Dozens NATO Instructors Were Killed During The Most Massive and Powerful Russian Missile Strike *****************************************************

So on the night of February 7, dozens of Russian Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers, as well as supersonic Su-34 fighter bombers, launched more than a hundred cruise missiles at military facilities in Ukraine. Moreover, hundreds of cruise missiles were also launched by dozens of Russian warships from the waters of the Black and Caspian Seas. In addition, dozens of jet-powered Geranium kamikaze drones were also involved in this massive missile attack. Strategic important facilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and NATO were subjected to missile strikes in almost all regions of Ukraine...................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grgSzDt0qfY

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

Birth of a myth: By replacing his top general, Zelensky has laid a trap for himself
Valery Zaluzhny’s political ambitions have been boosted by Ukraine’s president, who just removed the commander from leading a doomed war

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

 

In his masterpiece, the pre-World War II ‘Le fil de l’épée,’ a young Charles de Gaulle observes that soldiers and politicians usually can’t get along well: They’re too different by temperament, socialization, and purpose. And yet the man who would brilliantly succeed at being both a military and a political leader also insisted that, ultimately, they must cooperate to serve their country. That cooperation is precisely what has just broken down in Ukraine, in the middle of a large war that is going very badly for Kiev.

For, make no mistake, while there are several important aspects (discussed below) to the drawn-out dismissal of Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, the fundamental fact remains that it is a story of failure, the failure of a key relationship in any state, but especially one fighting a war it is losing.

Zaluzhny, it is important to note, was not a particularly bad commander-in-chief. It is true that Kiev’s war effort is failing but there is no good reason to blame him or, at least, him most of all. He is a mediocre strategist instead of the quiet genius that some silly Western hype used to depict. Yet, the causes of Ukraine’s current, quite-possibly fatal difficulties on the battlefield in logistics and manpower are fundamental, not a matter of one less-than-brilliant general. Remember: Once short on clients, soldiers, and supplies, even Napoleon (and Zaluzhny definitely is no Napoleon) was defeated: There are things in war, especially in a war of attrition, that crushingly outweigh individual talent.

Hence, the ouster of his commander-in-chief is precisely what President Vladimir Zelensky is trying to pretend it is not: a political operation, not a result of level-headed analysis of strategic necessity and a systematic reboot.

It is also an anticlimax: The tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny have been no secret for a long time. In particular from January 29, the general’s dismissal was preceded by a wave of leaks and rumors. There was speculation about two key issues: Would Zaluzhny go quietly or would he – or his many supporters, including on the far right – protest, riot, maybe even mutiny and, in the worst case, try to stage a coup against the Zelensky regime? And, if not, who then would succeed Zaluzhny as commander-in-chief?

Two candidates were widely discussed: the head of military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, and the former commander of Ukraine’s ground forces (and thus the core of the military), Aleksandr Syrsky.

Budanov was the more exciting of the two, if in an ill-boding way. While Syrsky’s reputation as a tactically cack-handed, dour “butcher” (of his own men, that is) has reached even the sleepy New York Times, Budanov represented a loose cannon: Bereft of any experience of commanding large forces, the Budanov trademark is black ops: assassination, sabotage, and provocation. Some observers thought that his potential appointment as commander-in-chief would signal a wholesale turn to guerrilla and terrorist methods to compensate for losing the war.

In the end, though, Syrsky, the less colorful candidate, standing for perfect obedience to Zelensky and a particularly unimaginative, if wasteful, type of ordinary warfare, came out on top as Zelensky’s new commander-in-chief (despite plausible rumors that at least the spy-besotted UK was pushing for Budanov); and there have been no coup attempts, riots, or mutinies, either. At least, not yet.

But here is the thing about anticlimaxes: If you feel an outcome does not measure up to what you expected, your disappointment may have less to do with that outcome than with your expectations: You may have anticipated either too much or the entirely wrong kind of thing. In the latter case, you risk missing what is really important, while fixated on all those dogs that did not bark.

Let’s ask two simple questions: First, what things are unlikely to change because of Syrsky replacing Zaluzhny? And in what area, on the other hand, does Zelensky’s move make a difference?

What will not change is that Ukraine is losing this war. Its Western sponsors are either dropping it (the US) or offering it far too little aid (the EU) to even hold out, let alone turn the tables. And even with all the aid in the world, Ukraine could not do so: The country is exhausted. The struggles over a new mobilization law, which were also part of the conflict between Zaluzhny and Zelensky, show two things: First, Kiev is running out of Ukrainians to use up and, secondly, Ukrainians are running out of patience with being fed into their leadership’s proxy-war meat grinder.

In terms of the state budget and the economy as a whole, Ukraine is a hollow shell, kept together and standing only through, again, Western support, which, again, is faltering. Syrsky is a general with a bad reputation. But even if he enjoyed a better one, he would still not be a miracle worker. But that is what it would take to save Kiev. The outcome is a matter of time, now, and probably not much time.

Yet, for the moment the Zelensky regime is not showing any (public) signs of opting for mediation, negotiation, and a compromise peace. Zelensky’s once stellar popularity is declining. In particular it is lagging well behind that of Zaluzhny. Indeed, the increasingly self-centered president is likely to have made things worse: As prominent Ukrainian commenters, like the robustly anti-Russian and warmongering Vitaly Portnikov, have observed, the way in which Zelensky got rid of Zaluzhny was also a PR disaster, for the president. For John Mearsheimer, an always realistic observer, the messy, protracted process of firing Zaluzhny made the president look weak and indecisive.

Zaluzhny, it is important to note, may have been a thorn in Zelensky’s side. But he also was an asset, precisely because, inside Ukraine, he appeared to be a little less dishonest than the usual sycophants serving the self-aggrandizing “servant of the people.” To clear-sighted observers outside Ukraine, Zaluzhny comes across as a savvy general with much-denied yet obvious political ambitions, who has efficiently milked his knack for playing to the crowd with his bullheaded, man-of-the-people/salt-of-the-earth image.

Yet, from within a society living under the deeply reality-phobic Zelensky regime, addicted to self-dramatization, spin, and lying, Zaluzhny looks like a rare straight-talker who, occasionally at least, has dared speak truth to power. This is a point made, for instance, by Ukrainian journalist Ianina Sokolova, who has deplored the inability of Zelensky and his team to tolerate or accept criticism and has praised Zaluzhny for telling the truth about the “dead end” that the war has become.

Yet the Zelenskyites will not give up and, in a deeply unpatriotic way, that makes sense: Zelensky and his team are very unlikely to survive (politically, at least) the coming defeat. And by now their military position is so bad that even they probably understand that they will not be able to spin the end as anything else. They are trapped.

And, finally, what will not change either is the deep influence of the Ukrainian far right on the country’s politics. For the fact that the far-right groups have not rebelled against Zaluzhny’s ouster is not a sign of its weakness. On the contrary, it shows two things: First, not only Zaluzhny but Zelensky as well, of course, has his leverage with the far-right movement and they their investment in him. Secondly, the far right has decided to bide its time: Why try to take over now, just to own a losing war?

And that question brings us to what has changed.

Zelensky’s problems have increased. Not only because he has gone against a man much more popular than he is himself, but also because his chosen general, Syrsky, is ethnically Russian – to the extent that he still speaks Ukrainian with a Russian accent. It is true that much of his Russian family has disowned Syrsky, but that won’t help him much once Kiev’s defeat moves from the realm of the very likely to that of accomplished fact. Then, the search for scapegoats will be on (again), and Syrsky’s lack of ethnic credentials will be used against him, not only by the far right as a whole but also by top Zelensky rivals (and Zaluzhny allies), such as former president Poroshenko or Kiev’s always-ambitious mayor Vitaly Klitschko. And Vladimir Zelensky will be blamed for appointing “the Russian.”

Zelensky’s exposure to the political cost of battlefield setbacks has also grown: He has not, of course, repeated the grievous mistake of former Russian emperor Nicholas II, who took over military command in the middle of World War I and thus made himself a perfect target. But, in principle, Zelensky has run a similar risk: When the war turns even worse than now, Ukrainians will ask who was responsible for replacing a commander-in-chief they at least believed in with one most of them dread. And they will also ask about Zelensky’s reasons, which are obvious, no matter how much the president tries muddying the waters: Zaluzhny had to go because Zelensky fears his political potential.

Which brings us to the third thing that is different now: Ironically, Zaluzhny’s chances in future Ukrainian politics have greatly improved, thanks to Zelensky’ short-sighted attempt to curtail them. The president has removed the commander-in-chief from responsibility before defeat can harm his image. Indeed, Zelensky has laid the foundations of a future myth, in which Ukrainians will tell each other that all could have been different, if only good old Zaluzhny had not been kicked out. It won’t be true, but it will be resonant.

One statement Zelensky has made with respect to Zaluzhny may very well come to haunt him. Asked about his relationship with his top general, before the commander was replaced, the president answered that one day Zaluzhny might not be around anymore and that “Ukraine as a state is not about the personal.” Indeed. Nor should it be. But it’s a risky thing to stress for a man whose whole legitimacy is based on what is, in effect, a personality cult. A badly declining one.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/592312-zelensky-replacing-top-general-zaluzhny/

 

READ FROM TOP. (see toon)......

 

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

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/02/19/did-zaluzhny-bail-in-the-nick-of-time/

Did Zaluzhny bail in the nick of time?

 

READ FROM TOP. (see toon)......

 

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

 

Former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny has been appointed the country’s new ambassador to the UK, the Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday.

The ministry said it has already informed London about the development, formally requesting approval from it.

“The President of Ukraine approved the candidacy of Valery Zaluzhny for the post of Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United Kingdom,” the ministry said in a short statement.

Zelensky himself further elaborated on the matter in a video address, insisting the appointment would only benefit relations between Kiev and London and that their ties “should only get stronger.”

“Zaluzhny told me that this is the direction he would like to take – diplomacy,” the president claimed.

aluzhny ended up being fired by Zelensky from his post as the country’s top general last month, with the Ukrainian president citing the need to bring “new approaches” and “new strategies” to the conflict with Russia. The commander was replaced by General Aleksandr Syrsky, the head of the Ukrainian Ground Forces at the time.

The pick has been widely seen as an unpopular one amongst the military, largely thanks to the questionable reputation of Syrsky, said to be nicknamed “The Butcher”over the commanding style he showed while leading the troops during both the defense of Artyomovsk (known in Ukraine as Bakhmut) and the subsequent attempt to retake the city as part of the 2023 summer offensive. Both battles have resulted in decisive defeats for Kiev, coupled with massive casualties among the troops.

The firing of Zaluzhny came after a conflict between the commander-in-chief and Zelensky that had been rumored for months. The two had been reportedly disagreeing over military priorities, while Zelensky had also allegedly grown wary of the popular general, regarding him as a potential political opponent.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/593949-ukraine-britain-zaluzhny-envoy/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

ZELENSKY IS UNINTELLIGENT. HE IS DEVIOUS AND ANNOYINGLY ONE-TRACKED, MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE THOSE OF A SECOND-RATE CROOKED CLOWN DRIVING A SMALL BICYCLE. HE WAS PERFECT FOR THE TV COMEDY SERIES FROM WHICH HE NOW REHASHES THE SCRIPTS FOR HIS PRESIDENCY. IT DOES NOT WORK. AND HE IS CORRUPT. FULLY CORRUPT. EVEN THE JOURNALISTS WHO REVEALED THE PANAMA PAPERS — AND SUBSEQUENT EXPOSITIONS OF CORRUPT LEADERS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE (MEN) AROUND THE WORLD — ZELENSKY WAS HIGH ON THE LIST. SO HERE IS ONE OF THE LATEST ARTICLE THAT IS SEMI-POLISHING HIS TURDY ACTIONS... IT COMES FROM THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE (READ AMERICAN EMPIRE HEGEMONIC THINK-TANK FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE).

 

Why President Zelensky Is Purging His Inner Circle

 

BY Konstantin Skorkin

 

Zelensky and Yermak find themselves tied to one another and somewhat interdependent: the former on the staffing policy of his head of administration, the latter on the political survival of his patron.

President Volodymyr Zelensky is continuing his large-scale purge of the Ukrainian leadership in an attempt to achieve greater cohesion and efficiency. The Ukrainian president is preparing for a double crisis in which increasing pressure from Russian troops at the front could add to internal destabilization after Zelensky’s presidential term formally expires on May 20.

The downside to this purge is that by removing his old friends from Kvartal 95—the TV production company that the comedian-turned-president once founded—from the corridors of power, Zelensky is surrounding himself with the protégés of his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. That leaves the president without any sources of alternative opinions, which has never been good for public administration. It also raises questions about how stable the tandem—increasingly skewed in favor of Yermak—will be, and whether the ambitions of the all-powerful administrator will go into overdrive.

When Zelensky explained the dismissal of Ukraine’s popular commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, by saying it was part of a larger overhaul of the system, his words were widely interpreted as a cover for an unpopular decision that was in fact purely political. However, the general’s firing really did mark the start of purges and reshuffles at the highest levels of power.

Zaluzhny’s departure was followed by that of Oleksiy Danilov, the once influential secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, known for his hawkish views and aggressive rhetoric. Unofficially, it was apparently this latter trait that led to his downfall: the president was unhappy with Danilov’s outspoken response to comments by China’s special representative for Eurasian affairs. Kyiv hopes to convince Beijing to take part in an upcoming peace summit in Switzerland, and so does not wish to quarrel with the Chinese.

Since then, nearly all of Zelensky’s associates from Kvartal 95 who had been appointed to senior positions have been removed. From the very beginning of his presidency, Zelensky was wary of the old elites, and sought to surround himself with loyal supporters. When he came to power, he brought with him many managers from the TV production company he had once founded together with school friends. As a rule, these managers were old friends and partners who enjoyed his personal trust. The heads of Kvartal 95, Ivan Bakanov and Serhiy Shefir, were made head of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) and first assistant to the president, respectively, while the studio’s executive producer Serhiy Trofimov became the first deputy head of the president’s office.

By the beginning of 2024, there was no trace of all this idyllic picture of close old friends. Bakanov was fired from the SBU back in 2022 for failing to pick up on treason among high-ranking security officials, while Trofimov and Shefir lost their jobs in the recent purge. 

The beneficiary of all these firings is the head of the president’s office, Andriy Yermak. All the vacant posts have been filled by his nominees, meaning there is no longer anyone who has been in a key position in the president’s office since before Yermak became chief of staff.

Yermak’s own protégés, meanwhile, are apparently very difficult to fire. His deputy Oleh Tatarov, for example—a security official with a dubious past—is still in his post, despite all the efforts of anti-corruption authorities and investigative journalists.

With no sign of the ongoing purge stopping anytime soon, many are questioning the unprecedented trust that the president appears to have in his chief of staff. After all, Yermak has been accused of being everything from an MI6 handler to a Kremlin agent.

In reality, Yermak came from the legal profession, though he also moves in show business circles. He was previously one of Ukraine’s leading copyright experts, representing the interests of Hollywood majors and working with prominent clients on the Ukrainian market, as well as producing several films and TV series himself. He met Zelensky when they worked together at the Inter TV channel.

His current reputation as a gray cardinal, however, has less to do with Yermak’s personality or biography than with his position. The post of head of the presidential administration doesn’t officially have any constitutional authority in Ukraine, but because it provides direct access to the president, holders of the title are inevitably perceived as shadow chancellors. And since no other president in the history of Ukraine has ever had such a concentration of power as Zelensky has since Russia’s invasion, the omnipotence of his administration has also increased.

Yermak’s rise is partly due to his communication skills. At one time, he managed to establish a good enough working relationship with his Russian colleague Dmitry Kozak for a high-profile prisoner exchange to take place. On the very first day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Yermak contacted the Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich via a fellow film producer, Alexander Rodnyansky. Abramovich accepted the role of mediator in negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow. Yermak’s show business connections also helped to build a global coalition in support of Ukraine.

Yermak’s influence irritates many in the Ukrainian elite, and he has probably been the subject of more attacks than any other top official. The biggest of them was “Wagnergate,” when high-ranking security officials and journalists accused Yermak of disrupting an operation in 2020 to capture a group of mercenaries from Russia’s infamous Wagner private military company. Following the full-scale invasion, Yermak was also accused by U.S. Republican congresswoman Victoria Spartz of working for Russia and sabotaging the Ukrainian military effort. 

Ultimately, none of the mud thrown at Yermak appears to have stuck to him, and the current purge is a signal to all of his enemies that he still has the president’s trust. Now, with pressure growing at the front and the opposition preparing to take advantage of the formal expiration of Zelensky’s presidential term after May 20, the president wants to ensure maximum loyalty in his inner circle. 

Yet by surrounding himself with the protégés of his chief of staff, the president is increasingly isolated from alternative points of view, which heightens the risks of a drift toward authoritarianism. On Kyiv’s political sidelines, there are persistent rumors about the imminent formation of a “strong government” in which Yermak will replace the current prime minister, the technocrat Denys Shmyhal, and be given full emergency powers. It is far from clear, however, whether Yermak himself would agree to give up the convenient post of shadow chancellor for that of head of government, which traditionally serves as a lightning rod for criticism of the president.

Nor is it obvious that Zelensky himself, for all his trust in Yermak, is ready to transfer so much power to him. After all, no one is immune to developing political ambitions. In this respect, however, there is already a barrier in place: Yermak is unpopular with the Ukrainian public, and his trust rating continues to fall. In February 2024, 61 percent of people polled by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology said they did not trust him.

As a result, Zelensky and Yermak find themselves tied to one another and somewhat interdependent: the former on the staffing policy of his chief of staff, the latter on the political survival of his patron, Yermak’s loyalty to whom is the source of his own influence. The relationship within this tandem will become the main substance of the new political era that will dawn in Ukraine after the formal expiration of Zelensky’s powers on May 20.

 

https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/92209

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

 

GUS: ALL THIS WILL BE ACADEMIC WHEN NAZI UKRAINE (KIEV) HAS TO CAPITULATE UNCONDITIONALLY.... IT COULD AS SOON AS THE END OF MAY....

 

PLEASE, 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.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

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

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....