posted by: Ghost of Zanon | Jan 19 2025 21:05 utc | 33

Posted by: Stonebird | Jan 19 2025 20:56 utc | 33
Surely that’s very bad for the environment? But it seems that burning coal or releasing methane is OK when they do it, just not when we do it.
Any TG links to what’s happening at the mine?

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Jan 19 2025 21:08 utc | 35

Red Star | Jan 19 2025 21:06 utc | 35
Don’t forget this place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Croughton
“The station is home to the 422nd Air Base Group and operates one of Europe’s largest military switchboards and processes approximately a third of all U.S. military communications in Europe.”
It was here that the wife of one of the US comms specialists pulled out on the wrong side of the road and killed a local.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28458923/us-diplomats-wife-who-killed-teenage-biker/
“She careered head-on into motorcyclist Harry Dunn, 19, on a 40mph rural road, causing fatal injuries. Sacoolas was spirited out of Britain 19 days later and claimed diplomatic immunity. An inquest into the tragic incident is taking place this week at Northampton Coroners’ Court. Sacoolas has refused to attend – either in person or virtually from her Washington DC home.”

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Jan 19 2025 21:17 utc | 37

@Posted by: Stonebird | Jan 19 2025 20:25 utc | 29
¨However, this goes deeper. Ursula [von der Leyen] is proposing to give €3 billion now, out of the 35 billion promised by the MEP’s and her, taken from the “interests” on the frozen Russian assets at Euroclear in Belgium. If Orban vetos the renewal of sanctions, potentially the (about) 216 billion US dollars worth held by Euroclear, could be given back to Russia. It is money that was the payment for gas and oil already received in Europe. But, this is now classed as “collateral” for the loans made by European and UK Banks for the next forty years (if memory serves me right>). Collateral byebye?¨
But that´s the thing about this maneuver, while much of ¨sanctions¨ may be plausible to interpret as trade-related, there are also many other aspects which are not trade related. The seizure of assets which simply had Russian owners was not about trade. Indeed if the stance is that sanctions are properly classified as trade-related and not foreign policy, then the original sanctions should be retroactively nullified and not just subject to expiry.
But that´s the thing, for all the noise about ¨anti-EU¨ figures like Orban, it is the Atlanticists who are destroying the legal coherence of the EU. Just as they destroyed the legal coherence of the state of Ukraine with their Maidan coup. But of course they aren´t interested in EU and it´s norms for their own sake, nor with NATO as specific treaty regime, they only seek to reform them to their new global power agenda even as that conflicts with original treaty institutions. Geographically constrained by treaty terms NATO is now running anti-China ops because maximal service to Atlanticist global power regime is the only thing that matters. It´s just such a stark contrast to even the early 2000s, where of course you still had parties operating with reasonable reference to traditional social democratic, christian democratic norms and of course treaties.

Posted by: xox | Jan 19 2025 22:12 utc | 39

Daily DS map update:
https://deepstatemap.live/en#6/49.4383200/32.0526800
Another slow day for the RFA, with 9.1 kmsq taken. That is less than the DEC average pace of 14/day and much less than then NOV pace of 23/day.
In Pokrovsk, only a tiny, not near advance. Also a small reversal (loss) in Uspenivka pocket area.
Larger advance near Terny/Andriivka. Russians increasing their local bridgehead of the Zherebets River.
Also an advance at the far N Oskil River crossing.
Within Kursk, Ukraine had a small advance (reversal of a recent Russian gain).

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 19 2025 22:48 utc | 41

I dare say the following should be pretty obvious to at least a plurality of posters here, but with the brevity of AI here goes:
“1. **Superpowers as Tech Platforms**:
– The text frames the EU, US, and China not just as geopolitical entities but as systems capable of shaping human experience and perception—much like global tech platforms that define communication, governance, and even reality.
– Phrases like “proprietary political and cognitive system” suggest that the EU must not only govern effectively but also control its own technological and informational ecosystems, akin to the way Google or Meta dominate their realms.
2. **Autonomy through Technological Sovereignty**:
– The call for the EU to “reject its ‘umbilical’ connectivity to the US” parallels the notion of digital independence from US-dominated platforms and protocols. By fostering its own tech giants, the EU would secure a form of autonomy that extends beyond traditional geopolitics to encompass the digital and cognitive domains.
– China’s approach to technology—creating alternatives to Western platforms (WeChat, Alibaba, Huawei)—serves as a model of how technology underpins strategic autonomy. The text implies the EU should follow suit, not to dominate but to preserve its independence.
3. **High-Tech as a New Form of Power**:
– The EU’s potential role as a protector and cultivator of world-class technology industries mirrors the strategic importance of tech platforms in shaping global power dynamics. The ability to produce, regulate, and innovate within high-tech industries becomes as critical as military or economic power.
4. **Democracy and Control**:
– The text critiques US “oligarchic” tendencies, particularly its simulations of democracy, which could be read as an allusion to the dominance of US tech platforms that claim to foster openness but often perpetuate hidden dependencies. The EU, by contrast, is urged to create a transparent yet “fundamentally proprietary” system—a safeguard against being subsumed by external powers.
– This vision suggests a high-tech EU that embodies democratic ideals in its digital architecture, protecting against not only physical or economic domination but also cognitive and informational colonization.
5. **Not Hegemony, But Autonomy**:
– The text underscores that this technological sovereignty isn’t about seeking hegemony but ensuring autonomy. Like China’s approach, the EU would prioritize independence over expansionism, maintaining control over its digital ecosystem as a means of securing its values.
Conclusion:
The EU’s survival and autonomy in the 21st century require it to view itself not just as a geopolitical or economic bloc, but as a “platform” capable of rivaling the tech and cognitive dominance of others.”
Pardon the unorthodox nature of the post, but like I said, having the aforesaid ideas occur to me (and no doubt to many others) I used Chatgpt to analyze and synthesize the underlying argument of my previous post, which is that the EU, unlike China, (needless to say) the US, or, in its heyday, Japan, should organize itself, inter alia, as a tech giant of tech giants, an informational and communicational platform of platforms, a motherboard of motherboards, a continental landscape of superconductors and quantum microchips, etc and so forth.
There isn’t necessarily much that is new to the gist of this except that the EU mainstream press, even the so-called liberal press, such as the Guardian, has evidently not been given the greenlight to emphasize that the EU should and can be a third high tech superpower in its own right and at the very least within its own bloc, but likely also in Africa, Asia, Latin America. But this latter state of course requires that the EU promote itself as a competing product of products in toto that, at the same time, is an equal, if not better, guardian of privacy and consumer informational rights.
I would also just quickly add that in the case of Ukraine, the EU was either caught off guard by US schemes or was too skittish to stop it, but that, however utopian it may sound, China has achieved a great internet and intelligence firewall, which means it’s more than theoretically possible, the question is: is that intent a belligerent or bellicose offense in itself if the EU were to try it——albeit, to be sure, by saying “no offense and none taken, right US?”

Posted by: Ludovic | Jan 19 2025 23:08 utc | 43

I would also just quickly add that in the case of Ukraine, the EU was either caught off guard by US schemes or was too skittish to stop it, but that, however utopian it may sound, China has achieved a great internet and intelligence firewall, which means it’s more than theoretically possible, the question is: is that intent a belligerent or bellicose offense in itself if the EU were to try it——albeit, to be sure, by saying “no offense and none taken, right US?”
Posted by: Ludovic | Jan 19 2025 23:08 utc | 44

It is too late at this point for the EU (or really, anyone else) to recover on that front. Consider what they would have to do in terms of physical infrastructure alone, then there is the human capital issue, and many others.
China was wise enough to isolate itself and build its own internet, and that defines it as a real separate center of power.
There is only one other such place — Russia. As usual the Russian government half assed it but to their credit they did see the need to protect their own internet and did at least something to support it. So it is a mixed system there — US Big Tech has a presence, but there is genuine Russian Big Tech too.
Which is kind of the more general story too — China and the US are the two real serious superpowers, and Russia is the one that could be if its elites committed to it, but those elites are not in it 100%, plus it does not have the demographics once the USSR collapsed, and will thus remain a distanct third for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 19 2025 23:22 utc | 45

The most advanced “drone” surveillance technology is being tested in real time battle operations. Does anyone really believe they have any defense? We all watch and cheer on from the sidelines like a football game. Yet these very tactics will be our enslavement.
Yeah, it’s fun to watch. China hasn’t even entered the fray and ya all knows they are way more advanced, light years ahead of Russia and Ukraine. The USA is just a stunned growth.

Posted by: Merv Ritchie | Jan 20 2025 0:06 utc | 47

LoveDonbass | Jan 19 2025 17:52 utc | 16
“Israelis are American puppets” : so true
“America is the UK’s puppet” : are you serious or English?
BR

Posted by: Tak-Tik | Jan 20 2025 1:49 utc | 49

Replying to Posted by: Drifter | Jan 20 2025 3:23 utc | 51
Today the “west” still purchases rare required products ie uranium and titanium, from Russia. This is likely why rail lines are still active.
The “conflict” is a theatrical show for the entertainment of us pions/pleabs.
In all tyrannical societies (most all governments) every activity is orchestrated. Those “grass roots” completely organic events of civilian liberties are very rare. Take the 1920’s and 30’s union uprisings for civil decency. Government agents shot and killed them.
Today that is more difficult. Ingenuity is required in greater detail. Nothing is left for chance. The “powers that be” have numerous schemes ready to employ to completely distract the pions/pleats.
The SMO was just one. Palestine was another as is/was Syria.
The end point objective is all that matters. Global surveillance and security is everything. China is the leader.
Note Trump spouting taking Greenland, Panama and Canada. This is not Trumps plan. It was called “Homeland 15 years ago during an international conference which included Harper (Canadas PM at the time, and the US and Mexican officials.
The SMO is entertainment. And technological innovation demonstration. Dead pleabs mean nothing

Posted by: Merv Ritchie | Jan 20 2025 4:00 utc | 51

@YetAnotherAnon | Jan 19 2025 18:16 utc | 19
About UK exercising strong influence over the US
The rulers of the world is an oligarchy and the UKs economic elite is an important middleman for handling wealthy peoples investments. These are protected in Trusts. Brexit was about protecting the secrecy of those trusts.
The EU attempted to break Trust secrecy open and Brexit resulted.
Second Britain invaded the US through Cecil Rhodes Society during the 20th century. In this manner Britain designed important parts of the US power structure: The Think Tanks, the full spectrum dominance of all opinion forming outlets. The organising of a monopoly over mass communication.
Halifax told J M Keynes in 1946:They come with their money bags but we have all the brains. The Pilgrim Society that was the altered name of Cecil Rhodes Society directed the american members to undereducate the US public. Rockefellers followed that instruction.
The Skull and Bones is yet another anglophile elite group following a Hegelian dialectic for encouraging opposites rendering the world full of perpetual conflicts only to be resolved by going towards a world government dominated by the anglosaxons.
The core of that elite group were old families having roots forming strong links to the British. And the other elite group associated with Rhodes had similar lojalties.
But there may today be a remnant of an older strand of thinking in the US. For there was temporarily an acceptance in Tsar Russia that the US and Russia would share the world and both oppose the then powerful British empire. Russia sold Alaska för that Reason.
I dont think Trump represents something wholly along such lines however there may be a little bit of that and Trump surely realises how Britain sabotaged his first period.

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Jan 20 2025 5:15 utc | 53

Maybe so Merve, but all this focus on control of mineral resources and western societies seems to me more like the Zionist playbook
Posted by: Barrel Brown | Jan 20 2025 4:07 utc | 53
First, it’s Merv. No “e” required.
Having adversarial relationships are required to control populations. “Hating Jews is for Numbskulls” is the title of one of my articles. Nationality, Religion and Ethnicity are the tools used to exert hatred amongst the idiots (us).
Yeah, Zionists are a particularly evil bunch, but no more so than the black Jesuits. The Judaic peoples just get more publicity.
Our easily initiated and provoked hatred of others; ethnicity, religion, nationality makes us the fools we are.
“I’m a proud patriot” is the most idiotic, bigoted, damn stupid phrase and person can make.
All people love others. Unless we are fools trained to hate and kill another. We’re all so easily duped!
Until we stop and reflect, look at the huge picture, “we” will remain entertained by the media and war games.
I don’t care what flag some son of a bitch wants me to wave so they feel better. To kill you for me?

Posted by: Merv Ritchie | Jan 20 2025 6:21 utc | 55

Wrong link @ 57, my bad.
https://moldova.news-pravda.com/en/moldova/2025/01/20/16545.html

Posted by: Suresh | Jan 20 2025 7:39 utc | 57

@too scents | Jan 20 2025 5:26 utc | 55
The idea that the US follows an old legal arrangement associated with Britain has been disputed. I dont know.
But I do know that Rhodes Scholars and Fabians have been important. For example George C Marshall with and advisor who was a Rhodes Scholar let Mao take the weapons meant for Chiang Kai Shek and there were several provisions for helping Maos communist adepts with YMCA China localities. On top of that was the Pilgrim Society, Britains strong handle on the US
@rk | Jan 20 2025 8:11 utc | 59
Pure Comedy?
Maybe but Thierry Meyssan sees Trump as another Andrew Jackson.
That does have to do with Britain but in a roundabout manner. Jackson gave semblance of protecting the US against the bankers ie against London. But in reality he did almost the opposite thing. Nonetheless there are many critics of leftism who sympathise with Jackson

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Jan 20 2025 9:03 utc | 59

https://t.me/yurasumy/20664

About the old people killed in Kursk region (and not only)…
What was shown on TV yesterday (we are talking about footage from the liberated Russkoye Porechnoye), is, unfortunately, just a drop in the ocean of grief.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of such footage there. Thousands of peaceful residents of Kursk region in August 2024 found themselves hostages of the situation. Hundreds of them have already died. Why did they die?
Including because in the first days of the invasion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, many, including those who showed this footage yesterday, wrote and spoke on their information resources, not the TRUTH, but a LIE. That “there is no danger”, “no need to evacuate”, “they are all alarmists”, “who should be up against the wall”.
And thus, many of those who believed them were sentenced. Perhaps even those old people in Russkoye Porechnoye.
And now they are in “noble rage”, forgetting that they, among other things, are to blame for this, demanding retribution.
This is all disgusting.
P.S. It is a great pity that no one has been truly punished for that terrible lie.

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 9:37 utc | 61

Re: Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 9:39 utc | 63

Putin might have a secret plan that he disguises with the appearance of weakness. If so, the risk he is taking is that what Washington perceives is weakness. The danger that has long concerned me is that Washington seeing weakness will push too hard, forcing Putin to fight or surrender. I doubt that the Russian military would allow him to surrender.

PCR needs to relax!!
Didn’t he see what Medvedev said the other day?
I’m pretty sure Medvedev put out a tweet and announced that (Quote) ” Russia was to take the gloves off (or sobering sobering) in Ukraine!!”

Posted by: Julian | Jan 20 2025 9:57 utc | 63

Posted by: verbannter | Jan 20 2025 10:29 utc | 65
“You have to give your enemy credit too…then you’re ripe for criticism and you’re allowed to do so…”
Heh. Like so many posters here give credit to Zelensky & Ukraines defense against the invaders.

Posted by: Membrum Virile | Jan 20 2025 10:41 utc | 65

The question arises–Will the demise of the less than almighty Dollar also wreck the Euro?
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/11/how-the-west-was-lost/

Posted by: elmagnostic | Jan 20 2025 11:26 utc | 67

elmagnostic @ 69

The question arises–Will the demise of the less than almighty Dollar also wreck the Euro?

Good review of Todd’s thesis, thanks, as I’m probably not going to read the book, reviewer is pretty weak in character, he wants to find fault with Todd but all he can come up with is that Todd offers no upbeat solutions, which is a fine criticism but only if you yourself have some to offer, otherwise just concede Tood is right across the board.
The Euro is a vassal currency otherwise the USA would have done a Qaddafi on eurolandia rather than help create it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evil-genius-euro
Everyone was flat-ass broke going into WW2, Germany more than anyone, that didn’t stop them from going to war. A collapse of the dollar-euro will simply take the elite’s discussion over WW3 from arguably important for the USA to unanimity as absolutely essential.

Posted by: LightYearsFromHome | Jan 20 2025 11:57 utc | 69

Putin and the RF’s general staff have waited 70+ days since the US election to see the incoming administration put actions to the election campaign rhetoric. Official US action or inaction this week will determine which of numerous plans Russia will follow.
Posted by: Ciaran | Jan 20 2025 10:34 utc | 66

Maybe, but I am neither convinced by that argument, nor is it a good strategy to begin with.
1) Let’s say they are indeed waiting out the three months after the election. But what did they do in the three years before that?
Because let’s remember, as someone above reminded, Istanbul, which was essentially Brest-Litovsk II.
And let’s remember the following years, in which the Kremlin refused to ever even talk about properly winning the war. Were they waiting for Trump in that time too? How could they have, given that Trump simply can not just hand over the whole of Ukraine to them? No matter how much he might wish to do it (for which there is no evidence), for internal political reasons. But that is the minimal acceptable war outcome for Russia – ending Ukraine’s statehood altogether.
2) Zelensky and his thugs are gnats that can be swatted away at any time given Russia’s resources and capabilities. Why have they not been touched? After years of atrocities in the Donbass, then Kherson and the Zaporozhye, and now the slaughter of civilians in Kursk and the terror bombing campaign on pre-war Russian territory?
I see zero downside in offing Zelensky and the rest of the scumbags there in a very public and humiliating way (see some shots of his severed burnt head and guts spilled all over the place would be very nice). It’s just something automatic and not to be pondered over needlessly in such a situation.
And I see enormous downside in not doing it — Putin has a duty to protect his citizens. There is no way to solve the needle-in-a-haystack problem that is suppressing all drone launchers in the 600,000 km^2 of Ukraine, the only way is to make sure nobody would dare. And the only way to make sure about that is to hit them hard. Otherwise Putin is just spitting on that duty to protect and on the Russian people.
3) By allowing drone and missile strikes into Russia, something completely unthinkable three years ago, strategic security is severely compromised. Air defense positions, launch-on-warning posture, everything.
4) And on top of that the country has become a laughing stock and all deterrence with respect to anyone who wishes to attack it has been lost.
Waiting for Trump makes sense only if Trump is going to hand over the whole of Ukraine without a fight AND if he also hands over Blinken, Nuland, Soros and all the other several thousand people responsible for this, to be sent to a GULAG camp somewhere north of Magadan, with their daily torture digging gold out of the permafrost with their bare hands shown 24/7 as a reality show, until they die of cold and hunger, or alternatively, taking the humane option and lining up and shooting them (even if they deserve prolonged torture, not just death). That has at least some chance of restoring deterrence. But having so many Russians killed and those who did it not being touched at all means it will happen again.
Is Trump going to do that? No, that is absurd.
So the only thing that there could be to wait for is the Kremlin once again committing grand treason…

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 13:41 utc | 71

I think Russia suffers from sunk cost fallacy. This kind of war never was in their plans as can be seen from how they tried to march into Kiev with soldiers who didn’t really know what they were doing. When the plan backfired, the ruling class could not back down without losing their faces and propably their jobs. Kind of same thing that happened in the middle east, Vietnam, Afghanistan (80’s and 2000’s) etc. I find it really hard to believe that Putin and friends would do everything the same again.
Posted by: Big Malfoi | Jan 20 2025 13:54 utc | 75

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
This is literally a rerun of WWII — the West has consolidated once again trying to take Russia’s resources, and it has in fact ramped up the dehumanizing genocidal rhetoric to levels not seen even back then, Ukrainian Nazis are again supporting them, etc. And way too many Western politicians driving this have Nazi family connections for it to be a mere coincidence — they have not forgotten and want revenge.
It is not a war of choice like what Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were for the US, this is as existential, defending-the-motherland as it gets.
What you are slightly correct about is the Russian ruling class not knowing what to do and not wanting this war. They wanted to be middlemen between the Russian slaves and the Western masters, just on somewhat better terms than before. Now they have to fight a proper existential war and they just don’t have it in them because of being thoroughly compromised in such a way.
That doesn’t make the war any less existential and non-optional.

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 14:03 utc | 73

SB2022, the troll from franconia, and the floppy member – the unholy, mutually supporting trinity.
Still, the front line moves remorselessly onwards, even if slower than we’d like. I’d be interested to know if that’s down to weather, anti-drone jamming or something else. Those above need not reply.

Posted by: YetAnotherAnon | Jan 20 2025 14:22 utc | 75

RE: “PCR needs to relax!!
Didn’t he see what Medvedev said the other day?”
Posted by: Julian | Jan 20 2025 9:57 utc | 64
Medvedev has said a lot of things over the last 4 years. But that’s about it. Talk.
PCR isn’t entirely incorrect, but he keeps thinking this is a “war” and not an SMO. Putin would be doing a lot of things differently if he was in a state of war. The conundrum is the US/NATO are and have declared “war” and Putin has declared it’s an SMO.
Time will tell whether Putins inaction to direct Russian proper was correct or not for the long term effect.
As for Iran, he is correct, the agreement is one more of procedural regarding the Northern Corridor, important to Russia, India, China trade. Oil contracts, and new nuclear plants. The “defense” part is ambiguous, but that may also be an Iranian stance more than Russian, as undoubtedly, Iran is not interested in Russia tying their military decisions up like they did with Syria with the Astana, whereby Russia wouldn’t allow Syria to defend itself against weekly Israeli air raids using Russian AD systems. Guessing after seeing Syria “partner” with Russia, Iran would rather stick to energy and weapons exchange/sales, rather than a “partnership” with Russia in defense.

Posted by: Trubind1 | Jan 20 2025 15:06 utc | 77

Putin would be doing a lot of things differently if he was in a state of war.
Posted by: Trubind1 | Jan 20 2025 15:06 utc | 77

Well, he is in such a state, and has been ever since the Moskva was sunk.
But he has been in see-nothing hear-nothing sit-on-our-hands pray-it-will-all-go-away-if-we-ignore-the-problem-sufficiently-stubbornly mode for most of his presidency.

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 15:31 utc | 79

It was Brest-Litovsk II, but permanent, without any intention to come back and retake what was lost ASAP as Lenin did
Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 13:43 utc | 72
That’s a ridiculous comparison.
There is no similarities between the situation today and Brest Litovsk in 1918.
Trotsky was negotiating from a weak position whereas Putin was negotiating from a position of strength. You tend to forget that the initial Russian revolution was a peace movement … Trotsky needed the military on his side. if he had negotiated a continuation of the war the bolsheviks would have lost the support of the armed forces and even if they continued Russia was in no condition to win anything … the revolution decapitated the Russian army.
To put it in a nutshell Trotsky traded peace with Germany for an for the opportunity to solidify the bolshevik revolution.
Putin OTOH was trying to avoid a costly war with NATO in Istanbul. This war for Putin is an R2P operation he never wanted. Who in their right mind wants to fight a costly war for something they can win through negotiation? The last thing Putin wants for Russia is a WW2 do-over. Russians were still living in bombed out basements in the 1960’s while every nickle the state earned went to fighting the cold war instead of housing for fuck sake.
To put it in a nutshell Putin was negotiating an end to a war and security objectives for Russia using territory he never had any intention of holding on to.
The only similarities between the two negotiations is Russians were sitting on one side of the table in both cases.

Posted by: HB_Norica | Jan 20 2025 15:47 utc | 81

Trotsky was negotiating from a weak position whereas Putin was negotiating from a position of strength.
Posted by: HB_Norica | Jan 20 2025 15:47 utc | 82

Which only makes the grand treason even more unforgivable.

To put it in a nutshell Putin was negotiating an end to a war and security objectives for Russia using territory he never had any intention of holding on to.

How was he going to achieve the security objectives without controlling the territory?
There are two possibilities here:
1) He is a complete idiot
2) He committed treason of the kind that warrants public execution
There is no other option.
In neither case should he remain in office.
Worse, he was ready to sign over Crimea, which had been constitutionally Russian for eight years at that point.
This is legally grand treason with nothing to even discuss on the matter.

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 16:08 utc | 83

This is not a a sane world. How are the nuclear weapons stored? Who actually decides to use them? We pretend there is a procedure that is larger than us. Humans decide to use the weapons. The procedure is words. Putin is a sane man in a unsane world. Who would kill everything for power? The world demands that nations destroy. His whole life Putin has worked and tried to create a sane world. Putin runs from a fate that haunts him. What will become of the multipolar world after he is gone? Its is a secondary concern now. Putin wants to die without having participated in a nuclear war. There is no deterrence. What are the reasons for a nuclear war? Stupid short sighted motives of gangsters. The state department and Biden overthrow the Democratically elected goverment of Ukraine in 2014 and started making it Bidenkraine. Trump is a more pragmatic gangster. He wants to divy up the spoils of the world rather than have a turf war. Putins ideas of actual justice actual law and actual sanity fade away. All pretense of that has been completely rejected by the west. The pundits continue to repeat the word “brutal” over and over again in reference to Russia like a mantra or like they are word witches trying desperately to cast a spell. The image they activly create in their minds and others of Putin as a dictator is not sane. It has no basis in logic as the truth is it has been Putin who has tried his whole life to create a fair and just world where every nation has a voice. Now the image is based soley on a strange emotional phenomena that can only be described as hate. Hate for Putin. Hate for Russia. Hate for Slavic peoples. A million Slavs dead both Ukrainian and Russian. This is justice? This is glory?
A prerequisite for deterrence is sanity. Deterrence can not occur without sanity. A very simple formula arises from this. A gangster must reject sanity. A gangsters power flows from insanity. The insanity must be genuine and demonstrated. A gangster knows nothing else. Any negotiation must occur as function of insanity and ruthlessness. Thuis is what Trump is . A mob boss that wants to divy up turf. The previous ccrowd sipped a bit too much of their own woke propaganda and dove deep in their insanity. They were mad dog mob bosses with nothing but their imaginary world to restrain them. Now we have a traditional mob boss that is willing to share based on the traditional value of ruthlessness and force.
That is the argument voiced here. Putin does not demonstrate the ruthlessness and force necesary for a gangster. I beg to differ. The woke gangsters were not sane even from the gangster perspective. They tried the most bold takover in turf of any gang in history. It was crazy. It was brash. It was not based on sound gangster principles. From the gangster perspective yes Putin should have destroyed the world. Putin is however sane. It is Putins sanity why our hides are not tacked to the wall.
The woke west demanded destruction from Putin. They tried to force Putin to destroy. Putin has disobeyed their insanity at every moment. He has used force in a manner that reflects relative sanity. This can be described as the strength of a sane man in a unsane world.
What Putin understands is sooner or later gangland rule will result in nuclear war. He did what any sane world leader would do. He tried to put systems in place that represented true justice which is owned by the whole not the few. Unfotunatly the temporary reprieve of a traditional MAGA gang leader only represents a reversion to a status quo gang leader who will share spoils not a frothing at the mouth gang leader who trys crazy things because they worship at the NWO woke alter. Ultimately Putins vision is true. A multi polar world must occur to avoid a nuclear war.
Putin asked a very sophisticated growth development. Its understandable because Russia has experienced a growth event in which progress was required as the soviets systems advantages and disadvantages were adjusted. I feel this process reflects the thing known as justice both for the Russian people and its interactions with the world. He was rejected in the most guttural way possible. What happens in the next years and decades is anyone’s guess.
Anyone here who think a different Putin response would have created a deterrent has a different perspective than me. The function of signalling is important in understanding gang behavior. A horse head in the bed. Decapitated bodies in rural Mexico. Energy pipelines destroyed. Millions dead in Ukraine and Palestine. Somber declarations by leaders demanding compliance with the colors red and black in the theme. Of course this could be posturing not true communications of intent. Theres only one way to find out for sure. Thank god Putin is sane. Dealing with insane leaders who dont respect even fundamental turf boundaries let alone a multipolar world and justice is very difficult. Fundamentally the west is under the complete control of the NWO and as long as that is reality no progress toward justice is possible. More child surgery (experimentation) injections(experimentation) and new war technology (expexperimentation) by decree ahead. The signalling that is occurring with experimentation is not only to nation states but to every human on the planet. From my perspective the multipolarworld world where nations traditions and culture are respected is the most desirable choice if we actually have a choice. This of course could be a action reaction designed to create effect. multi polar world is also just a idea. The truth lies in the system and iif it it truly represents justice. Is the violent experimentation we witness just a action reaction exercise? That I dont know but fundamentally it is counter to justice based on fundamental human rights. IMO these things should be judged on that basis. If we could reject things that represent desecration of self evident human rights I feel that would represent progress.

Posted by: YogitheYankeeBear | Jan 20 2025 18:12 utc | 85

The Euro is a vassal currency otherwise the USA would have done a Qaddafi on eurolandia rather than help create it.
Posted by: LightYearsFromHome | Jan 20 2025 11:57 utc | 69
Well, the US did topple Saddam Hussein when he decided to sell oil in euros instead of US dollars.

Posted by: joey_n | Jan 20 2025 21:43 utc | 87

Posted by: ANON2022 | Jan 20 2025 13:43 utc | 72
Actually no. By the time the Istanbul protocol was on the table, the option for the two Donbass republics was not on the table. They had been recognised as independent states by Russia. Perhaps you can argue that there would have been borer adjustments, but the key cities of Donetsk and Luhansk and the areas they controlled would NOT have returned to Ukraine.
Russia would not have gained Mariupol and that would have been a long term problem but many lives would have been saved.

Posted by: watcher | Jan 21 2025 0:14 utc | 89

The idea that Russia was always negotiating from some position of strength is a fallacy that was promoted by loony Russia patriots such as Saker and Martyanov without much substance. In fact Russia was always (and still is) in a very vulnerable position and only a bloody fool or a traitor would be arguing for an aggressive strategy.
Firstly Russia is surrounded by enemies or potential enemies. Sure currently some nations such as China and North Korea are friendly enough but times and regimes change. Along its southern border only about half the stans are friendly and all are subject to potential overthrow and colour revolutions. Most dangerous is Kazakhstan and Putin and co would be foolish traitors to devote so much time and resources to Ukraine while neglecting the tiger on its border. Armenia, Georgia and even Belarus need watching. Iran too is a potential snake in the grass should the moderates succeed and return to US favour. then there is Turkey always needing to be watches as has been the case for 1000 years.
Looking at strength by type, the russian surface navy has proved to be a serious disappointment. the so call Russian lake of the Black sea proved to be absurd and while many who accepted Martyanovs hubris may have believed it could do better, there can be little doubt that Putin and his military advisers knew far more about its real weaknesses.
The air force did OK but remained very vulnerable because of fairly low numbers and the high risk environment. The ground troops were a mixed bag.m moreover clearly there were undercurrent of treachery and disatisfaction within the ranks which Putin and co has to manage and watch. the Prozoghin affair was one such and it is possibly a miracle that Putin emerged unscathed.
Finally all those who call for aggressive Russian attacks on NATO I assume to be agent provocateurs ie NATO trolls. The reason is simple to grasp if you look at a map. Russia has essentially just ONE very large city (Moscow), one large city (St Petersburg) and 14 small cities (>1 mill). Essentially just 2-5 big nuclear weapons would destroy Russia’s biggest cities as we know it. In a nuclear war NATO could take out these cities with ease, despite the excellent air defenses.
By contrast look at NATO which has 18 big cites plus those of loyal NATO allies such as Japan, Sth Korea and Australia.
So just think for a second. Putin must avoid nuclear war at all costs. He will only respond or start one when he has NO OTHER CHOICE ie Moscow is about to fall. Then and only then will he risk the nuclear option.

Posted by: watcher | Jan 21 2025 1:17 utc | 91

Posted by: Cynic | Jan 21 2025 1:36 utc | 92
No cynic it about numbers. Think of it this way
To pretty much totally disable Russian civilian population NATO needs to use say 20 on Moscow 10 on St Peters and 20 on smaller cities (less well defended). 50 nukes and the Russian population centres are all destroyed.
By contrast Russia would need to take out at least 20 big cities several of which are very large so at least 40 nukes needed plus at least 50 for the 35 smaller cities in NATO. So they would need at least 90 nukes and that is not counting the many back up nations the NATO has – eg Japan.
Also logistics. NATO already has land based nukes in easy access of Russia but Russia if it wants to hit the leading NATO nation ie the UDSA must rely on submarines plus perhaps not yet reliable long range super missiles.
So Russia is not is a strong position if it comes to nuclear war. it is all about numbers and the relative dispersal of the population.
War is about logistics and strategies not the emotion of a country and western song.

Posted by: watcher | Jan 21 2025 2:09 utc | 93

@Trubind1 77
Syria was not a Russian vassal state.
Russia did not dictate what Syria could or could not do.
Syria had at its disposal, ballistic missiles in excess to that of Hezb’Allah. Despite the IRGC’s hopes of Syria making a stand and retaliating to constant provocations, Assad was a coward. And incredibly vain refusing to talk to Erdogan.
You are repeating West talking points, they wanted Russia to get bogged down in Syria. Just as they had hoped would happen in Ukraine in 2022 with a swift takeover.
What bit of multipolarity and sovereignty do people don’t get?
Ansullah, Hezb’Allah, etc are not vassals but independent organizations.

Posted by: Suresh | Jan 21 2025 7:32 utc | 95

Iran is not interested in Russia tying their military decisions up like they did with Syria with the Astana, whereby Russia wouldn’t allow Syria to defend itself against weekly Israeli air raids using Russian AD systems.
That’s not accurate. Syria was free to target Israel with Syrian air defences but Russia refused to engage the IAF with Russian air defence assets. Israel attacked Syria by flying down the Bekka valley in Lebanon where they were shielded from Syrian air defence radars by a mountain range.
Russian air defence assets were in Syria to protect Russian assets not Syrian. Russia was in Syria for Russian interests not Syrian. Putin questioned “If not Assad then who?” which implied that Russia was better off with Assad in power in Syria than letting Syria fall to Islamic fundamentalists. Putin also had an interest in not allowing the 25,000 Russian’s fighting for ISIS to ever return to Russia alive.
Putin had a good relationship with Assad but Israel hosts over a million Russian jews … they have friendly relations … going to war with Israel is against Russian interests.
Guessing after seeing Syria “partner” with Russia, Iran would rather stick to energy and weapons exchange/sales, rather than a “partnership” with Russia in defense.
You’re confusing the Assad regime with Syria. Syria exists without the Assad government and Russia’s relationship with Syria still exists. Abu Mohammed al-Julani the leader of HTS currently acting as Syria’s president said he wants Russia to remain in Syria and keep their military bases.
States like Syria, Iran, Russia and the USA don’t have friendships … they have interests. If an HTS government in Syria is in Russia’s interests the Russians don’t give a shit what happens to the Assad government. Assad and his family will be treated well by the Russians in exile but Russia’s relationship with Syria remains.
Posted by: Trubind1 | Jan 20 2025 15:06 utc | 77

Posted by: h | Jan 21 2025 11:43 utc | 97

It’s funny to see how pissed off you Putin trolls get when a patriot like ANON2022 makes his “unpopular” comments here.

Posted by: guest from franconia | Jan 21 2025 13:36 utc | 99