Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 21:09
VIEWED: 562266
PAGE 533 of 1104
What should Ukraine do next?
Preparing for a Long War
By Lawrence Freedman | Nov 29, 2023
https://samf.substack.com/p/what-should-ukraine-do-next
In my previous post I discussed the likely form Putin’s strategy would take when Russia is neither winning nor losing its war with Ukraine. If a cease-fire was agreed tomorrow, Russia would be left with a significant amount of Ukrainian territory but less than sought, in a form difficult to occupy and defend over the long term and requiring significant funds to reconstruct and subsidise. It would not be able to stop Ukraine getting close to NATO and the EU. The assumption that Putin would readily agree to a cease-fire if only Zelensky could be persuaded to agree to one does not reflect the logic of Russia’s strategic position. Russia has not proposed one, although Putin has recently spoken in general terms about the desirability of peace.
Putin wants substantive political concessions from Ukraine, accepting both the loss of territory and some sort of veto over its foreign policy. He will also want the sanctions regime to be unravelled. Full negotiations on a comprehensive peace settlement, which these demands would require, could be extraordinarily protracted and complex. (Ukraine would raise issues of reparations and war crimes.) A cease-fire would allow both sides time to regroup and refresh but for neither would this represent a satisfactory or stable outcome.
It is possible that the fighting will reach a genuine deadlock where both sides have secured their positions and neither feels strong enough to mount an offensive. The conflict would then acquire an uneasy stasis, but we are far from that situation. For now the prospect is of continuing fighting that does not quite reach a conclusion, which in principle could go on for many years. Conditions might change sufficiently to trigger some serious diplomatic activity: a sudden shift in balance of military advantage or the wider political context (for example after a Trump presidential victory).
Putin may suppose that over time Russia is more likely to benefit from such changes, but he cannot be sure of that, nor that if they come they will be in a form that he can fully exploit. As Ukraine is perceived to be suffering the aftereffects of a disappointing counter-offensive and shortages of manpower and ordnance, my analysis suggests that Putin would still prefer to create these conditions sooner rather than later and has not given up hope of being able to do so. That explains the extraordinary effort that Russia has put into its own recent offensive operations.
These operations only work if they persuade Kyiv that it has no choice but to tolerate some occupation of its territory and restrictions on its future security policies. If they fail to do so Putin is left with a problem. Even if his economy does not fall off a cliff edge, or Ukraine is unable to make significant gains of its own, a continuing failure to reach an outcome that looks like a ‘win’, in that it meets minimum objectives and has some chance of sticking once the guns fall silent, will be problematic. Though Putin may no longer fear a comprehensive battlefield defeat he needs to beware a growing sense of pointlessness and futility. Public support for the war in Russia is stable but also uneasy, with a slight majority believing the war has done more harm than good, and while over 70% support peace talks far fewer support any concession to Ukraine. The war will soon be taking up a third of all government spending, which is a lot for what began as a limited ‘special military operation’. Remilitarising society (the budget for propaganda is also going up) and then failing to achieve a military solution in Ukraine is going to lead to more questions. Ukraine’s capacity for long-range strikes is growing and while Ukraine will not be able to attack Russia to the same extent as Russia attacks Ukraine the extent to which it can do so could prove to be an embarrassment and can undermine confidence in the security of Crimea.
What does this mean for Uk
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know SECOND'S mental state is fragmenting when he has to post excessively long justifications/ rationalizations to shore up his narrative.
Hey SECOND: Nobody's gonna read your bullshit, and no matter how many words someone writes a square is not a circle, and Ukraine is still losing.
What Russia is doing now is "active defense" according to Shoigu. (Local offensives along the entire frontline.) Apparently we haven't seen the real offensive yet.
Edited to add: Last October, our National Security statement said that Russia was running out of shells, missiles, and people, Ukraine was "winning", and the USA was the strongest military in the world and defending democracy across the globe
All propaganda and worth only as TP. Pretty much like anything our establishment and conjoined media publishes.
Idiots.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym: Where is that National Security Statement you are paraphrasing? That is NOT how any bureaucracy phrases things, by the way, even in paraphrase. And do you realize last October was only two months ago? It should be very easy for you to find that document and give a real quote from it. I'll give you a paraphrase from Putin: "Victory shall soon be ours! (Silently: but not before the next election.) Vote for me in 2024 because I'm the only person standing up to NATO and its intentions to destroy Mother Russia!"
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know SECOND'S mental state is fragmenting when he has to post excessively long justifications/ rationalizations to shore up his narrative.
Hey SECOND: Nobody's gonna read your bullshit, and no matter how many words someone writes a square is not a circle, and Ukraine is still losing.
What Russia is doing now is "active defense" according to Shoigu. (Local offensives along the entire frontline.) Apparently we haven't seen the real offensive yet.
Edited to add: Last October, our National Security statement said that Russia was running out of shells, missiles, and people, Ukraine was "winning", and the USA was the strongest military in the world and defending democracy across the globe
All propaganda and worth only as TP. Pretty much like anything our establishment and conjoined media publishes.
Idiots.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/8-November-Combi
ned-PDF-for-Upload.pdf
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"General to General" negotiations between Zaluzhny and Gerasomov? So says Seymour Hersch.
Quote:
Meaning In History
Read in the Substack app
Seymour Hersh's Weird 'General To General' Negotiation Story
Mark Wauck
Dec 2, 2023
Yesterday noted investigative reporter Seymour Hersh came out with a new substack article. In it, Hersh advances the wildly implausible idea that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is being secretly negotiated by the two generals in charge of their respective country’s war efforts: Valery Gerasimov on the Russian side and Valery Zaluzhny on the Ukrainian side:
GENERAL TO GENERAL
A potential peace is being negotiated in Ukraine by military leaders
To get a flavor for just how implausible this narrative is, consider this paragraph:
The driving force of those talks has not been Washington or Moscow, or Biden or Putin, but instead the two high-ranking generals who run the war, Valery Gerasimov of Russia and Valery Zaluzhny of Ukraine. to tell 4
In other words, Hersh is asking readers to believe that these two generals have taken upon themselves the task, not of fighting and winning a war, but of negotiating a peace. And that behind the backs of their respective country’s elected leaders and political power structures (on Gerasimov’s Russian side, that would be the Russian Security Council). On its face, such shenanigans would be treasonous for either general.
Now, it’s true that this narrative comes at a time of open disarray and feuding within what Russia refers to as “the Kiev regime”—not even deigning to refer to the government of a country called Ukraine. It is also a time in which there is open and widespread speculation that the Zhou regime in DC is plotting the removal of Zelensky from Kiev, to be replaced by a new leadership team in which none other than Zaluzhny himself would be the real power. That, one presumes, is the meaning of the trip to Kiev by the de facto SecState of the US (officially Director, CIA), William Burns—a desperate attempt to get Zelensky back on board with the American program. Again, it’s no secret that the American Empire—faced with a growing debacle in Ukraine and the prospect of a humiliatingly decisive Russian victory in an American election year—is increasingly desperate to put a stop to the war by hook or by crook, before Ukraine is totally destroyed as a nation worth looting. From this perspective, it could make a bit of sense to suppose that Zaluzhny would put out feelers to the Russian side, if he had the American Empire at his back.
Nevertheless, Hersh’s narrative was widely dismissed by all sides of the opinion spectrum—Neocons as well as those backing a productive peace. Alexander Mercouris, today, rejected Hersh’s goofy claim that Gerasimov was telling Zaluzhny that Russia could accept Ukraine membership in NATO. Mercouris, correctly, stated that this was “all but incomprehensible.” I would delete the “all but.” Such a concession would be tantamount to Russia suddenly declaring its own defeat in a war that leading figures in the West are conceding that Russia has won. Putin would be signing off on his political—and conceivably personal—demise were he to accept such a ridiculous concept. The whole point of this costly war for Russia has been to thwart a Ukrainian accession to NATO.
Beyond that, Russia, having been lied to repeatedly (in Minsk and then in Istanbul) by Ukraine at the direction of the American Empire, has repeatedly stated that there would be no negotiating with intermediaries—only face to face negotiations with American officials. The US is being presented by Russia with the alternative: either perform yet another bugout for all the world to see, or reveal your guiding role and sit down to negotiate with us—again, for all the world to see. Which is precisely the humiliating set of choices that the Neocons are attempting to avoid.
In fact, yesterday in Skopje Russia’s world class foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov (also a member of the Russian Security CounNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, too bad for you, but it does NOT say what you claim it says. It does say:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/8-November-Combi
ned-PDF-for-Upload.pdf
"We will continue to stand with the people of Ukraine as they fight back against Russia’s naked aggression. And we will rally the world to hold Russia accountable for the atrocities they have unleashed across Ukraine."
Signym, your not reading and your misunderstanding are your standard operating procedure:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know SECOND'S mental state is fragmenting when he has to post excessively long justifications/ rationalizations to shore up his narrative.
Hey SECOND: Nobody's gonna read your bullshit, and no matter how many words someone writes a square is not a circle, and Ukraine is still losing.
What Russia is doing now is "active defense" according to Shoigu. (Local offensives along the entire frontline.) Apparently we haven't seen the real offensive yet.
Edited to add: Last October, our National Security statement said that Russia was running out of shells, missiles, and people, Ukraine was "winning", and the USA was the strongest military in the world and defending democracy across the globe
All propaganda and worth only as TP. Pretty much like anything our establishment and conjoined media publishes.
Idiots.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Russians violate a basic rule of fieldcraft on a battlefield where enemy surveillance, and aerial firepower, is everywhere. “All latrine calls should be done during darkness, if possible,” the U.S. Army advises in its field manual for snipers.
On Ukraine’s drone-patrolled front line, all soldiers — even those who aren’t marksmen — must contend with the same fundamental problem that traditionally has been unique to snipers. Namely, concealment is survival. And using the latrine outside of your hidden position represents a profound risk.
Minimally-trained and poorly-led Russian conscripts might not know this. For the Ukrainians, this inexperience is an opportunity. “The winter once again poses an opportunity to maximize Russian losses,” analyst Jack Watling wrote in a recent essay for the Royal United Services Institute in London.
“If Russian troops are drawn into the defense along a wide front, with Ukrainian troops pushing into opportunities rather than trying to break through defended areas, then Russian forces will be outside, getting wet and cold,” Watling wrote.
“If targeted strikes can degrade their logistics, then the limited training and fieldcraft of Russian forces can maximize climatic injuries.” Including injuries resulting from ill-considered attempts to use the latrine during the daytime.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/12/02/ukrainian-drones-targ
et-russian-troops-when-theyre-most-vulnerable-while-using-the-bathroom/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Putin’s War Party
How Russia’s Election Will Validate Autocracy — and Permanent Conflict With the West
By Andrei Kolesnikov | December 1, 2023
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/putins-war-party
“If there is Putin, there is Russia; if there is no Putin, there is no Russia,” the current speaker of the State Duma, the aggressive loyalist Vyacheslav Volodin, pronounced, back in 2014. He was outlining an ideal autocracy, one in which the country would be equated with its ruler and vice versa. At the time Volodin spoke those words, the Kremlin was basking in an upsurge of national euphoria following the annexation of Crimea. With the so-called Putin majority ascendant, the government could hasten its shift toward such a regime with broad popular approval.
But Volodin was a bit ahead of his time. It was not until the 2020 constitutional reform, which “reset” Russia’s presidential term limits and solidified Putin’s mature dictatorship, that his formula was codified in the country’s institutions. And it was in 2022, with the beginning of the “special operation” in Ukraine, that the propaganda meaning of “Putin equals Russia” became starkly apparent. As the Kremlin would have it, Putin’s war is Russia’s war, and by extension, a war involving all Russians — a fanciful notion that not only plays into the hands of regime propagandists but which has been readily embraced by many Western officials, as well. Of course, the real picture is far more complex.
By now, the Putin majority has long since been taken as a given, and no one talks about it anymore. Instead, there is the pro-war majority, which supports the war partly by ignoring it in everyday life. As for the anti-Putin minority, the Kremlin’s long-standing habit of treating with contempt any who dare oppose the president has been transformed into a policy of active persecution and denunciation. Opposition and civil society figures themselves have been systematically discredited, exiled, and eliminated.
Nonetheless, Putin still needs elections to give legitimacy to his eternal rule — and to his unending war. Thus, in March 2024, he will run for president for the fifth time since 2000. And as a result of the 2020 reform, it may not be the last, either. According to the changed constitution, Putin will able to run for office twice more — in 2024 and 2030 — meaning that he could rule until 2036, when he will be eighty-three years old. For now, it seems clear that Putin is ready to make full use of that opportunity, at least in the coming vote.
But this time, with the war in the background, there are new rules to the game, and both Putin and the Russian public know them. In exchange for keeping most of them out of the trenches, the passive majority of Russians will continue to support the government. And the elections — or rather, the mass approval of Putin’s activities — will show that the people, at least, are playing along. Ballots have become currency: Russians think that they can buy their own relative tranquility with them, even though there are no guarantees that Putin will keep his side of the bargain.
JUST SAY YES
Given the complete lack of alternatives to Putin, some of his supporters, such as the Chechen leader and fierce loyalist Ramzan Kadyrov, have proposed canceling the 2024 election altogether. Wouldn’t it be easier to forgo the vote, on the grounds that the country is at war, and that in any case, the Russian political field has been comprehensively cleared of competitors? Or why not elevate Putin to the title of supreme leader, national leader, or tsar, and then elect a formal president?
But Putin really needs elections, at least in theory. In addition to refreshing his legitimacy, they serve as a way to show that the opposition — through the predictable landslide outcome — remains a tiny minority and cannot go against the overwhelming will of the Russian people. Moreover, by voting for Putin in 2024, Russians will legitimize his war. Even if the active phase of that war ends someday, it will still need to continue thro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody is reading or cares about your propaganda, idiot.
The only person who would even care at all is Ted, and that wall of text is about 8 years beyond his reading comprehension level.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SPIDERS IN A JAR (Simplicius the Thinker)
The Zelenskiy/ Zaluzhny fight for survival is on full blast.
According to Simplicius' sources, Zelenskiy's backers (Yermak, Rada deputy Mariana Bezuglaya) have been slagging Zaluzhny for his "failures" on the front.
Meanwhile, Zaluzhny has been objecting publicly to Zelenskiy's rather boneheaded "must defend every millimeter at any cost" which expended a lot of lives and weapons on strategically unimportant places like Bakhmut. Zaluzhny has also refused to participate in Zelenskiy's more harebrained commands. So not only does Zaluzhny have military support, the latest polls say that if Zaluzhny and Zelenskiy were to both run for President, Zelenskiy would lose.
Zelenskiy, seeing his position go up in flames, is trying to retrieve his Presidency by several means:
a) Finally instituting a defensive rather than offensive strategy (what Zaluzhny advocated for a while) and taking the credit
b) Announcing, but not initiating general conscription. The explanation, according to some, is not to increase armed forces until Zaluzhny has been kicked out
c) Thru his party in the Rada, delaying both Parliamentarian and Presidential elections until well after the war is over.
Supposedly, tho, Zaluzhny has the backing of large western firms like Black Rock, big pharma etc. The explanation is to preserve Ukrainian assets as much as possible (for later depredation by transnational finance/ firms) by replacing Zelenskiy and having Zaluzhny negotiate a cease fire.
The replacement regime would be Dmytro Razumkov (acting Pres), Zaluzhny (current Military) and Kitchko (popular former boxer and Mayor of Kiev since 2014).
The go-between for western financial interests, and the coup- in- waiting, and Ukrainian oligarchs is former President Petro Poroshenko, who was stopped at the Ukraine/ Polish border by Zelenskiy's specific order, despite the fact that Poroshenko had a "pass" from the Rada.
Spiders in a jar, indeed!
*****
MORE AT https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/spiders-in-glass-jar-ze-desperatel
y
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME