Tuesday 5th of March 2024

retreat from russia after waterloo....

It is now clear that the Ukrainian offensive of the summer and fall of 2023 has failed, with minimal gains and enormous losses. There has been no repeat of the sweeping Ukrainian victories of 2022. Ukrainian army chief General Valery Zaluzhny has admitted that the war has now entered a stalemate.

 

BY 

 

Russia is now attacking in its turn; and although so far its forces also have made only very slow progress, time does not appear to be on Ukraine’s side. Russia has some four times Ukraine’s population and 14 times its GDP, which give it huge advantages in what has become a war of attrition. Serious imbalances in the U.S. and European military industries mean that Russia is also producing far more shells than Ukraine is receiving from the West.

Ukraine’s victories in the first months of the war were due to the courage and grit of Ukrainian soldiers, certain particularly effective Western weapons, and extremely bad Russian planning. They were also, however, attributable to the fact that Ukraine was able to mobilize more men than Russia, due to President Putin’s hesitation over increasing conscription. That advantage has now been reversed. 

Moreover, as recent developments in the U.S. Congress and in Europe make clear, there can be no guarantee that Western aid will continue at levels sufficient to allow Ukraine to continue the fight successfully.

There is therefore no realistic prospect that Ukraine can significantly improve its existing position on the battlefield. The West can provide more weapons, but it cannot generate additional Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine is facing greater and greater difficulties in recruiting troops; meanwhile, Russia is calling up reserves and continually strengthening its defensive lines in southern and eastern Ukraine. 

Voices in the West that promote the idea of complete Ukrainian victory are becoming increasingly desperate; an example is the suggestion by retired American generals that, with additional U.S. missiles, Ukraine can somehow force Russia to evacuate Crimea through bombardment alone — something that the entire history of this war contradicts. To achieve this, Ukraine would also need massive amphibious forces that it altogether lacks.

A ceasefire and negotiations for a peace settlement are therefore becoming more and more necessary for Ukraine. Indeed, if the fighting stopped along the existing battle lines, more than 80 percent of Ukraine would be fully independent of (and bitterly hostile to) Russia and free to do its best to move towards membership of the European Union. 

Given the Kremlin’s original aims when it launched the invasion last year, and of the history of Russia’s domination of Ukraine over the past 300 years, this would be not a Ukrainian defeat, but, on the contrary, a tremendous Ukrainian victory. If, on the other hand, the war continues indefinitely, there is a real possibility that Ukrainian resistance may collapse, whether through the exhaustion of its manpower or because Russia’s additional forces allow it to reopen the fronts in northern Ukraine that it pulled back from last year and that Ukraine lacks the troops to defend.

Recognizing this, the Biden administration is reported to be privately advisingthe Ukrainian government to start talks with Russia. It is however exceptionally difficult for the Ukrainian government to initiate talks. President Zelensky and other leading officials would have to reverse their repeated statements that they will not negotiate with Putin and that the only acceptable terms for even a provisional agreement are complete Russian withdrawal from all the territory that Russia has occupied since 2014. Ultra-nationalist groups are passionately opposed to any compromise. The Russian government for its part is naturally uninterested in a temporary ceasefire at present, since it, too, can see that time is on its side.

In these circumstances, it is not enough for Washington to urge talks on the Ukrainians from behind the scenes, while insisting in public that only Ukraine can negotiate peace. Nor is it wise to defer any diplomatic initiative until after the next U.S. presidential election almost a year from now in the hope that both the Ukrainian forces and U.S. aid will hold up that long, and also that an embarrassing about face in the middle of the election campaign can be avoided.

Ukraine may not be able to hold out that long, and a major Russian success, involving the conquest of significantly more Ukrainian territory, would confront the Biden administration with an agonizing choice: accept a Ukrainian defeat that would be a grave humiliation for the U.S. and NATO, or threaten direct intervention and risk nuclear war with Russia. 

Moreover, as the disaster in Israel and Gaza so vividly demonstrates, it is never sensible to trust that an inherently volatile situation like the U.S.-Russian struggle over Ukraine will remain stable. At any time, an accidental clash between (for example) the Russian and U.S. air forces over the Black Sea could precipitate a terrifying increase in tension and a lurch towards nuclear war. Even if the worst outcomes were avoided, such a crisis would have a dire effect on the global and U.S. economies.

The full engagement of the United States in the peace process from the outset will be necessary if negotiations are to have any chance of success. Only a U.S. administration can bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Ukrainian government, while also offering reasonably credible security guarantees for the future. And only a U.S. administration can threaten Moscow that, for some time to come, massive U.S. military and economic aid to Ukraine will continue, while at the same time offering the Kremlin compromises on wider issues of vital importance to Russia. 

If Moscow is to be brought to the negotiating table when the military situation is developing in its favor, it will need to be assured that Washington is prepared to discuss seriously a final settlement involving neutrality for Ukraine (of course, including international security guarantees), mutual force limitations in Europe, the lifting of sanctions, and some form of inclusive European security architecture to reduce the danger of more wars in the future.

Initiating such engagement will be extremely difficult for the Biden administration, given its repeated promises of Ukrainian victory and declarations that only Ukraine can negotiate peace. The administration therefore will need outside help if it is to engage in peace talks with Russia.

The administration should therefore reach out in private to India, Brazil, and other leading countries of the “Global South” and urge them to issue a strong collective call for a ceasefire and peace talks. In initiating talks, Washington could then present itself as bowing to the will of the global majority. This may also help counteract the disastrous impact on U.S. relations with the “Global South” of the war in Gaza. The U.S. will also need to build support among European allies for a peace effort, including strong public U.S. commitment to NATO.

Full Chinese participation will also be essential if a peace process is to succeed. Chinese influence on Moscow will be critical if Russia is to be persuaded to abandon its maximalist ambitions in Ukraine and accept a compromise peace. Amid dangerously rising tensions between the United States and China, such an invitation from Washington would signal to Beijing Washington’s willingness to accept China as a partner and legitimate stakeholder in the solution of global problems.

None of this is going to be easy, and there will be a strong temptation in Washington to let things slide in the hope that something will happen to let U.S. diplomacy off the hook. To follow this path would, however, be a tragic error and a betrayal of the vital interests of both Ukraine and the United States. The present trajectory of the war is towards disaster. Only the United States can change that trajectory, but it will need a lot of help from its friends.

Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/russia-ukraine-peace-talks-2666384435/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..................

 

 

floridada.....

The Unprecedented Expenditure of U.S. Resources and Citizenship Grants for President Zelensky’s Extended U.S. Stay, Unraveling the Uncertain Future of Ukraine’s Leadership Amidst Ongoing Conflict

A US Secret Service agent who wished to remain anonymous has revealed to DCWeekly details about the arrangements being made for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s relocation to the United States. The agent claims that the Biden administration has issued orders to ensure the safety and accommodation of President Zelensky’s family starting in the spring of 2024. This decision is based on the belief that Zelensky’s presidency in Ukraine may conclude next year, and remaining in Ukraine thereafter could pose security risks.

The audio message published on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Y292oOs3o

The agent, speaking anonymously, expressed deep concern about this order, as it goes beyond the typical protection provided to foreign dignitaries. He mentioned that many of his colleagues are equally troubled by the plan and have attempted to convey the impracticality of this arrangement to their superiors without success. The operation involves various divisions responsible for the security of foreign leaders, presidential security, and even the Citizenship and Naturalization services within the Department of Homeland Security. Essentially, Zelensky will be granted the privileges of a foreign politician while also enjoying the status of an American citizen. This marks an unprecedented development in US history, and the agent is apprehensive about setting a precedent that could lead leaders of US allied states to demand similar special treatment and pension plans. Fulfilling all the requested conditions will require a substantial allocation of budget funds and the involvement of a significant number of personnel.

 

Zelensky himself is expected to take up residence in Florida, alongside his wife and two children. A lavish estate located in Vero Beach along the Atlantic shore, estimated to be worth $20,000,000, will be provided for this purpose. In addition to accommodation, American taxpayers will cover Zelensky’s security, transportation, domestic staff, and a personal assistant.

The agent further reveals that the Office of Protective Operations has an annual budget of approximately $200,000,000. He estimates that the total expenses related to President Zelensky’s stay in the US will amount to at least $20,000,000, which represents a significant 10% of the office’s annual budget. While such expenditures could potentially be justified for the short-term visit of a foreign leader to the United States, the agent points out a concerning aspect: the government order did not specify an end date for Zelensky’s stay in the US. This lack of clarity arises from the operation’s involvement in the process of granting citizenship to Zelensky and his family, with their Certificates of Naturalization already issued.

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/11/30/exclusive-unprecedented-us-operation-to-shelter-zelensky-raises-eyebrows/

 

GUS HAS NO VERIFICATION FOR THIS ITEM.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW NOW......

enjoy the war.....

 

Genießt den Krieg, der Frieden wird fürchterlich.

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

 

Toward the end of World War II (in Europe), Germans often shared a dark joke, reflecting their well-deserved dread at the prospect of defeat: “Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.” Of course, despite the worst efforts of the Ukrainian far right to damage both the politics and the image of their country, no objective observer would equate Ukraine with Nazi Germany. 

Nevertheless, that old German piece of gallows humor points to a question that is now pertinent for Ukraine. Even the militantly anti-Russian Economist is spotting “war fatigue” in both the US and the EU. The Western funding on which Kiev depends is in danger of drying up; and current promises of more cash are not reliable.

When and how will the war end?

Bloomberg reports a “sense of gloom” in Ukraine and the Wall Street Journal admits that “Moscow holds the advantage on the military, political and economic fronts.” The prominent American military commentator Michael Kofman, often treading a fine line between professional analysis and pro-Western bias, is close to facing reality. Still insisting that “it’s inaccurate to suggest that Russia is winning the war,” he acknowledges that “if the right choices are not made next year on Ukraine’s approach and Western resourcing, then Ukraine’s prospects for success look dim.” He also suggests that Kiev should shift to the defensive. Frankly, it has already, and it had no choice.

Yet a defensive strategy cannot achieve Ukraine’s official war aims, because they include retaking territory from Russia. For Ukraine, Kofman’s “right choices” imply giving up on that. Former war monger and Zelensky adviser – and now foe – Aleksey Arestovich, for one, has correctly spottedthat fact. Such an outcome is called “losing.” Redefining it as a form of “success” – a shifting of goalposts popular in the West now – comes across as a clumsy attempt to rationalize and sell a defeat. 

Regarding “right choices” for the West, despite desperate clarion calls by the Cold War re-enactor and Ukraine proxy war booster Tim Snyder and the US grand strategy maitre penseur Walter Russell Mead, the West may continue some funding of Ukraine, but it is unlikely to once again up the ante. Why would it, when all its previous strategies – economic, military, diplomatic, and by information war – have failed at great cost? What is happening instead is an American attempt to shift more of the burden of the proxy war onto the EU.

If Donald Trump wins the US elections in less than a year, then that trend is certain to accelerate, as even British state broadcaster BBC has long recognized. Western observers who think that this is a reason for Russia to be in no hurry to make peace before November 2024 are probably right. 

But what if the West and Ukraine suddenly come up with a whole new suite of brilliant, game-changing strategies? After the “miracle weapons” have crashed, perhaps we’ll see “miracle ideas”? We won’t. Because if Western elites could have them, they would have utilized them already. 

Concerning Ukraine, Maryana Bezuglaya, a member of parliament, has just caused a stir by accusing the military of failing to produce any genuine plan for 2024. Clearly, this attack is part of a power struggle – and blame game – between President Vladimir Zelensky and commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny. But Bezuglaya is not lying, just exploiting facts.

Regarding the West, after initial Russian blunders, it has not only been out-fought but also been out-thought by Moscow. Keeping alive the persistently unsophisticated Western tradition of stereotyping Russia at great cost, NATO think-tankers like Constanze Stelzenmüller at the Brookings Institution may go on underestimating Moscow as “not that strategic and not that intelligent” but merely very “determined.” On that assumption, Westerners – including think tankers – stymied by what they insist on imagining as not-so-smart Moscow, must conclude they are even less bright.

But if nothing succeeds like success, the opposite is also true – nothing fails like failure: Ukraine’s and the West’s setbacks are a self-reinforcing trend already. Hence, the pertinent question now is: when the current war ends, most likely with a Ukrainian (and Western) defeat, what will come after it? It’s a question that is both timely and difficult to answer. 

For one thing, there are still all too many, in Ukraine and the West, who believe – or pretend to believe? – that the war should and can continue, perhaps for years. German chancellor Olaf Scholz, for instance, has just claimed that the EU must go on supporting Ukraine because it is essential for the bloc that Russia must not win. Such intransigent positions – or rhetoric – betray an unrealistic assessment of Ukrainian, Western, and Russian capacities. They also imply sacrificing more Ukrainian lives in the EU’s interests.

Scholz, for one, is speaking from an almost touchingly perfect position of weakness. His personal approval ratings have just hit a record low; the coalition government he is trying to lead is not doing much better. No wonder: the International Monetary Fund is now expecting Germany to end up as the world’s worst-performing major economy this year, while the government’s unconstitutional financial trickery has triggered a severe budget crisis that will cause painful cuts in public spending.

Scholz may, of course, be lying. There also are unconfirmed reports – or leaks? – that Berlin plansto join Washington in forcing Ukraine to come to terms.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba may still boldly deny feeling any pressure from his country’s Western sponsors. 

In reality, multiple signals point in another direction: Western leaders are at least considering the option of cutting their losses by making Ukraine give up territory.

Conversely, Western stay-the-course talk on the war in Ukraine has an ever-hollower ring to it. It is ironic that only a few months ago – but before the predictable failure of Ukraine’s summer offensive turned into an undeniable fact – Foreign Policy surmised that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine policy was falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy. By now it is clear that it is the West that is experiencing a feckless gambler’s reluctance to give up before incurring even greater losses. Cynicism, the will to squeeze the last bit of blood from Ukraine, and an obstinate refusal to acknowledge past errors are certain to also play a role.

Yet it should be noted that even some observers who are not suffering from such Western biases are pessimistic about a quick end to the war. That's because they believe that ultimately Washington will keep fueling its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, whoever is or seems to be in charge in the White House. For Ukraine and Ukrainians, such a strategy would still mean defeat, but after even more losses and suffering. 

On the other hand, given the dire state of Ukraine’s manpower and other resources, a sudden change in the situation on the ground cannot be ruled out. The war could enter a new phase marked by (initially) local breakdowns of Ukrainian forces and such significant Russian breakthroughs that Kiev would have to accept defeat in one form or another, whether under the Zelensky regime or a successor.

The fear of some Western officials that Ukraine could unravel as early as this winter is not baseless. In that scenario, fighting would be over comparatively soon, i.e. at the latest at some point next year, even if it might take much longer (compare the Korean case) to replace a formal state of war with peace in the full sense of the term. As John Mearsheimer has warned, a genuine or inherently stable peace may well be impossible, but a de facto cessation of hostilities – call it a frozen conflict, if you wish – can precede it. It may not be pretty, but it would make a big difference, nonetheless. 

All of the above entails a paradox. We cannot yet tell if the end of the war is close, but it is not too early to think about the post-war period. The unknowns of the current situation also complicate the question of what exact shape that post-war era will take.

The fate of Ukraine’s military and NATO ambitions 

Let’s assume the following: first, while a formal state of war may continue, the more important question is what it will take to end the actual fighting. Kiev would lose territory and, in general, would have to make additional concessions to Russia. The one that is easiest to predict is Ukraine reverting to neutrality and, in particular, giving up on its NATO ambitions (and, of course, its current de facto integration in the alliance). The second outcome that Russia is bound to pursue is capping Kiev’s military potential. The third result that Moscow will not let go off is to either completely neutralize (probably impossible) or strongly diminish the influence of Ukraine’s far right.

Thus, post-war Ukraine will be smaller, neutral, militarily weak, and its official politics and institutions (especially those with arms, such as the police and army) will have to let go of far-right personnel and influence, at least on the surface. No more ‘Black Suns’ on display, except maybe at private parties. If these conditions are not met, fighting may still temporarily cease, but not for long. 

Regarding NATO (that is, the US), the fundamental question here is whether Russia will even seek a grand settlement again, a principal reset, but this time from a position of increased strength or, instead, leverage its advantage to achieve the more limited aim of pursuing its security interest by shaping “only” the settlement in and about Ukraine. 

Russia may or may not want – or be able to – also make NATO explicitly give up on Ukraine and, more broadly, its misconceived strategy of expansion. Moreover, Moscow may or may not try to insist once more on a fundamental revision of Europe’s security architecture and its relationship with the US and NATO, as in its prewar proposals of late 2021.

What is certain is that once Moscow has created facts on the ground in Ukraine and Kiev has to revert to neutrality (in word and deed), NATO’s posturing will lose much of its relevance. There are unofficial signals that the bloc may be considering admitting only a part of Ukraine (neither Kiev nor its Western backers will recognize Crimea or other Moscow-controlled territories as Russian and will probably refer to them as 'occupied'). If such a Plan B is serious, despite the fact that it would break NATO tradition and be foolish, Ukraine is rejecting it. And again, any signs of its implementation would be likely to restart the fighting quickly. It is true that some smart observers have speculatedthat Moscow may be willing to live with a reduced Ukraine being part of NATO. But on this, they are likely to be wrong.

Whatever approach Russia chooses, the key point is that it now has the initiative. That, dear NATO, is what happens when you lose a war: The agenda won’t be the West’s to set. 

The future of Kiev’s EU membership bid

What about the EU? After all, one key cause of the current war and preceding crisis was a regime change in Kiev in 2014, which was triggered by a conflict over Ukraine entering into a special association with the bloc. At this point, the EU shows no intention to change this course. Indeed, it seems to be about to open a formal process leading to full membership. There is resistance from some member states, however. Open pushback is coming from Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban is threatening to block this policy as well as more money for Kiev. Where Orban is sticking out his neck, he may not be alone in having misgivings about integrating a large, poor, very corrupt, devastated, and revolution-prone new member state with a security issue from hell.

In any case, let’s assume that, for now, the EU elite gets its way – for instance by releasing more frozen funds for Hungary – and Ukraine enters into official membership talks. As has long been pointed out, starting accession talks is not the same as getting membership. At least years, possibly decades, can separate one point from the other, and the process can also get stuck in the mud. Moreover, as the recent electoral successes of Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders have once again demonstrated, the ground is also shifting inside the EU. Add the AfD's surge in Germany, and the EU’s own ability to stick to the plan is very much in doubt.

Post-war Ukraine will probably not be a full member of the European Union. Either for a long time or maybe forever.

Will Zelensky’s regime survive?

What about Ukraine at home? It is hard to imagine the political survival of the current President Vladimir Zelensky in a post-defeat Ukraine. Even now, internal Ukrainian government polling quoted by The Economist shows a drastic decline in his approval ratings. What is worse, while Zelensky is down to 32%, commander-in-chief Zaluzhny still scores 70%, and the especially sinister head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, who proudly runs assassination programs, has a solid 45%.

And, of course, The Economist publishing such figures is yet another sign that Zelensky is also losing Western support. The initially intense personality cult Zelensky enjoyed in the West as an almost miraculous leader may have fooled him into a false sense of security and irreplaceability. In reality, it now makes him the perfect scapegoat. As we know from classical tragedy, with great elevation, comes the potential for a deep fall.

What would come after the Zelensky regime? This is where it’s time to stash away the crystal ball because things become simply too opaque. One thing that true friends of Ukraine should hope for is that whatever is next will actually still be some form of coherent and minimally effective government. Those with ill-conceived fantasies of a “South Korean miracle” in what will be left of Ukraine, may want to refocus on more elementary, Hobbesian issues: In a country full of disappointed citizens and veterans and awash in arms, with a far right second to none in the world, things could turn very ugly indeed.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/588284-darkening-prospects-ukraine-postwar/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW NOW......

 

smart dodgers....

Making hundreds of thousands of able-bodied Ukrainian men who fled to the EU go back and join the army would greatly aid Kiev’s cause, German MP Roderich Kiesewetter told Die Welt daily on Monday. He also called a large number of Ukrainians avoiding military service one of the key problems the government of President Vladimir Zelensky was facing.

Kiev ordered a mass mobilization after hostilities with Russia began in February 2022 and barred men aged 18 to 60, who could potentially be called up for service, from leaving the country without a special waiver. Ukrainian officials and media have repeatedly referred to a large number of draft dodgers as officials struggle to refill army ranks amid heavy losses.

In October, Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Natalya Kalmykova said that “tens, hundreds of thousands of people” were dodging the draft. Ukrainian media also reported in early November that as many as 8,000 Ukrainians were facing criminal charges for draft evasion.

Die Welt reported in November that Kiev had resorted to conscripting key workers and potentially harming Ukraine’s long-term economic viability in order to meet the army’s needs.

Asked about demands for demobilization put forward by the families of Ukrainian soldiers, Kiesewetter said too many Ukrainians were reluctant to “relieve the burden” of their fellow citizens at the frontlines.

“The crux of the matter for Ukraine is that, in the European Union, for example, over 600,000 able-bodied Ukrainian men are avoiding military service,”the lawmaker said. Germany alone hosts some 220,000 such refugees, he added. Kiesewetter previously served with the German general staff and finished his military career as a colonel.

All those people should be urged to go back to their home country to either join the army or to “help … by supporting the Red Cross, clearing up rubble, helping the fire brigades and providing civil support,” the MP, a member of the biggest opposition party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), said.

He added that Germans should “make an appeal to the young men who are fit for military service” and that Brussels “should do the same.” He estimated that the number of male able-bodied Ukrainians living in Germany alone would be enough to staff “more than 10 divisions” for Kiev.

Asked about potential diplomatic talks between Moscow and Kiev, Kiesewetter immediately rejected the idea, claiming Russia does not want to negotiate. Instead, he called for increased arms supplies to Ukraine, admitting that the war will last “for quite some time.”

Moscow has repeatedly said it is ready for talks with Kiev, as long as the reality of the situation on the ground is taken into account. Four former Ukrainian territories officially joined Russia in autumn 2022 following a series of referendums in a move that Kiev and its Western backers have never recognized.

On Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RTVI that Russia has not closed the door on talks and would like to resolve the conflict through diplomatic and political means.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/588562-ukrainians-eu-back-fight-german/

 

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR... ANYONE GOING TO THE FRONT AND FIGHT FOR THE NAZI KIEV REGIME WILL DIE, UNLESS A DEAL IS MADE....

 

At least 23 Ukrainian army soldiers were executed by their comrades-in-arms for attempted desertion near Kherson, a Russian security source told Sputnik, citing a source with the Ukrainian armed forces.

The source said that in order to cover up the murder, the Ukrainian military command placed the executed soldiers on a missing persons list.

The source clarified that the Russian security forces managed to learn the details of those ten executed individuals.

 

 

"Information was obtained from sources in the armed forces of Ukraine on the execution of 23 servicemen of the 123rd brigade of the territorial defense of the armed forces of Ukraine on August 11 in Kherson because they decided to desert and abandon their positions," the source said.

 

Adviser to the acting head of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR), Jan Gagin divulged the mounting cases of desertion within the ranks of the Ukrainian armed forces just a day ago.

In mid-August, Andrey Marochko, a military expert and retired LPR lieutenant colonel, revealed to Sputnik that the Ukrainian army had executed his comrades who decided to leave their positions near the village of Terny in the area of Krasny Liman.

 

https://sputniknews.in/20230825/ukrainian-army-guns-down-own-soldiers-for-desertion-near-kherson-source-3826224.html#

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

cancelled...

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky abruptly canceled a briefing with US senators and White House officials on Tuesday due to a “last-minute” snag, according to a high-ranking Democrat. The sit-down then became heated as lawmakers shifted focus to debate over US border policy and continued aid to Kiev.

Zelensky’s team called off the virtual appearance just moments before it was set to go ahead, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, noting that something had come up for the leader without elaborating.

Administration officials were expected to offer updates on a massive military aid package for Israel and Ukraine currently under negotiations in Congress, which the White House has repeatedly urged lawmakers to pass. However, some GOP lawmakers have sought to link new Ukraine aid to funding for US border agencies, with multiple senators threatening to hold up the spending bill unless it includes desired provisions for immigration.

After Zelensky’s sudden cancellation, the briefing grew contentious, with some Republicans, including Senators Deb Fischer and Mitt Romney, even walking out early.

“The point is there’s no answer to any questions down there,” Fischer told Defense News, adding “We’ve had it.” She stressed that she has previously supported all legislation supporting Ukraine, adding that the White House “better be worried. Because I have backed everything.”

President Joe Biden’s top budget official, Shalanda Young, warned that Washington was “out of money” for Kiev earlier this week, stating that “without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks.”

She went on to note that, as of mid-November, the Pentagon had spent 97% of the $62.3 billion it received for Ukraine this year, while the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID) had used up 100% of the funds allocated.

READ MORE: US House Speaker issues Ukraine ultimatum to Biden

Biden has requested a massive spending package worth $106 billion to fund several priorities of his administration, namely military aid to Ukraine and Israel, but faces opposition from an increasingly skeptical Republican Party.

Though Zelensky ultimately backed out of the Senate briefing without explanation, his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, made in-person appearances on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lobby for additional aid to Ukraine. During a speech at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, the official said Kiev faced a “big risk” of defeat should Washington halt its military support.

“We’re at the end of our rope in terms of the existing funding,” an unnamed Zelensky advisor told Politico, adding that the money would not “go beyond December.”

https://www.rt.com/news/588575-zelensky-scraps-senate-briefing/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

 

stop it.....

The engineers at a once-bustling industrial hub deep inside Russia were busy planning. The team had been secretly tasked with building a production line that would operate around-the-clock churning out self-detonating drones, weapons that President Vladimir Putin’s forces could use to bombard Ukrainian cities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/

 

 

STOP HERE, WAPO.... THE RUSSIAN ARMY ONLY "BOMBARDS" MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, STRATEGIC GRIDS AND PERSONNEL — NOT CITIES, PER SE.

IN REGARD TO THE "GEFRANIUM MISSILES", RUSSIA IS MORE THAN BETTER EQUIPPED TO MANUFACTURE MORE THAN WHAT THE RUSSIAN ARMY NEEDS.... SO:

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....