| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |
| Nation Building's Last Stand in Gaza | |
| 2024-05-18 | |
| [FrontPage] Rafah isn’t just the last stand for Hamas, but for an entire foreign policy establishment. The desperate effort to keep Israeli soldiers from going into the last Gaza stronghold of the Islamic terrorist organization is about more than the sum of the geopolitical parts. After nation building failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and everywhere else it’s been tried, the radioactive ’Palestinian’ nation building experiment from over 30 years ago is its last hope. Long before George W. Bush tackled nation building after 9/11, his father began the era of turning Muslim terrorist groups into countries with the project to give the PLO a state. Where the first Bush failed, Bill Clinton succeeded with the Oslo accords and a Nobel prize for Arafat.
Any ’Palestinian’ state was doomed to be a terrorist state. The only question is who would run it. And the answer was that the biggest and deadliest terrorists would command popular support. When Iraq and Afghanistan went bad, America could just leave, Israelis did not have that luxury. Sharon forcibly expelled the Jews living in Gaza to the other side of a border wall, but despite all the sob stories that the terrorists were living in an "open air concentration camp" with five-star hotels and mansions, walls weren’t that hard to get through even before Oct 7. Israel has been stuck living next door to a failed thirty year nation-building experiment gone bad. And everyone in the international community is worried that the Oct 7 war will see it taken apart. Lately the nation building experts have taken to warning that Israel is doing it the wrong way. Former CIA Director David Petraeus who also oversaw American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been arguing that Israel needs to pivot to a "counterinsurgency" model. And then we’re back to "winning hearts and minds" instead of actually trying to win a war. The Biden administration has never stopped insisting that Israel needs a "day after" plan for rebuilding Gaza under a PLO government and some "moderate" terrorists from Hamas. Three generations after it became the norm, fighting a war without nation building as an endgame is so impossible that warfare experts can’t even understand what they’re seeing in Israel. But among all the other problems with nation building is that it doesn’t work. And the Israelis who have been living next to the original chernobyl of nation building know it better than anyone. Nation building has failed in every single Muslim country it’s been tried, not just by the United States after 9/11, but by the British between WWI and WWII. The entire Middle East is one long great nation building disaster shaped by primeval nation building experiments such as the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Hashemite monarchies and finally the recession of colonialism. But it’s not just Muslim countries where nation building has backfired in familiar patterns. D.C. elites can look to Haiti where decades of interference led to one disaster after another. The armed gangs overrunning the island nation started life as police forces. Democracy initiatives just worsened tensions and led to murderous outbreaks of political violence. The same situation abounds across much of Africa, and parts of Latin America and Asia, where no amount of nation building could overcome tribalism, gang violence and political extremists. Our nation building fails even worse than the British variety because it follows the American model of trying to overcome tribalism, assuming that democracy will empower individuals instead of blocs, and that having elected officials control institutions will lead to good government when in reality the majority seizes power and then viciously suppresses minorities. American foreign policy believes that no people or group are good or bad, they just lack sufficient representation or the ability to participate in democratic elections. And that any governments that suppress any group, no matter how evil, are inherently illegitimate. Any group but anyone who opposes the Left's most recent craze. ...Our "day after" plans for Afghanistan and Iraq cost us a generation of fighting men for nothing. Even the ’Surge’, the last stand of the counterinsurgency model, did nothing to stop Iraq from falling into the hands of Iran which is now using it to launch attacks on American bases. "Truly winning this war would require creating some sort of government in Gaza that could gain the support of the people and prevent Hamas from returning after Israeli soldiers pull out," ex-neocon Max Boot argues in his Washington Post column. But what if killing Jews is what the ’people’ in Gaza really want? Just as what the Shiites in Iraq really wanted was to step on the Sunnis and the Kurds, what the Sunnis in Iraq really wanted was to kill the Shiites and rape the Yazidis, and what the Kurds wanted was their own country. And just as a whole lot of Afghans really wanted to lock up women and mandate beards again. Nation building’s faulty premise is that people everywhere want what Americans want. Or used to. Nowadays??? Related: David Petraeus 03/18/2024 With Iraq on his mind, US ‘savior-general’ Petraeus points at a way to victory in Gaza David Petraeus 03/18/2024 Former CIA chief Petraeus: Ukraine does not have enough people on the front line David Petraeus 03/08/2024 Ex-CIA chief Petraeus: 'To defeat Hamas, Israel must get Gaza running again' Related: Oslo accords: 2019-10-07 PA removes mention of agreements with Israel from textbooks Oslo accords: 2018-12-03 Israel puts Palestinian Jerusalem governor under house arrest Oslo accords: 2017-08-30 Is America Now Officially Crazy? Related: Max Boot 01/11/2024 Senator Schumer warns of a turn in favor of Russia in the Ukrainian conflict Max Boot 08/01/2022 CNN Columnist Max Boot predicts doom if Orange Man returns Max Boot 01/31/2021 Victor Davis Hanson: How to deprogram us | |
| Link |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| With Iraq on his mind, US ‘savior-general’ Petraeus points at a way to victory in Gaza |
| 2024-03-18 |
[IsraelTimes] Hamas ...one of the armed feet of the Moslem Brüderbund millipede,...must be destroyed, argues ex-general and CIA director David Petraeus in Tel Aviv, and then Israel must pivot to a counterinsurgency. As the campaign to eliminate Hamas stretches into its sixth month, a storied American general credited with changing the course of the Iraq War now sees a clear path to victory for Israel in Gazoo |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Former CIA chief Petraeus: Ukraine does not have enough people on the front line |
| 2024-03-18 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [Regnum] Ukraine lacks not only weapons and ammunition, but also people at the front, former CIA chief David Petraeus said in an interview with the Italian newspaper la Stampa. According to him, the leadership of Ukraine should reconsider the procedure for conscription into military service. The front line fighters are on average over 40 years old. “Kyiv must review the rotation of troops, equip the rear, expand conscription into the army. I know this is a sensitive issue and challenge, but it must be resolved quickly,” Petraeus said. The British newspaper Financial Times, citing the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, reported on March 13 about a rotation being prepared in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is expected that approximately 330 thousand soldiers and officers at the front will be replaced by recruits after the adoption of the law on new mobilization rules. They plan to call up up to 500 thousand people and use the rest of the new mobilized to make up for losses and other needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As Regnum reported, in February, Ukrainian commanders spoke about an acute shortage of manpower, which could cause the front to collapse at any moment. |
| Link |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |||
| Ex-CIA chief Petraeus: 'To defeat Hamas, Israel must get Gaza running again' | |||
| 2024-03-08 | |||
The former CIA chief stated Israel cannot "stop until Hamas has been destroyed and cannot be reconstituted." Some bits of truth found hidden in the baloney. In addition, he said Israel must get Gazans back to their homes, demonstrate to people that aid is being given in a stable way, "that hospitals are functioning, that construction will return," and that society goes back to functioning...Then you need to implement a plan that keeps them from being able to reconstitute." Despite his support for completely destroying Hamas, he said that Israel must eventually come to terms with a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
| |||
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'Breakthrough under Rabotino: the West celebrates the victory of Ukraine |
| 2023-09-02 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Vladimir Kornilov [RIA] So, the "summer counter-offensive", which before that was "spring", gradually turned into an "autumn" one. To assess its "success", it is enough to recall the goals that were drawn in Kyiv and Washington.  For example, Volodymyr Zelensky announced his intention to spend his summer vacation in Crimea in 2023. And the talking head of all Western TV channels, retired American General Ben Hodges, who commented on the situation at the front day and night, constantly repeated until the spring of this year that "Crimea will be liberated before the end of summer 2023." Summer is over, and now the Western media are trumpeting: "Ukraine's successes on the Southern Front may open the way to Crimea." That is, something clearly did not grow together with the summer vacation. The funniest thing is watching those same talking heads now lash out in anger at those who ask uncomfortable questions about where those promised "wins" are. Adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine Mykhailo Podolyak recently accused these critics of "infantilism" and advised "to watch Rambo less". on the embankment of Yalta". He even added the word "I guarantee". And now he calls those who remember his "guarantees" "infants"! For Western audiences, the former head of the CIA, David Petraeus, plays about the same role . Now he urges commentators to "moderate their pessimism" and is surprised at their expectations of quick victories. As if it weren't Petraeus personally, the day before the start of the notorious "Ukraine counter-offensive", he convinced the Western audience that "everything will be decided within 72-96 hours." That is, the same people who created unrealistic expectations of "an early victory over Russia" among Ukrainians and Western burghers are now accusing their audience of having these expectations! These same experts periodically invent current "victories". Now all the Western media are simply crammed with articles and stories about the "liberation of the strategically important village of Rabotino", where no more than 500 people lived in the best pre-war years. The Times provocateur Maksim Tucker happily writes: "Ukraine's flag flies again over Rabotino." And then he reports that this opens the way to Melitopol. The most curious thing is that the same author in the same newspaper literally a month before this article reported in the same terms that "Ukraine liberated the village of Staromayorskoe" and this allegedly "opened the road to Mariupol . " And even if one of the readers of this newspaper asked. Another propagandist of Ukraine, the French Maidan singer Bernard-Henri Levy, who presents himself as an expert on this area (because, can you imagine, he was once in Gul'yaipole!), tells the audience: "liberation of Rabotino" means that "a) they (Ukrainians) passed Russian mines fields, b) the road to Melitopol is open." And it doesn’t matter that from Rabotino to Melitopol is more than 70 kilometers, and Ukraine has no idea how to break through to the fortified Tokmak, which is 20 kilometers from the front and to which, even according to another Russophobic propagandist from the German Bild, Julian Repke, “five more lines of defense ". But Repke, unlike Levi, was not in Gulyaipole - how could he know the truth! We will not here analyze the true situation at the front and the question of which quarters of Rabotino are under whose control are - we will leave this to the compilers of daily reports. But even if we assume that Western propaganda is not lying (it’s already ridiculous, right?), then it’s enough to recall what it also wrote about Russian defense lines at the start of “Ukraine’s spring-summer-autumn counteroffensive.” I remember that in June, detailed satellite images of Russian fortifications in the area, published by The New York Times, were distributed throughout the Western media and social networks . Why not look at them now to all those who scream that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have passed the minefields of Russia, overcame the "dragon's teeth", "broke through the first, and therefore the main line of defense of the Russians"? Yes, because these pictures showed that the first of the three main defensive lines to Tokmak is located not just south of Rabotino, but also south of Novoprokopovka, which, even according to Western propagandists, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have not yet reached close. At the same time, we must not forget that for two months after the publication of these images (and this is also recognized by Western propagandists), Russian engineering and sapper units continued to expand and strengthen the defense lines south of the current combat zone! Accordingly, Ukraine, having lost thousands of its best fighters and hundreds of pieces of Western equipment in the battle for the possession of one small village, has not even encountered the level of defense that the Russian army prepared for it further south! But, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a recent interview, "society needs victories." It is in the absence of such that they invent them! And he certainly did not even mean Ukrainian society. Kiev understands and has long recognized that the main threat to it is the weariness of Western states from the war and the constant failures of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Moreover, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba recently stressed that the main danger for the Kiev regime lies in the unfolding election race in the United States . But he assured that "all this will pass." It will, of course, "pass away", only before the end of the American elections - even more than a year. And during all this time, it will be more and more difficult to feed your sponsors with promises of a "fast victory" in the absence of even the slightest success. Hence, with enviable regularity, the names “Staromayorskoye” or “Rabotino”, which are difficult to pronounce for the Western ear, appear in the information space. And they will continue to appear. If only these bored "infantile" burghers did not ask uncomfortable questions and did not try to remind the authors of victorious reports of their own words of a month ago. |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| The End of Offensive Warfare |
| 2023-06-23 |
| [American Greatness] Ukraine’s vaunted counteroffensive is not going well. In the months leading up to its launch, proponents said it would be "decisive." Former American general David Petraeus predicted "the Ukrainians [would] achieve significant breakthroughs and accomplish much more than most analysts are predicting." But, instead, the front lines have barely budged, and Ukraine has lost enormous numbers of men and equipment. This debacle provides important lessons for the United States and students of warfare more generally. NATO DOCTRINE RUNS INTO REALITY Ukraine is using new tactics, equipment, and operational plans for its shock brigades after months of intensive training by NATO. NATO built these units in its own image, prioritizing offense, maneuver, and combined arms tactics. Unfortunately, what looks good on paper does not always work in the field. Extensive minefields, drone-sighted artillery, and entrenched defenders mean Ukrainian forces can barely advance into "no man’s land." They are being stopped at the skirmish line and have gotten nowhere close to the second and third echelons of Russian defenders. Dozens of Leopard II tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles—NATO’s state-of-the-art land warfare equipment—have been blown up and set on fire by mines, kamikaze drones, and artillery during the stalled offensive. In spite of much bragging in recent months about its superior training, equipment, and operational art, the NATO-trained brigades have not performed particularly well. Well-choreographed combined arms tactics were supposed to provide a significant advantage, but they neglected mine-clearance and air defense. Thus, Russian attack helicopters have had a field day blowing up Ukrainian armor at leisure. Judging by the barely avoided friendly-fire incident shown here, the Ukrainians are not maneuvering their equipment with a lot of panache, even when they’re not under helicopter attack. A lot is going wrong. While NATO devoted a lot of energy and money to training, it has little recent experience with this kind of warfare. NATO training was based on an elaborate theory of how conventional wars would go, but experience is necessary to refine and modify such doctrines. It is telling that the one brigade making any significant advances during the counteroffensive was not one of the new ones, but rather one made up of veteran Ukrainian soldiers using ex-Soviet equipment. Finally, as with the initial stages of the Russian invasion, the Ukrainians have neglected the principle of mass. Their brigades are advancing here and there, but the only way something could conceivably be achieved is by massing a dozen or more brigades in a narrow and vulnerable part of the front. |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| The infobomb exploded suddenly: Britain doused Zelensky with a cold shower. |
| 2023-06-07 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. [RusOnline] Viktor Orban said that Ukraine cannot win, while former CIA chief David Petraeus argued the opposite at the same conference. He described in colors the confident victory of the glorified Ukrainian army and the upcoming defeat of the Russian troops. However, the latest report from the British think tank RUSI on the Russian army in Ukraine could be a cold shower for US and NATO propagandists anticipating a Kyiv victory. It is reported by Tsargrad. Orban is ours On the first day of the Qatar Economic Forum in Doha, organized by the American concern Bloomberg, the editor-in-chief of the news agency of the same name, John Micklethwaite, interviewed Viktor Orban on stage. Using all possible tricks, Micklethwaite tried to channel the Hungarian prime minister's answers to questions about Ukraine and China into the "correct" channel of US-NATO rhetoric. But it didn't work with Orban. He drew applause (mostly from the Arab public) when he criticized Washington and the EU leadership for trying to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs and decide what is right and what is wrong. When Orban stressed that his policy is based on what is good for his country, which includes maintaining good relations with Russia and China, the audience burst into applause again. Regarding the armed conflict in the Donbass, the Hungarian leader bluntly stated that "Ukraine will not be able to win the war against Russia unless NATO sends its troops there directly - which it is not ready for and which Hungary will reject in any case." The surprised face of the journalist stretched even more when his interlocutor clarified: “If you look at the reality, the numbers, the situation and the fact that NATO is not ready to send its troops, it becomes obvious that the poor Ukrainians will not see victory on the battlefield. This is my position." FALL OF BAHMUT Meanwhile, after the capture of the Ukrainian "fortress" Bakhmut by Russian troops, the US and NATO elites found themselves in a difficult situation. The losses of the Ukrainians during the months of the defense of the city were colossal, primarily due to the fact that Vladimir Zelensky personally attached great strategic importance to Bakhmut. The city had to be held under any circumstances. But in the end, Bakhmut was taken by the "Wagnerites" with the support of artillery and aviation of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Russian artillery is qualitatively and quantitatively much superior to Ukrainian, despite large-scale supplies from the West. It was through the efforts of the Russian "gods of war" that the battle for Bakhmut acquired the infamous name "meat grinder". More and more brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine went to the city, where they came under fire from Russian artillery, which shot all positions, roads and houses during the months of the war. The ground units were replaced by new units, which were replenished at the expense of forcibly mobilized people, but the same fate awaited them. Many Western military experts, such as, for example, a retired US Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, who is very respected throughout the world, have long come to the conclusion that the Ukrainian army has lost tens of thousands of soldiers in Bakhmut alone. The losses of PMC "Wagner" they estimated as much less significant for the following reasons: Firstly, the fighters of PMC "Wagner" are professionally trained and excellently armed - unlike their opponents. And this was clearly visible if you look at the much smaller losses of "musicians" during the battles in urban areas; secondly, the "Wagnerites" were less likely to be subjected to massive shelling from the Ukrainian artillery, which, moreover, has become less and less shells in recent months; thirdly, the PMC fighters acted mainly as defenders of the positions already won earlier, while the Ukrainian troops had to attack again and again in order to recapture the territories occupied by the enemy, while suffering heavy losses. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner PMC, hinted at this when he spoke about the "Bakhmut meat grinder." According to him, the tactics of grinding the Armed Forces of Ukraine was deliberately chosen on the orders of General Surovikin, the Russian commander-in-chief of the front in eastern Ukraine, in order to pull as many Ukrainian soldiers as possible into Bakhmut and then destroy them. Petraeus came out from behind the stove For the Zelensky regime and its US and NATO aides, the fall of Bakhmut means not only a bitter military defeat, but also a political embarrassment that does not fit into the narrative that “Ukraine is winning.” And it is this narrative that representatives of the US-led “rules-based order” around the world intend to support. So, the day after Viktor Orban's speech at the Qatar Economic Forum, one could hear how a retired American general, former CIA chief David Petraeus, in iridescent colors, described in a conversation with the same John Micklethwaite the upcoming victory of the Ukrainian army, the collapse and even the disorderly flight of the Russian armies from the Donbass. Since the unprovoked, internationally violating United States attack on Iraq in 2003, Petraeus has served as supreme commander of a brutal US occupation force, including the Abu Ghraib torture prison. Later, for his services, he was unanimously appointed by the US Senate to the post of director of the CIA. For the last 10 years he has been a partner of the international asset management and investment company KKR. Thanks to all these qualities, the relevant American media such as Foreign Affairs have repeatedly included Petraeus in the list of the 100 best intellectuals. Thus, a retired US general, former head of the CIA and partner in an investment company has an aura of respect because this person knows what he is talking about. Asked by an interviewer if Viktor Orban was right when he said that Ukraine could not win, Petraeus replied: “I think he is on the wrong side of what will someday be history. I think Ukraine will show what can happen when "The army is well trained and equipped with Western weapons. Ukraine has a significant additional force that is well managed, in contrast to the Russian forces, which have miscalculated their forces and have been fighting for more than 15 months." The retired American general believes that “the Russians have suffered colossal losses, much more than in the first months of the war, and much more than they suffered in a whole decade in Afghanistan. They are poorly trained, they have no coordination. They are poorly armed. They are poorly managed "Relations within the army are based on abuse. And they will face the most difficult task of retreating under enemy fire, because they are in front of their defensive lines. This will not end well for them. In fact, I think they will collapse, in some cases they will even fall apart." Further, Petraeus began to describe the forthcoming UAF counteroffensive, which has already become a talk of the town: “Ukrainians have at least six new tank brigades. In addition, they have many additional brigades with special elements of combat support and support of combat services. And I think that they will cope much better than they think." When such a high-ranking person as Petraeus, with his connections in the highest circles around the world, using a lot of "facts", so convincingly says that Ukraine, with all its aces up its sleeve, cannot but win, who can disagree with him? Who in German government and editorial offices would not want to believe an American expert? Or, to put it another way, who would dare to doubt the words of a high-flying American intellectual, a military expert, given all the "factology" created from fake news? Report "Everything is lost!" Despite the current boom in military propaganda through fake news about Ukraine and Russia, from time to time, thanks to a fortunate combination of circumstances, the interested public can catch a timid ray of truth in any media specializing in military analytics. In this case, we are talking about the report of the "venerable" British military think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) dated May 19 under the title. The authors of the report, Dr. Jack Walting and Nick Reynolds, note that the Russian army is "a structure that has become better able to cope with operational tasks over time, and also learned to anticipate new threats." According to RUSI experts, Russian troops pose a serious problem for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, whose losses are estimated at 300-500 thousand soldiers. The Armed Forces of Ukraine lose hundreds of their fighters and mercenaries daily, mainly in protracted positional battles. The heavy losses of Ukraine are, according to British experts, a paradox, since the losses in defense are usually lower than in the offensive. Experience shows that this ratio is one to two or even one to three. But in Ukraine, this postulate has been turned on its head, and not because Ukrainian soldiers are afraid or unable to fight, and certainly not because of a lack of weapons (NATO deliveries made the Neo-Bandera the most well-armed army in Europe after Russia). This low efficiency of the Ukrainian army is more likely due to the fact that the Russian troops quickly learn from their mistakes, change and improve tactics and quickly adapt to any new military situation. The British also report that the Russian electronic warfare (EW) system is still very powerful - at least one head system is installed for every 10 km of the front line. "These systems are primarily aimed at combating drones. Ukraine is losing, as before, about 10,000 drones a month. The Russian EW system is also capable of intercepting and decrypting real-time messages from Motorola tactical communications systems with 256-bit encryption, which are widely used by the Ukrainian military," experts say. The report also notes that Russian air defense systems are connected directly to powerful radar stations. In July 2022, the Russian military moved their headquarters to fortified structures: "They connected their headquarters to the Ukrainian telecommunications cable network, which already existed in the territories occupied by the Russian army, which significantly reduced the possibility of intercepting radio communications and its electronic signature." As for military aviation, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, at least 480 Ukrainian combat aircraft and helicopters have been destroyed since February 24, 2022. Ukraine also no longer has a single operating military airfield. British experts especially note the extremely successful use of 500-kilogram FAB bombs by the Russian Air Force. These FABs are dropped from an average height from a distance of about 70 km from the target. With the help of wings and GPS guidance, they hit the target. Experts suggest that the Russian Air Force does not want to endanger their pilots from Ukrainian air defense, so the FABs are dropped from a safe distance. In this regard, experts note that "the Ukrainian military has established that Russia has large stocks of FAB-500s and is systematically converting them into glide bombs." At the same time, they note the Russian advantage in missiles, including multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS). "Russian gunners have also improved their ability to fire from multiple positions and change positions quickly, making them less vulnerable to counter-battery fire," RUSI analysts said. The British report gave a particularly high rating to the Russian engineering troops, which proved to be "one of the strongest branches of the military." It goes on to say the following: Russian sappers set up complex obstacles and field fortifications along the entire front line - concrete-lined trenches and command bunkers, wire fences, "hedgehogs", anti-tank ditches and complex minefields. The Russian demining system is extensive and combines anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, the latter often having multiple activation mechanisms, making them difficult to deactivate. Then RUSI experts come to a disappointing conclusion for the former American General Petraeus and NATO: "All this is a serious tactical problem for the Ukrainian offensive operations." So what? Petraeus, of course, is pursuing absolutely propagandistic goals, distributing an interview that the Western media will then disassemble into quotes, explaining to the layman why they need to "be patient a little more, and Russia will lose." The former Tseraushnik understands the importance of an information victory over Moscow. But wars are not won by media victories alone. Russian troops have clearly learned a lot in recent months. It will be interesting to read what Petraeus will say when the Russian flag is raised in Lvov... |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'It's worse than you thought.' Ukraine reveals the goals of the counteroffensive |
| 2023-04-27 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [RIA Novosti] Kyiv has been preparing a strike since the end of autumn, but every time it delays for a couple of months. And now, judging by the publications in the Western and Ukrainian media, the decisive spring battles have been moved to the summer. What is the reason for this - in the material of RIA Novosti. WAITING FOR A MIRACLE According to the forecast of the former director of the CIA and ex-commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, David Petraeus, Ukraine will launch a counteroffensive in late May - early June. He believes that the blow will be very strong and will allow cutting the land corridor to the Crimea. The Politico edition reported two directions: to the Crimea and from the north to the Donbass. In any case, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be in motion in May, the article says. Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkura recalled the weather. In the spring, Ukrainians were prevented by rains. The Bild newspaper, citing leading NATO analysts, warned that everything would be decided in the next six months. The main battles will unfold in the LPR and the Zaporozhye region, the German edition claims. Active actions have been expected from Kyiv for a long time. The Financial Times wrote back in December that the exhaustion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine deprived Ukraine of the chances of success in the winter campaign. It was necessary to replenish the arsenals and equip new units. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF In an April interview with El Pais, the commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region, Serhiy Melnyk, acknowledged the plight of the Ukrainian army. There is a lack of equipment and people, especially well-trained ones. The personnel units suffered heavy losses. At the same time, Melnik tried to convince the journalist that there was no forced mobilization, all the fighters were volunteers. Meanwhile, men are prohibited from traveling abroad, summons to the draft board are handed in anywhere. CNN believes that even the reinforcement of Western tanks will not lead to an immediate turning point in the course of hostilities. First, Ukrainians need to learn how to drive cars. Secondly, it is difficult to establish a full-fledged maintenance. Mark Milley, head of the Pentagon Chiefs of Staff Committee, urged Kyiv not to perceive American tanks as a "silver bullet". According to him, the M1 Abrams is the best combat vehicle in the world, but it will not be possible to win only with its help. APPEARANCE OF SUCCESS Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Anna Malyar assures that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are already being attacked - in Bakhmut and Marinka. At the same time, she urged "not to publicly reduce the counteroffensive only to some kind of active offensive actions." Such operations include defensive battles, as well as the recruitment and training of new fighters. The commander of the Eastern Group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Colonel-General Alexander Syrsky, emphasizes that counterattacks in Bakhmut make it possible to contain Russia. In the oncoming battles there, Moscow allegedly loses the best units. The head of the GUR, Kirill Budanov, said: before the end of spring, the Ukrainian army will enter the Crimea. "We still have time. Quite an achievable task," he explained. According to him, Russia is sitting on the defensive, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be given a "decisive battle." Moscow will suffer irreparable losses. And there is no need to speculate on the pace and volume of Western arms deliveries - most have no idea about this, Budanov added. UKRAINE IS WORTH PR It is noteworthy that experts in both Russia and Ukraine consider talk of a counteroffensive more important in terms of PR than the real state of affairs on the battlefield. In particular, Ruslan Bortnyk, director of the Ukrainian Institute of Politics, notes that rumors about an impending powerful strike allow Kyiv to beg for more help. In addition, the threat of an attack forces Moscow to form reserves and think about defense, without throwing everything it has into battle. “However, if the promises of the Ukrainian leadership do not come true in the summer and the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not drink coffee in Crimea, closer to winter the propaganda will turn against its creators. The level of disappointment in statesmen will increase. In this case, Zelensky should have some kind of backup plan. the team will have to pass off local success as a strategic victory," Bortnik explained in an interview. Ukrainian political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko believes that Zelensky made a mistake when he started talking about a large-scale counteroffensive. "Attacks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are possible only in certain directions, and it’s not a fact that we will be able to break through. Apparently, we are heading for a long-term positional confrontation, for which society is poorly prepared," the expert said. Denis Denisov, an analyst at the Financial University under the Russian government, points out: if Kyiv had the opportunity to launch a counteroffensive, this would have happened in the winter. "A successful attack would confirm the correctness of the course towards the militarization of Ukraine and the effectiveness of economic assistance. Ukrainians would receive real proof that Zelensky is keeping his promises. But so far we are only hearing statements that are not supported by anything, and the conflict is becoming less intense, as in 2014-2015 m," he says. In general, experts agree that so far there are no signs of preparations for a strike on Crimea. Zelensky will have to seriously change either military strategy or rhetoric. Otherwise, the high expectations of Ukrainians will bring down his rating. |
| Link |
| Terror Networks |
| The United States began to mark terrorists |
| 2022-12-04 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Davron Abdullayev [REGNUM] The Doha Agreement emphasized the fight against IS and Al-Qaeda. According to a number of experts, the agreement also included some secret clauses or verbal agreements. The arrival of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan and the situation that is developing there are very ambiguous processes, and much is still hidden from the general public. Further, one of the aspects of these events will be considered - the actions of the United States in relation to terrorism in Afghanistan in comparison with the approach of Russia and a number of states in the region, developed at the Moscow Consultative Meeting on Afghanistan, held in November of this year. The meeting will be discussed below. I decided not to mention the appeal of the US Congress, because the Doha Agreement (February 29, 2020) between the US and the Taliban was developed and signed during the Trump presidency. The fact that the collective West and, above all, the United States has double standards on almost the entire agenda of international politics has long been no secret. The same is true with approaches to the fight against terrorism. A good example is Syria, where terrorists of all stripes were divided into "bloody radicals" and "fighters" against the no less "bloody" regime of Bashar al-Assad. Now, it seems, the mentioned standards have begun to be applied to Afghanistan, however, in a slightly different version. In Afghanistan, the Americans did not divide terrorists into “good” and “bad”, but simply “forgotten” those who, in their opinion, do not pose a potential threat to the United States itself and, moreover, can be useful to them. Moreover, already in the Doha Agreement of February 29, 2020 between the United States and the Taliban, only the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda were mentioned among the terrorist groups." The first statements about the “strengthening” of the positions and growth of the potential of the “Islamic State” and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were made by the American military, and retired, the current summer. The skirmishers were former heads of US Central Command Kenneth Mackenzie and David Petraeus. The latter also managed to work for a short time as director of the CIA. Further, the baton was picked up by Republican parliamentarians, such as Senator Johnny Ernest and Rep. Mike Waltz. Although the congressmen focused not so much on the growth of terrorist threats as on its cause - the shameful flight from Afghanistan, their statements again featured only ISIS and Al-Qaeda (an organization WHAT ARE ISIS, AL-QAEDA AND OTHER GROUPS TODAY? "Al-Qaeda," created in 1988, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, directed the spearhead of the fight against the United States, the countries of the so-called "Western world" and their supporters in Islamic countries. The goal of the organization is to overthrow the secular regimes in these countries and create a "Great Islamic Caliphate." Experts distinguish five periods in the history of Al-Qaeda: emergence (late 1980s), "wild" period (1990-1996), heyday (1996-2001), periods of existence in the form of a network (2001-2005) and fragmentation (after 2005). A sign of the organization’s decline is the fact that its head, Ayman al-Zawahiri, took an “oath of allegiance” to the leaders of the Taliban - Mullah Akhtar Mansur (2013-2016) and Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada (since 2016) . It is no coincidence that Zawahiri, after the Taliban came to power, took refuge in Kabul. The "Islamic State" aims to establish a caliphate , similar to the one that existed in the Middle Ages. ISIS seeks to extend its power first to Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon (the countries of the Levant) and, finally, to the entire Islamic world. IS took the creation of the caliphate literally, in contrast to the Muslim Brotherhood" of Egypt and Al-Qaeda, for which the caliphate is either a spiritual idea or a goal for the distant future. Because of the ruthless violence, all major Muslim theologians condemned ISIS as heretics. The "Islamic State" does not recognize state borders and only allows peace agreements for up to ten years. Support for the "Islamic State" by the Taliban is impossible in principle - in the structure of the "Caliphate" of the IS there is no place for an independent "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan." The American media, citing former member of the Afghan parliament Nahid Farid, cited a fantastic figure of 4,500 IS fighters operating in Afghanistan. I wonder where the former parliamentarian, who fled the country more than a year ago and even during the republican period did not have access to any significant secrets, got such specific information? Nevertheless, American politicians and biased media, such as the Afghanistan International TV channel (which has offices in London and Washington), only mention these two terrorist organizations in all their statements and broadcasts, completely "forgetting" about other radical organizations that are no less dangerous, if not for the world as a whole, then for the region. These include the following. "Lashkar-e-Taiba" (lit. "Army of the Clean" or "Army of the Righteous") is one of the largest and the most active terrorist organizations in South Asia. It was founded in 1989 with the financial support of Osama bin Laden. The goal is the liberation of Kashmir, based in Pakistan and Afghanistan, operates in Kashmir and India. Some of her attacks were carried out in Pakistan. The organization has been designated a terrorist organization and banned in India, Pakistan, the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, Russia and Australia. "Jaish-e-Muhammad" ("Army of Mohammed ", abbreviated as JeM) is a Pakistani jihadist group operating in Kashmir. Established in 2000. The main goal is to separate Kashmir from India and unite it with Pakistan. After the liberation of Kashmir, she intends to carry "jihad" to other parts of India with the intention of expelling Hindus and other non-Muslims from the Indian subcontinent. Maintains close relations with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Experts claim that JeM was created with the support of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence , which uses it to fight in Kashmir and elsewhere. Jaishe-Muhammad has been banned in Pakistan since 2002, but has reappeared under different names. Designated as a terrorist organization by Pakistan, Russia, Australia, Canada, India, UAE, UK, US and UN. Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is a radical Islamist militant organization. Established in 2007, based in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas , has a number of strongholds in Afghanistan. Represents an association of most (not all) Pakistani groups based on common goals: resistance to the "pro-Western" Pakistani government, the establishment of direct (unconstitutional, undemocratic) Sharia in Pakistan , Muslim India , resistance to NATO troops in the territories of Pakistan and Afghanistan (until 2021). The TTP is not united with the Afghan Taliban, however, these groups cooperate closely, which was especially evident during the Afghan war of 2001-2021. They differ in their history, slightly in purpose. Pashtuns dominate the active part of both organizations . "Islamic Movement of East Turkestan" (also - " Turkestan Islamic Party" , "Turkestan Islamic Movement") - Uighur an illegal armed group whose goal is to create an independent Islamic (Sharia) state in East Turkestan and convert the entire Chinese people to Islam. Sometimes erroneously called "Al-Qaeda in China," which is unlikely, since Al-Qaeda” is a Salafi group, and ETIM is a Sufi group . The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is an Islamist terrorist organization created in 1996 by former members of a number of political parties and movements banned in Uzbekistan . The goal is to overthrow secular power in Uzbekistan and establish a Sharia state. Considered as a terrorist organization by many countries of the world, including Russia and the United States . Jamaat Ansarullah is a Tajik terrorist organization. It sets as its goal the creation of a Sharia state in Tajikistan. According to some reports, the Taliban transferred five districts bordering Tajikistan in the province of Badakhshan under the control of the group and provided assistance with weapons and ammunition. In total, according to various estimates, from 20 to 50 different terrorist groups operate in Afghanistan. Above are the largest and most active. THE SITUATION WITH ISIS AND AL-QAEDA AFTER THE US WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN Against the "Islamic State," more precisely, its branches in Afghanistan and Pakistan - "Velayat Khorasan," the Taliban actually carried out several, albeit not very large, operations, but war was declared. The reaction of the former allies in the fight against US troops was not long in coming - in response, the Taliban received a number of bloody suicide attacks, mainly in Hazara areas, and widespread reaction on social networks due to the fact that the Taliban is not able to ensure the safety of the population. Moreover, recently the ISIS switched to attacks on the Taliban army - for example, an attack on the transport of the 205th army corps in Herat, when 14 soldiers of the Islamic Emirate army were killed. At present, the conflict has taken on a protracted character with minor actions on both sides. With Al-Qaeda, the situation was somewhat different. The Taliban simply "didn't raise their hand" against their longtime ally from the memorable times of cooperation and friendship between bin Laden and Mullah Omar. In addition, Ayman al-Zawahiri renewed the “oath of allegiance” to Mullah Haybatullah Akhundzad. The answer of the Americans was not long in coming: on July 31, an American drone eliminated Zawahiri in Kabul. A small digression is needed here. In November last year, "humanitarian aid" in cash from the "international community" began to arrive in Afghanistan in the amount of 32 million US dollars a week (subsequently, the size of "aid" packages increased to 40 million). The Taliban cheerfully reported that the money that arrived was being transferred to one of the commercial banks. It is even ridiculous to assume that any of the Afghan banks tried to dispose of at least one dollar of these funds without the knowledge of the Taliban. To date, the total cash flow has exceeded $1.4 billion. Neither the United States, nor the "international community", nor the Taliban themselves gave a clear explanation of the origin and methods of using these funds. The indistinct muttering of high-ranking UN officials once again informed the world that Afghanistan is in the gravest humanitarian crisis that needs to be fought, and this requires money, a lot of money. They probably forgot that the United States has a tidy sum of $7 billion of frozen assets in Afghanistan, half of which the Americans want to transfer to the families of the victims of September 11, and the other half to the fund they created in Switzerland, allegedly designed to "provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan, bypassing the Taliban. The first "result" is obvious - Afghan banknotes were printed in Poland and handed over to the Taliban. So, after the assassination of Zawahiri, this flow slowed down somewhat, the American generals proudly announced that, despite the fact that the Americans do not have a physical presence in the country, they are able to destroy any target in Afghanistan, read - any of the Taliban leadership. No wonder Sirajuddin Haqqani, the head of the Haqqani Network and the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Taliban government, immediately left Kabul and took refuge in the region where he has the greatest influence - in the province Kunar in the east of the country. But the “stick” was followed by a “carrot” – US Special Representative for Afghanistan Tom West visited Afghanistan; in Qatar with American officials, including the same West, met the Minister of Defense of the government of the Taliban Mullah Mohammad Yakub (the son of the founder of the movement of the one-eyed Mullah Omar), and as an apotheosis - a meeting in Doha of the head of intelligence of the Taliban with the deputy director of the CIA. It is not known what they agreed on, but the amount of cash flowing into Afghanistan increased dramatically - in the first week of November alone, 4 packages of $40 million arrived. Shortly before this, a number of sources confirmed that the Taliban deployed over 400 militants and commanders of the ETIM, the IMU and "Jamaat Ansarullah." With Pakistan, things were much more complicated. Firstly, the prime minister there was Imran Khan, who tried to pursue an independent foreign policy. Without hesitation, the Americans applied the old tried and tested method - they simply dumped the "obstinate" prime minister. Three months later, Pakistan provided its territory and airspace for an attack on Zawahiri. Of course, the Pakistani authorities disowned this, but it is not necessary to be a great specialist to understand: the drone could only fly from the territory of Pakistan. Iran, for well-known reasons, disappears immediately, UAVs simply could not fly from the territory of the states of Central Asia, from US bases and aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean - too. The Taliban were indignant for appearances, but things did not go further than this. And then, after a couple of weeks, WHAT IS HIDDEN BEHIND THE "SELECTIVITY" OF AMERICANS? The Moscow Consultative Meeting on Afghanistan was attended by representatives of Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The final statement states that the participating countries "want a peaceful, unified, independent Afghanistan free of terrorism and drug trafficking, and calls on the Taliban to take serious measures to fulfill their obligations to eradicate terrorism and drug trafficking and fight them resolutely to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven or a source for the spread of terrorism. The participants also declared their readiness to help Afghanistan in this area. Note that the statement does not indicate specific terrorist groups, but speaks of terrorism as a phenomenon. As mentioned above, the Doha Agreement emphasized the fight against IS and Al-Qaeda. According to a number of experts, the agreement also included some secret clauses or verbal agreements. Based on the foregoing, it can be assumed that it was meant to counteract the growth of the presence and financing of ISIS and Al-Qaeda (only these two organizations) in Afghanistan, with full ignoring and even promoting other groups that can be used for the following purposes: — directly against China in Xinjiang (“Islamic Movement of East Turkestan”); — indirectly against Russia - in the Central Asian states ("Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan", "Jamaat Ansarullah"); — as an instrument of influence on Pakistan and India (“Lashkare-Taiba,” “Jaishe-Muhammad,” “Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan,” whose activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation)); — to destabilize the situation in the region as a whole - as a pretext for military intervention. |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'Everything will happen quickly.' The Pentagon figured out how to 'defeat Moscow' |
| 2022-11-15 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [RIA Novosti] The Russian Defense Ministry magazine "Military Thought" reports that the Pentagon is developing fundamentally new weapons that will allow attacking enemy strategic targets with impunity. They will bet on non-nuclear forces. About the conclusions of analysts - in the material RIA Novosti. NEGATIVE SCENARIO The concept of mutually assured destruction assumes that one superpower, subjected to nuclear aggression by another, will have time to put its strategic forces on full alert and deliver a retaliatory strike. Of course, you need to detect enemy ICBMs in time. Both Russia and the United States have effective missile attack warning systems (EWS) - satellites and powerful over-the-horizon radars. They will allow the country's political leadership to fully engage the nuclear triad. Among the main goals of the aggressor state are ICBM mines, nuclear submarine bases, strategic aviation airfields, headquarters, and special ammunition storage points. If, for some reason, the country being attacked does not have time to launch a retaliatory strike, most of the nuclear deterrence forces will be destroyed. A few dozen remaining missiles will not be enough for irreparable damage. In addition, some of them will bring down missile defense systems. The second scenario of a hypothetical nuclear conflict with Russia is desirable for the United States, since it does not imply large losses on its part. The authors of the publication in Military Thought argue that for this the Pentagon may not need heavy silo ICBMs and strategic nuclear submarines. The main thing is to take the Kremlin by surprise. “In the medium term, the United States seeks to possess strategic non-nuclear weapons with a short flight time to the target and not formally subject to any bilateral or international restrictions, the use of which is possible to carry out strategic offensive tasks,” the article says. “These tasks should ensure the defeat of a significant the number of Russian nuclear forces until the Supreme Commander-in-Chief decides to launch a retaliatory strike. According to the conclusions of the publication, "this can have an extremely negative impact on national security and will require active counteraction to threats." AGGRESSIVE CONCEPT Washington's long-term plans, according to the authors of the article, include the creation of strategic highly effective fire weapons systems operating on the principle of a reconnaissance strike complex, directed energy weapons and other promising options. In the meantime, the United States will deal with some kind of intermediate structure, equipped with existing and coming to the troops means of kinetic and non-kinetic, global and regional impact. “Already now we can talk about a new highly effective non-nuclear deterrent and deterrent, the first samples of which in the medium term may enter the US Armed Forces,” the article says. “They will have an arsenal of systems capable of partially fulfilling the tasks of existing strategic nuclear forces with conventional warheads ". The Americans are acting in accordance with the military-strategic concept of a rapid global strike (Prompt Global Strike), which implies an attack with conventional weapons on a target anywhere in the world within one hour. THE PENTAGON CALLED THE MOST COMBAT-READY ARMY IN THE WORLD An important element of this system is the thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Firing range - 2500 kilometers. However, the subsonic speed of this missile may not be enough to hit any target on the planet in an hour. And the attack ships are not always in the right radius of action. Actually, aggressive plans are not hidden in the States. Back in October, retired Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of US Central Command, told ABC that if Moscow used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Pentagon would respond with a non-nuclear military response. Of course, so far Washington is not calling for hitting Russian nuclear mines, but the rhetoric on this score is intensifying. HYPERSONIC ARGUMENT In the early 2010s, the Americans were going to develop a ballistic missile with a non-nuclear warhead based on regular Minuteman III ICBMs and Trident II SLBMs for a quick strike against "rogue states", by which Washington at that time understood in particular Iran and North Korea. But this idea was quickly abandoned. The Pentagon considered that Russian early warning systems could misinterpret ICBM launches, and this would turn into a full-scale nuclear war. As a result, they concentrated on hypersonic weapons. One of the first projects is the winged X-51A Waverider. The declared speed is 7500 kilometers per hour. However, problems arose during the tests, and the missile was never accepted into service. Nevertheless, these developments were used to create other hypersonic systems - in all types of armed forces. Within the framework of the fast global strike concept, the main option being considered is high-speed cruise missiles for Virginia-class submarines. It is part of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program. The Pentagon hopes to receive the first serial samples by 2024, the nuclear submarines will be converted to them by 2028. Up to 65 CPS will be placed on each Block V series submarine. These missiles will also equip the latest stealth destroyers of the Zumwalt type. In addition, the US could deliver a disarming strike from Europe. Back in June 2020, the German media wrote that at the summit of NATO defense ministers, some EU countries approved the deployment of promising American medium-range missiles in conventional equipment. Europe predicted the most difficult winter since the Second World War As you know, Washington withdrew from the treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles. And just a few weeks later, he tested prototypes of a cruise, and then a ground-based ballistic missile. That is, they prepared in advance for the abandonment of the INF Treaty. As well as to raise the stakes in the conflict. |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia | |
| Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.): Playing War in Ukraine | |
| 2022-10-28 | |
| [American Conservative] As the astute author Hunter S. Thompson noted, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Weird is indisputably the condition in Great Britain, where Liz Truss, an arguably empty and talentless prime minister, is out—and was, it seemed for a moment, very nearly replaced by her vacuous predecessor, Boris Johnson. Weirdness, however, is not foreign to American politics. An indicator of just how weird Washington is becoming is the apparent interest in General (ret.) David Petraeus’s recent suggestion that Washington and its allies may want to intervene in the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev. According to Petraeus, the military action he advocates would not be a NATO intervention, but "a multinational force led by the US and not as a NATO force." In other words, a U.S.-led Multi-National Force on the Iraq model composed of conventional ground, air, and naval forces. Petraeus does not explain why U.S. military action is needed. But it’s not hard to guess. The intervention is designed to rescue Ukrainian forces from defeat and presumably compel Moscow to negotiate on Washington’s terms, whatever those terms might be. Admittedly, the whole business seems weird, but Petraeus’s suggestion should not be dismissed. Not because Petraeus’s military expertise warrants consideration—it doesn’t.
For Petraeus, it is business as usual. He rose through the ranks by checking with everyone in a position of authority above him before doing anything. Seeking permission to ensure no one in authority is offended (like a "coalition of the willing") is key to promotion. It works well in peacetime, or during wars of choice against weak, incapable enemies that present no existential military threat to Western forces. But Ukraine is not Iraq nor is the Russian Army an Iraqi-like force, or mounted on "technicals"—pickup trucks with automatic cannon. Related: Douglas Macgregor: 2022-08-14 Totally a surprise: NY Times editor wanted to check with Sen. Charles Schumer before running an opinion piece. Douglas Macgregor: 2022-07-05 Trump rips 'despicable' Liz Cheney after she suggests Jan. 6 charges for ex-president Douglas Macgregor: 2022-06-22 Col Douglas Macgregor - Ukraine Russia War Update 21.06.2022 (video) Related: David Petraeus: 2022-10-26 American colonel called the detail that marks the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine David Petraeus: 2022-10-03 Petraeus predicts US would lead NATO response to ‘take out' Russian forces if Putin uses nuclear weapon David Petraeus: 2022-08-27 Mourning a Lost War: Why Nation-Building Failed in Afghanistan. Many of the architects and cheerleaders of the twenty-year mission in Afghanistan refuse to accept that the United States lost the war. We lost. Full stop. | |
| Link |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia | |
| American colonel called the detail that marks the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine | |
| 2022-10-26 | |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [RIA Novosti] Washington's policy towards the Ukrainian conflict is becoming increasingly strange, according to The American Conservative , the words of former adviser to the Secretary of Defense Colonel Douglas McGregor.
"It is important to remember that Ukraine is not Iraq , but the Russian army does not drive around in pickup trucks with machine guns," the colonel said. In addition, McGregor believes, Petraeus's assumption confirms that the Ukrainian armed forces are in critical condition. "Without foreign fighters and Polish soldiers fighting in Ukrainian uniforms, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will not be able to withstand the winter offensives of the Russian army. The Russian sledgehammer that should fall on the Zelensky regime will crush everything that remains of the Ukrainian forces. And the only way to prolong the life of the Kyiv authorities is Washington's willingness to intervene directly in the conflict before it's too late," the colonel stressed. At the same time, he added that the American authorities do not think about the costs and consequences that will follow the intervention of NATO countries in the confrontation. "The intellectual and professional level of the senior military leadership of the United States is at a deplorably low level. They are ready to bow to any stupid idea. Questions about the number of manpower, logistics, ammunition, medical support and evacuation that will be needed if the alliance enters into conflict are pushed aside to the background," the publication notes. According to McGregor, the only sure way for the Joe Biden administration in Ukraine is to mediate peace, not escalate the situation. The United States authorities have repeatedly stressed that American military personnel will not take part in military operations on the territory of Ukraine. US Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith also said that the alliance should not be directly involved in the conflict. At the same time, Petraeus suggested that a multinational contingent could be involved in Ukraine, but not as a NATO force, but under the leadership of Washington. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned of serious consequences if NATO troops clash with the Russian army. He stressed that such a development of events would lead to a global catastrophe, but expressed the hope that Western leaders were smart enough not to take such steps. Russian army dealt a crushing blow to the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kremennaya area [RIA Novosti] The Russian army dealt a crushing blow to the Ukrainian units that broke through to Kremennaya, police colonel of the Luhansk People's Republic Vitaly Kiselyov said on Channel One. According to him, the defense in the area of Kremennaya and Svatovo is "smartly coordinated", the Russian military is showing an example of heroism there. "The Russian army dealt a crushing blow to the mercenary troops who were trying to enter our territories. <...> By radio interception, by the fact that prisoners were taken <...> it was revealed from which direction this large-scale breakthrough would come. And of course, our units were are already ready for this.<...> As a result, more than ten pieces of equipment were knocked out, the personnel were dispersed and destroyed," Kiselev said. He added that, despite the losses incurred, the enemy will not abandon attempts to break through the defenses in this direction. Earlier, RIA Novosti correspondents reported that the engineers of the Russian group of troops "Brave" are strengthening the Svatovo-Kremennaya defense line, installing tank barriers. Related: Colonel Douglas McGregor: 2022-08-03 Russian Perspective: Operation to Denazify Ukraine: Operational Brief August 2nd (updated) Colonel Douglas McGregor: 2022-07-08 Russian Perspective: Operation to Denazify Ukraine: Operational Brief July 7th (updated) Colonel Douglas McGregor: 2022-06-19 American Conservative: US will reap the benefits of its lies in Ukraine | |
| Link |