B? Cleanup on aisle 3 please 😉

Posted by: Newbie | Apr 26 2026 15:21 utc | 3

New NATO Member Flags Fiscal Strain While Boosting Military Aid to Ukraine
 
https://www.rt.com/news/639111-finland-extremely-difficult-ukraine-aid/
 
“…The government’s fiscal plan for 2027-2030 was presented earlier this week. It includes cuts of 240 million euros to social and healthcare spending, but 300 million in increased military support for Ukraine. ‘The state of public finances is extremely difficult, as the debt-to-GDP ratio is approaching 90%,’ Purra said…”
 
So how’s that new NATO membership working out for you Finland?

Posted by: John Gilberts | Apr 26 2026 15:34 utc | 5

Lot of silly talk floating around at the moment, in this stand-off between the West and Russia.  Most of the silly talk ignoring the reality of modern warfare in an environment in which both sides possess strategic and tactical nukes.
 
On the question of whether we Europeans have or will have an independent strategic nuclear deterrent, that does seem unlikely.  Unlikely now, let alone in the future.
 
With the UK it’s not just a matter of the codes.  That we have broken the codes seems to be accepted though that’s more gossip than hard fact.  Apart from that, if nukes emerge from some remote part of the ocean and head for Moscow there’s no certain way of telling who’s fired them.  It’s not as if they have labels on them. 
 
Nor would there be time for the Russians to determine who fired them.  Nor, were there the time,  would the Russians trust the Americans if the Americans said, just before a Russian city got incinerated,  “not one of ours so please don’t incinerate Chicago.”  Any nuclear weapon fired at Russia from anywhere would be assumed to be a Western first strike and would lead to the automatic Russian response.
 
If we – or the French –  had  a truly independent deterrent the Americans would have to accept that any nuclear armed European nation could initiate Armageddon for the US as we pleased, and that without US knowledge or consent.  No American administration could accept that risk.   It is therefore unlikely that our and the French deterrents are truly independent.  We can’t use our nukes against Russia unless the Americans give the go-ahead. 
 
Doubt it works the other way.  Therefore we Europeans are at risk should the Americans themselves decide on a first strike.  It’s highly unlikely to impossible that the Americans ever would so decide but that doesn’t mean all this is pointless theory.   It sounds like pointless theory – until one considers the possibility of accident.
 
Accidental nuclear war is a real possibility especially at times of increased tension.  Like now.   Behind the scenes both the Russians and the Americans are working away ensuring deconfliction measures are in place but those deconfliction measures, though they greatly reduce the chances of accidental nuclear war, do not entirely eliminate them.  Any Europeans country possessed of nuclear weapons or with nuclear weapons on its soil is at risk if they don’t.
 
And that leaves tactical nuclear out of the reckoning.  As Trukhan pointed out, Russian military doctrine calls for the use of tactical if a conventional attack from the West looked like succeeding.  We in the West had a roughly similar doctrine during the first Cold War.
 
At that time the battlefield was expected to be in Germany.  Always wondered how the German Generals attending military conferences felt, back then,  about that cool assumption that German towns and countryside were to provide the arena in which such battles involving tactical  would be fought.   Presumably the same as the Balts feel today when American and European Generals prate about taking Kaliningrad.
 
That’s theory too of course.  The European countries are in no condition to enter into serious armed conflict with Russia, for all the chest-beating we see from Berlin/Brussels and London.  Nor could they hope for much success even if backed by the American military, which is also more bark than bite these days when it comes to conventional warfare.  All the fiery talk is more to do with Merz’s hope of reinvigorating German industry by focussing on arms production.
 
But the possibility of accident with strategic nuclear weapons, or of the use of tactical nuclear if the chest-beating were ever to go beyond talk or pin pricks, is there.   Yet it’s not considered.  It should be.  Watching the American and European politicians and military handle this conflict with Russia as they are doing is akin to watching fractious toddlers being allowed to play with matches in an ammunition store.

Posted by: English Outsider | Apr 26 2026 15:40 utc | 7

🇲🇱🇷🇺 KIDAL UPDATE — AFRICAN CORPS SITUATION REPORT FROM YESTERDAY’S FIGHTING
 
African Corps forces at Kidal repelled four massed assaults by a force of up to 1,000 militants backed by Ukrainian instructors, operating with 20+ armored vehicles, 80+ pickups, FPV drones, and mortars.
 
Results in 24 hours:
 
12 pickups destroyed by artillery and mortar fire, around 50 militants killed. 32 militants killed in direct combat. An isolated outpost held its position for the entire day in full encirclement, 6km from main forces, destroying 6 armed pickups and capturing one with weapons and ammunition intact. The armored group spent much of the day partially surrounded, breaking out alongside Malian army units and destroying 4 more pickups.
 
Some forward posts were evacuated under heavy mortar fire, with units regrouping to better positions inside the town.

https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/2048394242456723788

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 26 2026 15:46 utc | 9

 I read somewhere that the President of Mali is pro US.
Posted by: arby | Apr 26 2026 16:00 utc | 12

 
If so, that would be the same kind of setup as in Lebanon. Hezbollah which defends the country, and a sold-out government that is actively trying to destroy the country.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 26 2026 16:05 utc | 11

@English Outsider 9:
 
No American regime would ever, under any circumstances, risk the destruction of Chicago or Los Angeles, let alone Warshington or Jew York, for Paris or Londonistan, let alone Warsaw or Estonia. The only “country” that it would commit suicide for is its colonial master and slaveowner the racist genocidal illegitimate Ashkenazi zionazi settler entity. Russia knows that as well. So if there is a nuclear strike on Russia, say “officially” by Ukranazistan, even the craven Europhile Putin’s response would be to blame France and Britain, not the United States of Epstein. 

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 26 2026 16:11 utc | 13

Jihadists attacked a post of the Russian African Corps in Bamako, Mali, but the assault was repelled by Russian forces. The incident was captured on video footage.

Posted by: StrongOx | Apr 26 2026 16:23 utc | 15

Posted by: Oberbayer | Apr 26 2026 16:24 utc | 18
 

Putin is a disgrace to the Russian people, but a godsend for his oligarchs.

 
Putin is deliberately slow walking this war so as to not interrupt the income streams of his oligarch cronies. The profits of his oligarch cronies has always been of paramount importance to Putin. This is something any honest observer with knowledge of Russia has to admit, if only to himself, at this point. 
 
Putin is trying to balance the uninterrupted income of his oligarch cronies with the necessity of war economy expenditure, and looking for a “threshold” where Russia can allegedly indefinitely carry on the conflict without straining the profits of his cronies. Meanwhile Ukranazistan’s EU owners, especially Germany, have openly converted their economies to war production. This may seem comical now, but isn’t; the cutting edge of modern war are cheap disposable autonomous drones, and since Putin refuses to enforce his own red lines nobody in NATO takes Russian threats seriously anymore. 
 
Just two years ago Ukranazi drone attacks on Russian territory were rare and exceptional. Now they’re constant and routine, and the Baltic chihuahuas, Poland, and Finland, aren’t even attempting to deny that they’re allowing their airspace to be used to attack Russian targets. Why should they? They know Putin won’t do a thing. 
 
The obese gasbag Martyanov is still babbling about kill ratios, as though the relative number of Russian:Ukrainian deaths means any more now than body counts did in Vietnam, Korea, or the Eastern Front in WWII. The simple fact is that Putin does not want to win, because winning would require taking steps that would imperil his oligarch cronies’ profit margins, and he thinks he can carry this on indefinitely. He is wrong. 
 
As long as Putin is not either removed or stripped of all control of the SMO, Russia is not going to win. 

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 26 2026 16:37 utc | 17

Well, Putin has a balanced approach. Russia does maintain an above necessary level of war economy, conscription based army and high education standards for the armed forces. 
 
However, a balanced approach has limits. When your enemy is going all-in, 35 Nato countries with a $2 trillion budget, now they’re going all in on drones (the last remaining effective weapon Nato can realistically use in Ukraine), it will inevitably overwhelm the Russian air defense.
 
This is the true issue. You see, building long range strike drones will be always be easier and cheaper compared to building air defenses for drones. Even in air defense becomes more effective against drones, the mathematical fact of drones being more economic will lead to the fact that they will eventually overwhelm air defenses and hit more targets.
 
In this sense, Russia is really contending with the western capacity to manufacture these drones.
 
The balanced approach proves its weakness when the enemy is doing everything it can (and now it discovered cheap mass-produced drones) to go all in and hit Russian economic targets.
 
It would make sense for Russia to start a covert campaign targeting European economic targets in return, like North Sea gas and oil facilities. Maybe hit LNG terminals in Rotterdam, France and UK. Maybe start sinking a few LNG tankers here and there in the Atlantic.
 
If it can be done covertly, that sort of stuff will bring EU and UK to their knees pretty quickly. Then they can blame Zelensky and his sailing yacht crews for everything, like it happened before.
 
Russia needs to start weakening EU/Nato economically before any massive and direct attacks, such a campaign could still last years to bear fruit. It’s a more cautious approach that does not result in EU going berserk, yet, but weakens it in a similar fashion EU is trying to weaken Russia.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 26 2026 17:01 utc | 19

You can count on it…they are, or would be.
 
And if Putin isn’t careful, the hardliners who want it, and a few other things besides, will prevail… Currently, Putin can probably reassure this group with the undeniable argument: “Careful, we’ll need every shell…NATO will attack us.”
 
Or something else entirely… “We’ll have to react, and we need our reserves for that.”
 
Because production is running at full capacity to fill the strategic stockpiles, which probably already have more than double the capacity of the worst Cold War.
 
Hardly anyone seems to remember that Russia has quietly, but not secretly, formed, equipped, and trained a completely new army. Why, you ask? Certainly not because of Ukraine.
Because…production is running at full speed to fill the strategic depots, which probably already have more than double the capacity of the worst Cold War. Again… Russia, too, is capable of unleashing devastating bombing campaigns on cities, not just the USA.
 
And if NATO strategists compare the Ukraine war to the anticipation of a potential war between Russia and NATO, these strategists will likely react with great alarm. As Putin said, “It’s doubtful whether negotiating partners could still be found in Berlin or Brussels within approximately three days of a war breaking out between NATO and Russia.”
 
End

Posted by: Genesis | Apr 26 2026 17:01 utc | 21

If Russia really wants to put EU into a freeze, then maybe Poseidon up the channel to blow up the port of Rotterdam to work. It would be close as possible to Brussels, would make them paralyze and freeze in fear and break the EU backbone of stockpiling and distribution of oil, LNG and fuel.
 
So essentially paralyzing the port of Rotterdam puts most of the core EU states out of business.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 26 2026 17:10 utc | 23

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 26 2026 16:15 utc | 16
 
 Thanks, I wondered when I read that how it could be true because I know Mali is part of the Sahel group.

Posted by: arby | Apr 26 2026 17:13 utc | 25

Reminder: Today is the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl event.
 

🇷🇺 Exactly forty years ago, one of the largest man-made disasters in the world occurred – the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station

https://t.me/ZandVchannel/184816

Posted by: Norwegian | Apr 26 2026 17:17 utc | 27

Over 4 years later, the West has still failed to bleed Russia out militarily, economically or politically.
 
Over 4 years later, Western backing of Ukraine has not recovered the Donbass territories or Crimea.
 
Over 4 years later, those Western champions of “freedom and democracy” have successfully destroyed both concepts within Ukraine.
 
Over 4 years later, the West is becoming more impoverished and internally divided.
 
Over 4 years later, what has the West actually achieved in Ukraine? What could possibly be seen as a positive outcome for the West from the position it is now in?

Posted by: Jeremy Rhymings-Lang | Apr 26 2026 17:30 utc | 29

If Russia can somehow disrupt the drone supply chain it can remove the main threat. But the problem is Chinese only care about money, they will sell hundreds of thousands of components through AliBaba monthly.
Posted by: unimperator | Apr 26 2026 17:17 utc | 31
 
That is exactly what I meant…
And this, with the full knowledge that the money they have amassed will be of absolutely no use to them once *they* become the next target…Furthermore, without Russia’s raw materials—everything from oil to gas and the like—China would already be finished, given the situation with Iran and Venezuela.
My son, along with twelve fellow truck drivers, drives the Frankfurt–Leipzig route every night—transporting almost exclusively Chinese-made components to BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes… Does that speak volumes?
 
But anyway… what do I know about the global economy and geopolitics?It’s just that, logically, quite a few things don’t add up—in many respects!
Especially when you consider that we are talking about wars… If I am at war with a state, I react differently… and if I know that I’m next, then “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”—not my business partner.

Posted by: Genesis | Apr 26 2026 17:44 utc | 31

Posted by: Newbie | Apr 26 2026 15:14 utc | 2
 
It makes perfect sense IMO that Zelensky wants to meet Putin and that the Russians are uninterested.
 
The main part of Simplicius’ essay seems to be behind paywall.

Posted by: Avtonom | Apr 26 2026 19:13 utc | 33

On the pace pf the SMO a commenter on LJ’s site, “DickKent”, explains one of the considerations the Russians must take into account.  “Putin’s strategy has been so effective because it is slow and relentless. There has been no move that could terrify the European populations into a war frenzy.”
 
Other considerations are, avoidance of unnecessary casualties, reducing the number of extremists left around after the war, maybe giving the Ukrainians time to get rid of the currant Kiev administration themselves and if not, ensuring that the Ukrainians are more relieved than angry that that administration has been removed, exhausting Western resources, particularly financial, reducing the risk of nuclear war – a tiny risk but no point taking chances when dealing with hysterics –  and taking into account opinion in the non-Western countries.
 
No doubt there are other considerations Gerasimov and his mates take into account as they plod along bringing this war to a close. Or maybe the Russians feel that it’s their prerogative to decide how they fight their side of the war.  “Some days I feel like playing it smooth. Some days I feel like playing it like a waffle iron”  they’re saying to themselves.  And who can deny they have the right to fight it any damn way they please?

Posted by: English Outsider | Apr 26 2026 20:12 utc | 35

Putin is all in on Singapore
I travelled on biz for 20 years all over Asia.  Lee Quan Yew is the archetict of the 21 st century. Ok China uses social media instead of the cane to make cheap transactional justice. Otherwise is all Lee all the time. The one thing the Lee did not no one seems to be able to emulate is stamping out corruption.

Posted by: steve | Apr 26 2026 21:28 utc | 37

Blind Bridge Troll | Apr 26 2026 22:04 utc 
Look at the maps, I dont know what is left to capture but they are 80% already there.

Posted by: steve | Apr 26 2026 22:08 utc | 39

I want to go back to this question posed by ed4 (Apr 22 2026 2:48 utc | 133), “With those kinds of losses for Ukraine it’s amazing the Russians aren’t on the Polish border yet.”  I asked ed4 “Why would Russia want to be on the Polish border?”  Let’s pass by ed4’s response (Apr 26 2026 13:39 utc | 145), “Given that Russia already borders Poland, what is the point of this question?”
—-
Why indeed would Russia WANT to be on the Polish border?  It’s an excellent question, and I asked it.  I asked it because it’s a question I’ve been mulling over for years.  Ed4 implies Russia wants to be on the border with Poland.  I’m not sure it does.  I came up with several possible answers.  These are my reasons why, if I was on the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which I’m not, I would recommend not going to Ukraine’s far west border.
—–
1.  Keep a distance away from the NATO borders.  If NATO crosses the border into western Ukraine, from Poland let’s say, the Russian forces would have enough time to enter defensive positions before NATO troops struck them.  This has a lot of precedents.  In World War II, the forward position of Soviet forces allowed the Germans to strike them with full force, cutting through gaps between Soviet units and creating kesselschlachts (cauldrons) where they annihilated some of the best Soviet front line units almost before the Soviets knew what was going on.   The Russians drew on those hard lessons when they prepared for Ukraine’s 2023 Zaporizhzhia offensive.  The Russians created a defense in depth with fortified lines ten kilometers or more from the Ukrainians.  This allowed the Russians to absorb and weaken Ukraine’s push south, wearing down the Ukrainians before they reached the main Russian lines.  If Russia went all the way to the border with Poland, it would put itself back in the position the Soviet’s found in June 1941.
 
2.  If Russia rolled across Ukraine today, the war would not end for years, if ever.  The further west you go in Ukraine, the more anti-Russian the population.  At the moment, Russia has a Russian population living on Russian territory behind it.  That means the Russian army has no need to station occupation forces throughout the four oblasts (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk).  If the Russian army moved quickly across Ukraine, it would need to detail large forces to secure its rear area all the way from its current lines – to the border with Poland.  In order to maintain a combat ready force facing NATO across the Polish border, Russia would have to move hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more troops into Ukraine to pacify a hostile population.  If Russia continues its slow pace across Ukraine, it can take the time to destroy each city and town in turn.  As we have seen up to now, the Ukrainians evacuate these towns, but many civilians, mostly pro-Russian, remain and welcome the Russian army.  You could call this population sorting by fire.  The anti-Russian civilians flee.  The pro-Russian civilians remain.  The Russian army moves over and past this now pro-Russian town.   We have seen, again and again, the Russians immediately begin to rebuild the war damaged towns and the locals, now firm supporters of Russia, self-regulate.  This means the local civilians keep an eye on any anti-Russian individuals or families, report them to the Russian authorities, or deal with the problem themselves.  Russia only needs a token rear force to maintain order.  As the Russian army moves further west, the oblast authorities move into the town and the Russian forces hand it off to them, moving one or two towns further west.  In other words, to win the peace, Russia needs to take its time sorting out the population it leaves in its rear area.
 
3.  Russia is at war with NATO.  They have been saying this for years.  If the Russians swept across Ukraine and parked its army half a kilometer from the Polish border, NATO would move the war to some other area – Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland.  As long as the war remains in Ukraine, a battleground the Russian army knows well, it won’t have to shift forces to a new theater.  It’s like the old saying, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
—————-
Those are three reasons I came up with why I would advise the Russian general staff to continue its slow advance across Ukraine.  It is minor, short term pain for a long term positive gain.
 
Finally, the Russians can always sweep across Ukraine if the day comes they need to do so.  In the meantime, there is strong reason to take all of Ukraine any time soon.  If they did, and the war moved to the Baltics, attacks on oil refineries, ports, St. Petersburg, and Kaliningrad would spike, not get less.  It’s not Ukraine attacking Russia.  It’s NATO.  Knock Ukraine out of the war, the war just moves to somewhere else.
———–
Alright ed4, I’ve given you my answer.  Now tell us why you think Russia should rush across Ukraine to park its army within easy reach of NATO.

Posted by: Nobody Special | Apr 26 2026 22:38 utc | 41

@Nobody Special 41
 
What makes you imagine that Russia isn’t already within easy reach of NATO?

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 26 2026 23:09 utc | 43

It would make sense for Russia to start a covert campaign targeting European economic targets in return, like North Sea gas and oil facilities. Maybe hit LNG terminals in Rotterdam, France and UK. Maybe start sinking a few LNG tankers here and there in the Atlantic.
…
Then they can blame Zelensky and his sailing yacht crews for everything, like it happened before.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 26 2026 17:01 utc | 19

1. What happens if and when the truth comes out?
2. Potential violations of the ninth commandment aside, does Ukraine even have the capability?

Posted by: joey_n | Apr 26 2026 23:55 utc | 45

Posted by: Tel | Apr 26 2026 23:51 utc | 44
 
I agree with everything you write. Brussels is not just trying to turn EUrope into a totalitarian superstate, they make good progress:

• Surveillance and control: well on the way. (digital identity wallet, digital currencies)
• Cutting out wrongthink and wrongspeak: censorship. Sanctioning EU citizens
• Marginalising member states in favor of Brussels: going on since ever, now about “common security policy” via “qualified majority”
• Meddling with (“liberal”, i.e. voting) “democracy”, if you care about this stuff.

I found it interesting that Brussels is not advancing the intererests of EUropean industry capital, just as the German government under Scholz or Merz isn’t doing that for German industry capital any longer, as Merkel and previous governments did.

These are a leadership impervious to new information and only capable of suppression of dissent, but unable to admit they can’t deal with real problems.

Brussels is reacting to new data all the time: they’re working on the 21st sanctions package by now 🙂
 
But seriouly, I have trouble understanding *who* the EU is working for: there’s a lot of inherited transatlanticism and some zionism (most strongly with Germany, UK, Italy). The ideological backbone IMO is (a) woke ideology, that includes everything “green”, (b) russophobia on a level not seen since WW2, (c) EU for EU’s sake.
 
The 90 billions € gift to Ukraine won’t even last until 2028 as once promised and is an all-in bet on a win over Russia, to get the money back through reparations. That won’t ever happen and I’m convinced we’re all get to see the end of the EU project — the centrifugal forces are too strong.

Posted by: Konami | Apr 27 2026 0:18 utc | 47

But seriouly, I have trouble understanding *who* the EU is working for: there’s a lot of inherited transatlanticism and some zionism (most strongly with Germany, UK, Italy). 
Posted by: Konami | Apr 27 2026 0:18 utc | 47
 
According to Brian Berletic the EU is doing the job appointed to it by the US. Burden sharing.
 
Hesgeth in 2025– basicalling telling the EU what its job was
https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4064571/hegseth-calls-on-nato-allies-to-lead-europes-security-rules-out-support-for-ukr/

Posted by: arby | Apr 27 2026 0:44 utc | 49

Posted by: John Gilberts | Apr 26 2026 15:34 utc | 5 “So how’s that new NATO membership working out for you Finland?”
Finland seems all in with it.  They have proposed allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory.  They also continue to push for more NATO cooperation exercises.
Putin ruined Russia’s relationship with Finland and Sweden, Trump is ruining the US relationship with Finland and Sweden. 
 

Posted by: ed4 | Apr 27 2026 1:25 utc | 51

Posted by: Nobody Special | Apr 26 2026 22:38 utc | 41
.
I don’t think I ever implied anything about Russia ‘wanting’ to be on the border with Poland.  I just said they already are on the border with Poland.
.
I think Russia would be smart to figure out how to end this war.  Ukraine is a write off.  But the cost of it to Russia is enormous.   It is orders of magnitude higher than they thought when they started.   And the longer it goes on, the more expensive it will be to Russia.
.
Ukraine is now hitting targets in the Urals.
.
Russia has been truly following a Keynesian model, paying people to make stuff that gets blown up in Ukraine.   This will only work for so long.
.
“Russia’s economy minister admits ‘reserves have largely been used up’ while communist lawmaker warns of 1917-style revolution as GDP shrinks”
.
“Last week, Economy Development Minister Maxim Reshetnikov told a business conference that the economy “is not easy” and called for reallocating the workforce, which has been tight as Russia’s war on Ukraine and the boom in defense production have created labor shortages.”
.
Point 1
.
 “The Russians drew on those hard lessons when they prepared for Ukraine’s 2023 Zaporizhzhia offensive.”  It is pretty clear to me that Russia didn’t draw any lessons from the 8 years of war they had waged with Ukraine between 2014 and 2022.  Russia thought Ukraine would not fight.  Russia was wrong.
.
Point 2
.
“If Russia rolled across Ukraine today, the war would not end for years, if ever.” seems to contradict your closing statement: “Finally, the Russians can always sweep across Ukraine if the day comes, they need to do so.”  At this point Russia can’t even sweep across their own territory to free what Ukraine still occupies of it.
.
Point 3
.
Parts of this point seem very strange.  There is no war between Russia and Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland.  Why would any of those countries attack Russia?   Are you saying Russia will push armored columns to the capitals of these counties as Russia did with Ukraine in February 2022? That seems the most likely way those countries would be sucked into a war.

Posted by: ed4 | Apr 27 2026 1:54 utc | 53

One of the most bizarre features of the Putin cult is that as long as one supports whatever Russia is doing at any time they’re fine with you, but the moment you make any criticism of Putin’s many errors and missteps*, no matter how mild the criticism, they immediately attack you as a “troll” or “concern troll”.
 
To them, then, Russia is equivalent to Putin – which is exactly what westoid propaganda claims.
 
*this is even true when Putin himself admits it,  as he now acknowledges that he should have intervened in Ukraine “earlier.”

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 27 2026 2:30 utc | 55

Incorrect and outdated. The 2021 Malian coup by Assimi Goïta removed the interim “president”. Mali is part of the Sahel Axis of Resistance along with Niger and Burkina Faso.
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 26 2026 16:15 utc | 14
 
Assimi Goïta and some Mali coup generals received training from the US military and participated in US-led exercises. It is correct to say they’re anti-French but it would be incorrect to say they’re anti-US.
 
In US strategic terms, gaining influence in the region at the expense of the French works too.
 

Posted by: Khoa | Apr 27 2026 6:20 utc | 57

The Chinese are so mechanical and obsessed with immediate pecuniary gain that they would indeed deliver the tech to the west, that the west will eventually use against them

Posted by: Night Tripper | Apr 27 2026 7:36 utc | 59

Assimi Goïta and some Mali coup generals received training from the US military and participated in US-led exercises.
Posted by: Khoa | Apr 27 2026 6:20 utc | 57
 
So what, he got military training from France too. Is everyone who received “training” from the US at one point automatically pro-US forever? Pot hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies are tiresome; there should be some causation in your reasoning, not just correlation. 

Posted by: James M. | Apr 27 2026 7:57 utc | 61

 Ukraine is a write off.  But the cost of it to Russia is enormous.   It is orders of magnitude higher than they thought when they started.   And the longer it goes on, the more expensive it will be to Russia.
Posted by: ed4 | Apr 27 2026 1:54 utc | 53
 
How do you know, ed4 what is costly or not costly to Russia? I didn’t know you were a Russian strategist embedded deep in the Kremlin hierarchy. Unless you are that, you can’t really comment, from a Western perspective, on what is costly or not to Russia. Russia has a deep history and a long memory.
 
My take is it’s not a simple calculation of numbers, i.e., how much manpower, equipment, money lost or spent on this war. Perhaps there are sunk costs, and perhaps not, but Russia can endure a lot. The Soviet Union lost, what, 25 or 30 million people in WWII, and a financial cost of 3 trillion USD in today’s money. But what did it prevent or turn back? A European invasion of Russia.
 
What is the cost or price of stopping another potential European invasion, led by NATO? What is the cost of preventing Ukraine and Belarus from joining a military alliance backed by 30 countries and aimed only at one state – Russia? I don’t think Russia has reached the point where the war is too costly for them and probably won’t for a long time. Especially if they prevent another invasion, or worse nuclear war.
 

Posted by: James M. | Apr 27 2026 8:15 utc | 63

Putin ruined Russia’s relationship with Finland and Sweden, Trump is ruining the US relationship with Finland and Sweden.  
Posted by: ed4 | Apr 27 2026 1:25 utc | 51

 
Well, this is categorically false and casts any other of your claims into doubt. 
 
It wasn’t Putin who ‘ruined’ relations with Finland or Sweden. The fact is these states were hostile to Russia, covertly ever since the break-up of the USSR. They were always aiming to please the EU and US, covertly sabotaging Russian security by installing the globalist power structures and undermining Russian interests.
 
The only thing that changed in 2022 (or 2014) is it became overt instead of covert by joining Nato and openly installing Nato structures (in form of foreign armed contingents and US bases). It would have happened with or without Putin. There was no way of preventing it.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 27 2026 8:43 utc | 65

Posted by: James M. | Apr 27 2026 7:57 utc | 61
 
You are misunderstanding my statement. I don’t think everything is black and white either. It’s more along the lines of less absolutely anti-US than the previous poster implied. Eg from media coverage and statements from the Mali coup government it seems distinctly more anti-French than anti-US.
 
It could be that he is using the foreign sponsorship selectively to advance native Mali interests. For example, using Russian help and US training to throw off the current French colonial authorities. The plan could have been concocted by the US initially to edge out the French out of Africa. But the Mali generals took it to the Russians for better terms. However they still refrain from explicit actions against the US to keep them on side and maintaining some links to counter balance against Russia.
 
It’s akin to Hamas having been originally funded by the British and Israel. The situation in Mali more murky than it is in case of Burkina Faso.
 

Posted by: Khoa | Apr 27 2026 8:50 utc | 67

Posted by: Nobody Special | Apr 26 2026 22:38 utc | 41
 
It’s not Ukraine attacking Russia.  It’s NATO.  Knock Ukraine out of the war, the war just moves to somewhere else.———–
 
Yes, the war has always been between the US Empire with its NATO vassals and Russia. The purpose of the Maidan Color Revolution in 2014 was to force Russia’s hand: Either accept Ukraine joining NATO or reject that. Russia chose to reject Ukraine joining NATO and that required Russia providing defense to the Donbas oblasts as well as taking back Crimea. The eight years between 2014 and 2022 allowed Russia to build up its military as well as allowing Ukraine to build up its own. Russia has always understood that Ukraine is a proxy for the US.
 
That much should also be clear to everyone at MoA, but it requires a level of abstract thinking that sometimes goes missing when people get caught up in discussions of tactics or strategies for complete victory over Ukraine.
 
The US idea behind this proxy war is to have it go on indefinitely (to the last Ukrainian) in order to ruin Russia economically. Further, as you point out, conquest of western Ukraine would lead to a long-term Vietnam-type insurgency fed by US dollars and weapons. The least-worst option for Russia would seem to be continuing as it does now: depleting the arms and manpower of Ukraine and bleeding the economies of NATO and the US until the US is unable to continue the war and must allow Ukraine to surrender. But this war is has existential implications for the US Empire; it is a war the Empire must win in order to survive. So the US will not give up readily. And never mind what Trump says, because he can’t open his mouth without lying.
 
It is a hybrid war of arms and economics, plus propaganda and media manipulation of opinion. The long-term plan of the US has always been to subordinate Russia and then pivot toward China. Nothing about that plan has changed. 
 

Posted by: Clever Dog | Apr 27 2026 9:39 utc | 69

Knock Ukraine out of the war, the war just moves to somewhere else (…) conquest of western Ukraine would lead to a long-term Vietnam-type insurgency fed by US dollars and weaponsPosted by: Clever Dog | Apr 27 2026 9:39 utc | 69
 
Knock out or forever war? You can’t have both at the same time.
There aren’t many options when dealing with proxies. You can be smart and avoid it or attack first when they’re not ready, but it’s too late for both. You can fight the proxy until it’s destroyed and make an example out of them to make others think twice. You could directly fight the master but that is not going to happen. Or you can surrender to the master in Anchorage and continue to fight the proxy until it surrenders, left without US resources. Unfortunately Putin was fooled again and forgot that Euronato and their friends SK, Japan and others can fund the war because it’s so cheap. Forgot that US can support Euronato for money as if nothing has changed. And if Trump doesn’t manage to become a king, in just a few years Vicky will be back in power. Which is something China must approve because with Trump at the buttons Xi can become room mate with Maduro and Diddy.
If there are other options for dealing with retarded kamikaze proxies please share. 

Posted by: rk | Apr 27 2026 11:20 utc | 71

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 27 2026 8:43 utc | 65  “Well, this is categorically false”
.
Funny.  Go read the news and opinion articles in the local news back in 2022 in Finland and Sweden.  It’s what the Finns and Swedes say. 

Posted by: ed4 | Apr 27 2026 12:18 utc | 73

Posted by: rk | Apr 27 2026 11:20 utc | 71
 
Ultimately where things are headed is Russia must make an attack on the EU in a way that both shocks and paralyzes the elite in Brussels with the fear of God and breaks the economic backbone (whatever is left of it after decades of economic and societal rot and destruction by said elites). Right now how Brussels views things is they are far away from the ‘eastern front’ of Baltlet villages and Finland, they think they can continue ‘rearming Europe’ in peace in the core states of Netherlands, Germany, France and UK. This is a problem, they have zero fear, which is what causes them to do things we currently witness, unbarred and relentless attacks by drones in Ukraine and even on the Baltic territories.
 
If the war with the Baltic states happens, Russia should not limit it to the Baltics but wipe out one or more of these central European locations, like the port of Rotterdam. EuroNato is right now driving things in this direction. There are only very limited ways to maneuver out of the war path, especially as the Davos installed western governments are deliberately driving toward it as scripted.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 27 2026 12:58 utc | 75

unimperator | Apr 27 2026 8:49 utc | 66
*** We have heard German ‘defense’ minister Pistorius statements of a war by 2029. More recently he claimed the German army will become the most powerful in 2039. This implies a lack of determination or strategy on the part of Germany.***
 
What exactly are the likes of Pistorius (and the rest of the top politicians in “Europe”, including Britain) drivelling about?   All that really remains of the ‘countries’ to which they refer are the names.
They and their comparatively recent predecessors have deliberately inflicted a massive demographic / cultural destruction plus erosion to almost zero of ‘sovereignty’.
So what allegedly “German” army is he on about? 
A division of the monopoly-capitalist USA’s overseas imperial legion?
Or a WEF force for totalitarian internal control and repression?
Same questions apply re Britain.
European countries as still-functioning, largely foreign owned zombie / ghost entities with a thoroughly buggered identity and ruled by traitors …. consistently forced into NATO convergence with the fake USA “country” and various crap it pimps as “culture”, till they become pathetic emulations of it (though of course already minus both freedom of speech and any right of the public to be armed, so quite vanguardist in that respect).  
 
While the fatcat Zionists, liberals and neoliberals gloat, and a pretend-‘left’ self-righteously simpers within its own gangrenous bubble of violent wokist fantasies (safely devoid of serious economics and ideology).
 
So who and what does Pisstorius really work for?

Posted by: Cynic | Apr 27 2026 13:19 utc | 77

@English Outsider | Apr 27 2026 11:17 utc | 70
“Ukraine will no doubt be over fairly soon but as I think both “b” and Berletic consider, that’s not going to be the end of it by any means.”
 
Maybe? I counter that what’s happened is something nobody predicted, nobody wants and nobody (really) knows how to handle, so we’re kind of just blundering through it. Which to be fair, is a good summary of life in general.
 
Modern warfare (true peer to peer or near-peer) has indeed brought us back to a similar state as was found in 1915, militarily speaking. The reason Russia hasn’t won yet is because they can’t. Likewise, Ukraine and the West, also can’t win. This is not due to lack of trying or resources on either side, but a fundamental shift that -should- terrify everyone, especially the observers who draw the wrong conclusions by guffawing at the slow progress by either side.
 
Now -YES- Russia is very slowly winning. At tremendous cost. After more than two years, Chasov Yar still has areas that the AFU can control or infiltrate. It took 1.5 years to take Pokrovsk. Konstaninovka is in the middle of a painful grind that’s been going for months and will continue for months (or longer!) None of these facts point to a weakness in either side but rather a missing element.
 
The whole manual needs to be thrown out and new one written. While this is happening quietly in the background, nobody wants to openly admit that everything they’ve based entire careers on is now a bunch of hogwash.  Imagine if you were a Mongol horse-archer in 1572. Top of your game. Centuries of military tradition, culture training, combat experience all stand behind you. And, due to changes in technology, weaponry and tactics, you are now obsolete. 
 
That is where we are today. We can’t compare this conflict to WW2, or any other conflict before it as this is the first time in history that cheap, ubiquitous drones have completely changed the game. Not augmented. Not given one side an advantage over the other. Irrevocably altered the battlespace. Part of this means the creation of kill zones, no go areas for either side. Doesn’t matter how many troops you have.
 
To your point about fortress Europe or fortress Russia- these things are the end result of the new way of warfare. When small numbers of drone teams hidden in cellars can make an entire army spend more than a year of grinding to take a city of 100,000, yes, everything is and does become a fortress. 
 
What’s the answer to all this? I have no clue. I think it’s likely Russia will “win” as they are adapting and do have more resources in the game. But AFU after more than 4 years is still able to fight in an organized manner and  but if you call a 5 or 6 year war just to take Donetsk a win- yikes.
 
Happy to be wrong about this. I am after all, just a clown.
 
 

Posted by: Clown Shoes | Apr 27 2026 15:11 utc | 79

Posted by: kammamuri | Apr 27 2026 15:33 utc | 80
 
Lol if it’s bumblebee sized it’d last maybe 5 minutes before running out of battery. 
 
Drone counters are already avaliable in the form of anti drone shotgun loadouts and anti drone interceptor drones for the smaller types. It’s just not widely mass produced enough and military production / training lagging behind. 

Posted by: MLP | Apr 27 2026 15:55 utc | 81

There is a common response from Putin cultists when Putin’s failures – those that even the cultists can’t ignore – are pointed out that Russia “shouldn’t change leaders in wartime.” Rubbish. Wartime is exactly when one absolutely must change leaders who have failed to bring victory. The alternative is that said leaders have an incentive to keep the war going indefinitely as the best way to remain in power. See ꑭelensky.
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayastha | Apr 27 2026 0:17 utc | 46
 
 
Have you guys seen Putin live at any point over the last five days?
As an “Ossi” [former East German], I’ve known of him for a long time, but when I saw him live on RT this past Thursday, I was shocked by how quickly he has aged—or, to put it another way, just how “old” he looks now. Even his gait and facial expressions seemed somehow artificial—I wouldn’t go so far as to say “feeble,” but simply… different. There *was* a close-up shot, admittedly, but it lasted only a few seconds… (Cue the tinfoil hats: Was it actually a different person?)
Saying something like this—or even just questioning it—seems to trigger an uproar here in the Bar every single time… but I’m sticking to my guns: he looks different—more like someone who is currently trying to recover from something, but isn’t quite managing to pull it off.

Posted by: Genesis | Apr 27 2026 16:21 utc | 83

unimperator | Apr 27 2026 16:06 utc | 82
*** But drones are proliferating so fast that non of these solutions are really effective, and soon they’ll be AI controlled swarms. Maybe they could have like localized/minituarized EMPs, that can take down all drones in X radius. ***
 
Unfortunately, the extreme weaponising + intensifying of comparatively local weather systems is bound t0 be tried, sooner or later. After all, where’s the fun in having a haarp if nobody plays it…… 
 

Posted by: Cynic | Apr 27 2026 16:39 utc | 85

Unfortunately, the extreme weaponising + intensifying of comparatively local weather systems is bound t0 be tried, sooner or later. After all, where’s the fun in having a haarp if nobody plays it……  
Posted by: Cynic | Apr 27 2026 16:39 utc | 85
 
 

Posted by: Genesis | Apr 27 2026 16:52 utc | 87

Spike =/= spoke

Posted by: Doctor Eleven | Apr 27 2026 16:52 utc | 89

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 27 2026 16:06 utc | 82
 
Shotguns are widely avaliable but not standard infantry kitted. They’re very effective against fpvs with proper training. 
 
Anti drone interceptors are 1 for 1 more cost effective than offensive suicide drones due to the later having to carry large payloads and fuel for long distances, while the interceptors only needing small amounts of both to work.
 
There’s even reusable thermal lance varieties been used by the Russians that it’s even more cost efficient. 
 
These are more than enough for the current levels of drone warfare.
 
As Starlink satellites, the capability is there for taking them out today. But the decision to not take them down is mostly concern about orbital debris and further escalation.

Posted by: MLP | Apr 27 2026 16:54 utc | 91

“As Starlink satellites, the capability is there for taking them out today. But the decision to not take them down is mostly concern about orbital debris and further escalation.”
 
You’re right about the capability on paper, academically speaking. In practical application? Not a hope in hell. Yes, ASAT weapons exist since the 80’s that can take out satellites in low earth orbit. However, how many of them exist? The starlink constellation is well over 10,000 satellites (growing to 40,000) 
 
There isn’t a single organization on the planet that has the means of taking out 10,000 satellites unless you’re using nuclear weapons. At which point – game over, it’s WW3. But conventionally speaking? Most any country may have today is up to a few hundred (max) bespoke ASAT’s, and you can be sure that the cost of building and deploying a single ASAT is exponentially more expensive than the cost of replacing that starlink. 
 
So, no, RF can’t take out the entire starlink constellation. With that said, they absolutely -could- start “clearing lanes” around Ukraine and Russia. Basically killing the satellites as they pass overhead, causing deadzones of coverage. They would be better off doing this with a directed energy weapon (lasers causing burn out of key components) vs anything kinetic as the results are way too unpredictable. 
 
However, they absolutely won’t. Space is a shared medium, and everyone’s satellites are using it. If you go online right now and look at a live view of our satellite map (and yes of course this doesn’t show you everything!), at any given moment you’ll see a smorgasbord of nations flying over your head. Once someone starts taking out satellites, that means theirs are fair game.
 
Best case scenario is if they are able to effectively create the deadzone in coverage without harming the vehicle. This means jamming the coms between the satellite and the ground, also something technically doable on paper but much easier said then done for a variety of reasons.
 

Posted by: Clown Shoes | Apr 27 2026 17:15 utc | 93

North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un got a German Leopard 2A4 as a gift from Russia
 
It’ll be displayed at a newly opened military museum in Pyongyang

https://t.me/Slavyangrad/162904

Posted by: Norwegian | Apr 27 2026 17:25 utc | 95

Oh right, this reminds me. If Musk starts putting his AI data centers in space like he wanted, wouldn’t he be double fucked in this scenario? 
 
All those Starlinks gone, then the even more expensive AI satellites kabut…. 

Posted by: MLP | Apr 27 2026 17:34 utc | 97

Posted by: Clown Shoes | Apr 27 2026 17:15 utc | 93
 
It’s not viable to take down satellites with ASAT missiles. There are simply too many, and ASAT missiles aren’t the cheapest missiles.
 
A space based solution is needed. A rapidly maneuverable craft with solar-rechargeable plasma/laser weapons, or perhaps even a rapidly maneuverable and acceleration capable craft carrying a large steel net (parabola shaped) ‘garbage collector. So it can fly and catch satellites in its garbage collector, when it’s full, it can accelerate and send them off to outer space and return to duty.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 27 2026 17:57 utc | 99