US/NATO War on Russia

[R.K. Locke]

From Counterpunch:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/04/s...th-russia/


September 04, 2014

The Downing of Malaysia Flight 17

Sinister Pretext for War with Russia

by MIKE WHITNEY

"There is no innocent explanation for the sudden disappearance of MH17 from the media and political spotlight. The plane's black box has been held in Britain for examination for weeks, and US and Russian spy satellites and military radar were intensively scanning east Ukraine at the time of the crash. The claim that Washington does not have detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the crash and the various forces involved is not credible."

Niles Williamson, "Why have the media and Obama administration gone silent on MH17?", World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/...h-a18.html

See: 11 minute you tube "MH17 We know with 99% certainty who shot down MH17"

The Obama administration has failed to produce any hard evidence that pro-Russia separatists were responsible for the downing of Malaysia Flight 17. The administration's theory that the jetliner was downed by a surface-to-air missile launched from rebel territory in east Ukraine is not supported by radar data, satellite imagery, eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence. In fact, there is no factual basis for the hypothesis at all. It's merely politically-motivated speculation that's been repeated endlessly in the media to shape public opinion. The preponderance of evidence suggests a different scenario altogether, that is, that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian fighters in an effort to frame the pro-Russia separatists and demonize Russia by implication. This is precisely why the MH17 story has vanished from all the major media for the last three weeks. It's because the bloody fingerprints point to Obama's puppet-government in Kiev.

So what are the facts?

Fact Number 1: There were eyewitnesses.

According to the Oxford dictionary, an eyewitness is "A person who has personally seen something happen and can give a first-hand description of it." This is why eyewitness testimony is so important in criminal investigations, because what people actually see matters. In a capital case, eyewitness testimony can be just as damning as the bloody fingerprints on a murder weapon. In contrast, theories are of little or no importance at all. The administration's missile theory is just obfuscating blabber intended to pacify the public with a soothing explanation that is entirely divorced from the facts. Eyewitness accounts help to cut through government bullsh** and uncover what really happened.

So, what did happen to MH17? Check out this blurb from a report by the BBC:


"The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly before the catastrophe. According to them, it was actually the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

Eyewitness number one: "There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart, (Waves her hands to show the plane exploding) And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everyone saw it….

Yes, yes, It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was flying underneath…below the civilian plane."

Many people saw what happened. Many people saw the Ukrainian fighter rise in a shark-on-seal type motion. Many people saw the explosion. Are these credible witnesses? Are they lying? Do they have a political agenda?

We don't know, but we do know what they said. They said they saw a fighter (probably a Ukrainian SU 25) stalking MH17 just before it blew up. That's significant and it should have a bearing on the investigation.

Fact Number 2: Russia picked up the Ukrainian fighters on their radar.

According to Russian military analysts:


"Russian monitoring systems registered Ukrainian airforce jet, probably an SU 25 fighter, climbing and approaching the Malaysia aircraft. The SU 25 was between 3 to 5 kilometers away from the Malaysian plane. The fighter is capable of reaching an altitude of 10,000 meters for short periods of time. It's standard armaments include R-60 air-to-air missiles which are capable of locking and destroying targets within a range of 12 kilometers and which are guaranteed to hit their target from a distance of 5 kilometers.


What was a military aircraft doing on a route intended for civilian planes flying at the same time and same altitude of a passenger plane? We would like an answer to this question? …

To corroborate this evidence we have a picture taken at the regional air traffic control center at Rostov….Ukrainian military officials claimed there were no Ukrainian military aircraft in that area of the crash that day. As you can see, that is not true" ("MH17 Fully Exposed", The Corbett report; Check minute 34:17 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlAARb0fN4video

Repeat: "Ukrainian military officials claimed there were no Ukrainian military aircraft in that area of the crash that day. As you can see, that is not true."

Kiev lied. Not only was one of their fighters in the vicinity, but the warplane also had the capacity to take down a jetliner.

Let's be clear about how important this information is: We now have hard evidence (Russian radar data and eyewitness testimony) that a Ukrainian fighter was in the vicinity of Malaysia Flight 17 when it was shot down. Thus, the Ukrainian fighter very well may have played a role in the downing of MH17. This is a possibility that cannot be excluded if one is basing their judgments on the facts alone.

Then there the story of Carlos who worked at Kiev's Air Traffic Control at Borispol but who mysteriously vanished immediately after the crash. Carlos's twitter feeds on the day of the incident have become something of a legend on the internet, so we would like to narrow our focus to just a few of his communiques.

Carlos tweets on day of MH17 crash:

"Kiev Authorities, trying to make looks like an attack by pro-Russian"…

"warning! It can be a downing, Malaysia Airlines B777 in ukraine, 280 passengers"…

(Military?) "has taken control of ATC in Kiev"….

"The Malaysia Airlines B777 plane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed"….

"Plane shot down, shot down, shot down, no accident"….

"Before They remove my phone or they break my head, shot down by Kiev"…

"The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar"…

"If Kiev authorities want to tell the truth, It´s gathered, 2 jet fighters flew very close minutes before, wasn't downed by a fighter"….

"Malaysia Airlines B777 plane just disappeared and Kiev military authority informed us of the downing, How they knew?"…

"all this is gathered in radars, to the unbelieving, shot down by kiev, here we know it and military air traffic control also"…

"military control now officially [say] the plane was shot down by missile"….("FINAL Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17", Rebel's Blog)

Shortly after posting the news on Twitter, the Military took over the tower, the SBU seized the Air traffic Control recordings, and Carlos disappeared never to be seen again. At the very least, Carlos's postings lend support to our thesis that one or two SU 25 fighters were in the vicinity of the Boeing 777 at the time of the incident, which is to say they were in a position to shoot it down.

So why have Obama, Kerry and the entire western media excluded the SU 25s from their analysis? And why are they withholding the satellite and radar data (that everyone knows they have) of the area at the time of the crash? According to the World Socialist Web Site: "The US Air Force's Defense Support Program utilizes satellites with infrared sensors to detect missile launches anywhere on the planet, and US radar posts in Europe would have tracked the missile as it shot through the sky."

Indeed, the US does have the capability to track missiles launches anywhere on the planet, so where is the data to support their theory that a missile took down MH17? Where is the satellite imagery? Where is the radar data? What is it Obama doesn't want the American people to know?

German pilot and airlines expert, Peter Haisenko, thinks that Malaysia Flight 17 was not blown up by a missile, but shot down by the type of double-barreled 30-mm guns used on Ukrainian SU-25 fighter planes. Haisenko presented his theory in an article which appeared on the Global Research website titled "Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the "Shooting Down" of Malaysian MH17. "Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile". Here's an excerpt from the article:


"The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile…." ("Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the "Shooting Down" of Malaysian MH17. "Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile"", Global Research)

Haisenko notes that the munitions used on Ukrainian fightersanti-tank incendiary and splinter-explosive shellsare capable of taking down a jetliner and that the dense pattern of metal penetrated by multiple projectiles is consistent with the firing pattern of a 30-mm gun.

Also, Michael Bociurkiw, who was one of the first international inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site and who spent more than a week examining the ruins appears to be convinced that MH17 was downed by machinegun fire consistent with the myriad bullet-holes visible on the fuselage. Here's what he told on CBC World News:


"There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pock-marked. It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven't seen anywhere else.

We've also been asked if we've seen any signs of a missile?

Well, no we haven't. That's the answer."

("Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site," CBC News. Note: The above quote is from the video)

Now, admittedly, the observations of Haisenko and Bociurkiw could mean nothing, after all, they are just opinions. But for the sake of argument, let's compare what they have to say to the comments made by Obama and Kerry.

Here's Obama on the day after the crash:


"Here is what we know so far. Evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine.

We also know that this is not the first time a plane has been shot down in eastern Ukraine. Over the last several weeks Russian- backed separatists have shot down a Ukrainian transport plane and a Ukrainian helicopter, and they claimed responsibility for shooting down a Ukrainian fighter jet.

Moreover, we know that these separatists have received a steady flow of support from Russia.

This includes arms and training. It includes heavy weapons. And it includes anti-aircraft weapons.

Now, here's what's happened now. This was a global tragedy. An Asian airliner was destroyed in European skies, filled with citizens from many countries. So there has to be a credible international investigation into what happened. The U.N. Security Council has endorsed this investigation, and we will hold all its members, including Russia, to their word…

Now, the United States stands ready to provide any assistance that is necessary…..

Let's summarize Obama's allegations:

1MH17 was shot down in east Ukraine.

2The separatists have shot down planes in east Ukraine before.

3Therefore the separatists shot down MH17

Do you find that argument persuasive, dear reader? Keep in mind, Obama has never veered from his original position on the issue nor has he ever addressed the eyewitness reports or the technical data provided by Moscow. When all the media repeat the government's version of events word-for-word, the facts don't matter. In other words, Obama hasn't changed his story, because he doesn't have to. He knows the dissembling media will assist him in the cover up. Which it has.

Now let's take a look at what Kerry had to say two days after the crash when he visited all five Sunday talk shows to blast Putin and blame the rebels for downing MH17. According to the Guardian:


"Kerry said all the evidence surrounding the downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 points towards pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine…..

"We have enormous input about this that points fingers," Kerry told CNN's State of the Union. "It is pretty clear that this was a system from Russia, transferred to separatists. We know with confidence that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point of time."…

Kerry said social media reports and US surveillance put the missile system in question in the vicinity of the crash before the tragedy.

"We know because we observed it by imagery that at the moment of the shootdown we detected a launch from that area," he said. "Our trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft." ("MH17 crash: Kerry lays out evidence of pro-Russia separatists' responsibility", Guardian)

Needless to say, Kerry has never provided any proof of the satellite "imagery" he referred to on the day of the interview. The administration's case still depends on the discredited information it picked up on social media and on its own politically-motivated theory. It's worth noting, that the administration used its shaky claims to great effect by convincing leaders of the European Union to impose more economic sanctions on Russia before any of the facts were known and without any legal process in place for Russia to defend itself. The sanctions, of course, are still in effect today even though the administrations hysterical accusations have come under increasing scrutiny.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly called for a transparent and thorough international investigation, but Washington seems more eager to sweep the whole matter under the rug. Moscow is particularly interested in recovering the Air Traffic Control tapes which were seized by Kiev's security services immediately following the crash. It's imperative that these tapes be handed over to international inspectors to analyze communications between the cockpit and the tower. There's no doubt that Kiev would hand over the recordings if Washington simply demanded that they do so. But Obama has issued no such order. Why is that?

Keep in mind, that the ATC recordings could be much more valuable than the black boxes because they record both sides of every communication on every frequency used by that facility (including frequencies used for communication with other ground facilities and/or agencies), and also on every land line in use at that facility."

What does that mean? It means that ATC recorders also include communications between ATC operators and, lets say, government or military authorities. They would also have recorded the communications between ATC and any fighters that may have been in the vicinity of Flight 17. In other words, if MH17 was in fact shot down by a SU 25, there's a good chance the communications would show up in the ATC tapes.

Is this why Obama hasn't demanded that Kiev surrender the recordings, because he doesn't really want the truth to come out? Now take a look at this out from the World Socialist Web Site:


"After a month during which Washington has failed to release evidence to support its charges against Putin, it is clear that the political offensive of the NATO governments and the media frenzy against Putin were based on lies.

If pro-Russian separatists had fired a ground-to-air missile, as the US government claims, the Air Force would have imagery in their possession confirming it beyond a shadow of a doubt…..

On August 9, the Malaysian New Straits Times published an article charging the Kiev regime with shooting down MH17. It stated that evidence from the crash site indicated that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter with a missile followed by heavy machine gun fire.

While it is too early to say conclusively how MH17 was shot down, the preponderance of the evidence points directly at the Ukrainian regime and, behind them, the American government and the European powers. They created the conditions for the destruction of MH17, backing the fascist-led coup in Kiev this February that brought the current pro-Western regime to power."

("Why have the media and Obama administration gone silent on MH17?", Niles Williamson, World Socialist Web Site)

The media has played a pivotal role in this tragedy, deliberately misleading the American people on critical details related to the case in order to shape their coverage in a way that best serves the interests of the government. The MSM doesn't care about identifying the criminals who killed 298 passengers. Their job is to demonize Putin and create a pretext for waging war on Russia. And that's exactly what they're doing.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

[Magda Hassan]

Who's Telling the "Big Lie" on Ukraine? | Ukraine gambit as a way to undermine Putin inside Russia. By Robert Parry

Who's Telling the "Big Lie" on Ukraine?

By Robert Parry
Cross-posted from Consortium News

[URL="http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/putin-crowd.jpg"]
Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses a crowd on May 9, 2014, celebrating the 69th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Crimean port city of Sevastopol from the Nazis.
(image by [/URL](Russian government photo))

If you wonder how the world could stumble into World War III -- much as it did into World War I a century ago -- all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire U.S. political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats vs. black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.

The original lie behind Official Washington's latest "group think" was that Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated the crisis in Ukraine as part of some diabolical scheme to reclaim the territory of the defunct Soviet Union, including Estonia and other Baltic states. Though not a shred of U.S. intelligence supported this scenario, all the "smart people" of Washington just "knew" it to be true

Yet, the once-acknowledged -- though soon forgotten -- reality was that the crisis was provoked last year by the European Union proposing an association agreement with Ukraine while U.S. neocons and other hawkish politicos and pundits envisioned using the Ukraine gambit as a way to undermine Putin inside Russia.

The plan was even announced by U.S. neocons such as National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman who took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post nearly a year ago to call Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward eventually toppling Putin in Russia.
Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress, wrote: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. ... Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

In other words, from the start, Putin was the target of the Ukraine initiative, not the instigator. But even if you choose to ignore Gershman's clear intent, you would have to concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory to support the conventional wisdom about Putin's grand plan.

To believe that Putin was indeed the mastermind of the crisis, you would have to think that he somehow arranged to have the EU offer the association agreement last year, then got the International Monetary Fund to attach such draconian "reforms" that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych backed away from the deal.

Then, Putin had to organize mass demonstrations at Kiev's Maidan square against Yanukovych while readying neo-Nazi militias to act as the muscle to finally overthrow the elected president and replace him with a regime dominated by far-right Ukrainian nationalists and U.S.-favored technocrats. Next, Putin had to get the new government to take provocative actions against ethnic Russians in the east, including threatening to outlaw Russian as an official language.

And throw into this storyline that Putin -- all the while -- was acting like he was trying to help Yanukovych defuse the crisis and even acquiesced to Yanukovych agreeing on Feb. 21 to accept an agreement brokered by three European countries calling for early Ukrainian elections that could vote him out of office. Instead, Putin was supposedly ordering neo-Nazi militias to oust Yanukovych in a Feb. 22 putsch, all the better to create the current crisis.

While such a fanciful scenario would make the most extreme conspiracy theorist blush, this narrative was embraced by prominent U.S. politicians, including ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and "journalists" from the New York Times to CNN. They all agreed that Putin was a madman on a mission of unchecked aggression against his neighbors with the goal of reconstituting the Russian Empire. Clinton even compared him to Adolf Hitler.

This founding false narrative was then embroidered by a consistent pattern of distorted U.S. reporting as the crisis unfolded. Indeed, for the past eight months, we have seen arguably the most one-sided coverage of a major international crisis in memory, although there were other crazed MSM stampedes, such as Iraq's non-existent WMD in 2002-03, Iran's supposed nuclear bomb project for most of the past decade, Libya's "humanitarian crisis" of 2011, and Syria's sarin gas attack in 2013.
But the hysteria over Ukraine -- with U.S. officials and editorialists now trying to rally a NATO military response to Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine -- raises the prospect of a nuclear confrontation that could end all life on the planet.

The "Big Lie" of the "Big Lie"

This madness reached new heights with a Sept. 1 editorial in the neoconservative Washington Post, which led many of the earlier misguided stampedes and was famously wrong in asserting that Iraq's concealment of WMD was a "flat fact." In its new editorial, the Post reprised many of the key elements of the false Ukraine narrative in the Orwellian context of accusing Russia of deceiving its own people.

The "through-the-looking-glass" quality of the Post's editorial was to tell the "Big Lie" while accusing Putin of telling the "Big Lie." The editorial began with the original myth about the aggression waged by Putin whose "bitter resentment at the Soviet empire's collapse metastasized into seething Russian nationalism. ...

"In prosecuting his widening war in Ukraine, he has also resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie, using state-controlled media to twist the truth so grotesquely that most Russians are in the dark -- or profoundly misinformed -- about events in their neighbor to the west. ..."In support of those Russian-sponsored militias in eastern Ukraine, now backed by growing ranks of Russian troops and weapons, Moscow has created a fantasy that plays on Russian victimization. By this rendering, the forces backing Ukraine's government in Kiev are fascists and neo-Nazis, a portrayal that Mr. Putin personally advanced on Friday, when he likened the Ukrainian army's attempts to regain its own territory to the Nazi siege of Leningrad in World War II, an appeal meant to inflame Russians' already overheated nationalist emotions."

"Against the extensive propaganda instruments available to Mr. Putin's authoritarian regime, the West can promote a fair and factual version of events, but there's little it can do to make ordinary Russians believe it. Even in a country with relatively unfettered access to the Internet, the monopolistic power of state-controlled media is a potent weapon in the hands of a tyrant."Mr. Putin's Big Lie shows why it is important to support a free press where it still exists and outlets like Radio Free Europe that bring the truth to people who need it."

Yet the truth is that the U.S. mainstream news media's distortion of the Ukraine crisis is something that a real totalitarian could only dream about. Virtually absent from major U.S. news outlets -- across the political spectrum -- has been any significant effort to tell the other side of the story or to point out the many times when the West's "fair and factual version of events" has been false or deceptive, starting with the issue of who started this crisis.

Blinded to Neo-Nazis

In another example, the Post and other mainstream U.S. outlets have ridiculed the idea that neo-Nazis played any significant role in the putsch that ousted Yanukovych on Feb. 22 or in the Kiev regime's brutal offensive against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.

However, occasionally, the inconvenient truth has slipped through. For instance, shortly after the February coup, the BBC described how the neo-Nazis spearheaded the violent seizure of government buildings to drive Yanukovych from power and were then rewarded with four ministries in the regime that was cobbled together in the coup's aftermath.



When ethnic Russians in the south and east resisted the edicts from the new powers in Kiev, some neo-Nazi militias were incorporated into the National Guard and dispatched to the front lines as storm troopers eager to fight and kill people whom some considered "Untermenschen" or sub-human.
Even the New York Times, which has been among the most egregious violators of journalistic ethics in covering the Ukraine crisis, took note of Kiev's neo-Nazi militias carrying Nazi banners while leading attacks on eastern cities -- albeit with this embarrassing reality consigned to the last three paragraphs of a long Times story on a different topic.

[See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Discovers Ukraine's Neo-Nazis at War."]

Later, the conservative London Telegraph wrote a much more detailed story about how the Kiev regime had consciously recruited these dedicated storm troopers, who carried the Wolfsangel symbol favored by Hitler's SS, to lead street fighting in eastern cities that were first softened up by army artillery. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ignoring Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers."]

You might think that unleashing Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II would be a big story -- given how much coverage is given to far less significant eruptions of neo-Nazi sentiment in Europe -- but this ugly reality in Ukraine disappeared quickly into the U.S. media's memory hole. It didn't fit the preferred good guy/bad guy narrative, with the Kiev regime the good guys and Putin the bad guy.

Now, the Washington Post has gone a step further dismissing Putin's reference to the nasty violence inflicted by Kiev's neo-Nazi battalions as part of Putin's "Big Lie." The Post is telling its readers that any reference to these neo-Nazis is just a "fantasy."

Even more disturbing, the mainstream U.S. news media and Washington's entire political class continue to ignore the Kiev government's killing of thousands of ethnic Russians, including children and other non-combatants. The "responsibility to protect" crowd has suddenly lost its voice. Or, all the deaths are somehow blamed on Putin for supposedly having provoked the Ukraine crisis in the first place.

A Mysterious "Invasion"

And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.
While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory -- and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight -- the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.

One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.

Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.

"You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq."
But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.
http://ukrainereferendum.blogspot.com.au...l?spref=tw

[Lauren Johnson]

Counting on undermining Putin internally: that is the goal. And it is very achievable, IMO.

Now, I go read the article.

[Drew Phipps]

I would suppose if the Russians were determined enough to mount an actual invasion, it wouldn't be subtle. However, that is not to say that Russia (or any other nation bent on an invasion) wouldn't send advance scouts/saboteurs/commandos to prepare the ground for an actual invasion.

[Magda Hassan]

I would suppose if the Russians were determined enough to mount an actual invasion, it wouldn't be subtle.

Exactly. Like in the province in Georgia. They just rolled in and kept going. Like in Crimea. But apart from Crimea there is no sign of that and US isn't providing any proof by satellite video.

However, that is not to say that Russia (or any other nation bent on an invasion) wouldn't send advance scouts/saboteurs/commandos to prepare the ground for an actual invasion.

NATO certainly have theirs inside.

[Magda Hassan]

I would suppose if the Russians were determined enough to mount an actual invasion, it wouldn't be subtle. However, that is not to say that Russia (or any other nation bent on an invasion) wouldn't send advance scouts/saboteurs/commandos to prepare the ground for an actual invasion.

Breaking! Definitive proof of the Russian invading:

[Drew Phipps]

Looks more like an international and time travelling coalition of forces.

[Lauren Johnson]

The reaction to the pending or actual ceasefire in Ukraine proxy war ranges from bafflement to fury at the Donbas leadership as well as at Putin. Thousands of Ukrainian troops remain cutoff from support in various pockets, not to mention Mariupol. The battle to reclaim this important port had just begun with several thousand troops trapped there as well. (Rumor has it that there are several important NATO advisers in the city. But it is just a rumor.) Prevailing wisdom is that a winning side would not stop fighting just when they are about to utterly destroy the enemy.

For example, Colonel Cassad said this on Sept. 3rd.

7. Thus, the autumn starts with the Junta in transition from offence to defense, and there are clearly not enough resources to hold the entire line; even after the front is straightened out. It should be understood that even if the Junta could stretch a solid front line from Donetsk to Berdyansk, there would be nothing available to close a gap in the event of another breakthrough. In general, the size of the theater of operations clearly exceeds the abilities of the warring parties. The Junta is facing the same problem faced by the NAF in June, when it was trying to hold large areas without sufficient forces to do so, which led to breaks in the front. Now the Junta is in the same situation, thus emphasizing that operational initiative is the key to victory, in the event one lacks sufficient forces to control large swathes of territory. The side which has the operational initiative can choose the direction of attack, concentrate forces there, achieve local superiority, and convert these efforts to captured towns and cities; and burning enemy vehicles with charred corpses lying along the roads.

8. As the Junta cannot seize the initiative back yet (the concentration of 1-2 brigades by Zaporozhye, to be used for counter-attack, requires a few more days), it began a retreat, during which it tried to free up additional forces for the southern front and transition to a stubborn defense of advantageous positions. It is now key for the NAF to keep the operational initiative, as it more than offsets the advantages of the enemy in manpower and vehicles. In this respect, while carrying out offensives in several directions, it is important not to overdo it and not to expose the flanks to cleaving strikes of Junta's mechanized forces (the NAF still had trouble parrying these strikes as late as August).


Overall, as of September 3rd, we can confidently say that the fascist Junta has switched to strategic defense in the Donbass.

The cease fire is then announced yesterday. And in response, here is the statement issued by the commander of the Ghost Battalion (LPR), Alexey Mozgovoy, who is with the faction that says marching to Kiev is the only solution.

Novorossiya shall be! Oligarchs out! Power to the real, common people! This is our [first] chance in many decades to build an equitable, human and humane society.

WITH RESPECT TO STRELKOV HAVING BEEN BETRAYED AND BETRAYAL IN GENERAL.

There are so many who did not like what was begun and do not want to push it to its logical conclusion!
They only have money, offices and portfolios in their heads! But why did the people of the South-East rise up??? Was it just so that they could lose countless lives, lose their livelihoods, lose their confidence in the future?

If we are fighting for the interests of the people, is it not up to the people themselves to decide the outcome of this struggle? See it through completely…

Who among these so-called members of the governments of the DPR and the LPR bothered to ask the opinion of the Militiamen, who lose their comrades in battles; the opinion of the relatives, who lost fathers, sons and daughters in this struggle for the right to live free and to choose their own path? I believe none of them did. All this seems to be a farce; a spectacle, in which the role of the people of Novorossiya is to be extras on the set.

There have now been several stages of this betrayal of Novorossiya (including the resignation' of Igor Ivanovich Strelkov). In my opinion, right now, we are witnessing another attempt, by means of negotiations, to stop the resistance and to prevent the destruction of the oligarchic power in Ukraine. The fifth column in action… The transfer of power from the oligarchy to the peopleright now this is the so-called international community's nightmare. It became clear to everyone long ago that the world is ruled by the likes of Valtsman [Poroshenko], Chubais and the Rockefellers. For these, removal from power is akin to death.

And what do we see now? ARRANGEMENTS! And with whom? At the negotiating table: the venerable Kuchma! During his reign, the fat cats only gained momentum and swelled their appetites! Corruption soared to inexplicable heights. He should be prosecuted, not negotiated with! What will happen to the special status of Novorossiya, when all the same contract killers will remain? What guarantees can be discussed with people that have eliminated the word TRUTH from their vocabulary?

And from Cassad:

Interfax reports http://lifenews.ru/news/139844 (in Russian) that an armistice was signed in Minsk between the Ukrainian junta on one side and the DPR and the LPR on the other side. It goes into effect today, after 18-00.

Overall, as I wrote before, it is more likely to be advantageous for the junta, which needs an urgent military respite in order to regroup and to restore the connectedness of the front line. Well, as for the talks themselves, they are a step towards "Larger Transnistria" with separating two more regions from Ukraine but simultaneously a step away from creating Large Novorossia, which remains under the control of the fascist junta in these types of scenarios.


The question of whether the leadership of Novorossia could refrain from signing this armistice is not essential: the necessary rearrangements for such a decision were made a bit earlier and all possible obstacles in the way of reaching an armistice were removed, starting with Strelkov. So this agreement, if it is indeed signed (and for now its text wasn't published yet and all references are made to insider sources) and goes into effect, primarily reflects the current foreign policy course of the Kremlin with respect to Donbass.

Nevertheless, for now the conditions of this truce are not clear. It is also not clear if it will be observed and what will be the line that separates the two entities. Considering the position of the USA, which are interested in continuing the war, there are significant grounds for supposing that even if this truce will be achieved, then it will simply be a pause before the military action is resumed.

Well, and if the media got ahead of themselves and the agreement isn't signed, then this is actually great and the army of Novorossia may continue the offensive and the rout of the remaining encirclements.

PS. Meanwhile, fighting continues in Mariupol, the reinforced assault groups of the army of Novorossia managed to enter the city and to set off fighting there, liberating a couple of blocks from the junta in the process. At this time the fighting still continues and apparently it will continue up until the evening.

Original article: http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1769421.html (in Russian)

Note from the translator: it appears that the fighting in Mariupol has since ceased, for now it remains under the control of the Ukrainian regime.

The Saker has no comments on this thus far.

EDIT: Any sense that the anti-junta efforts are united all the way from Moscos to the end of Donbas' tanks and grad launchers is obviously false. Just what are Moscow's goals are not clear.

[Lauren Johnson]

I am asked to comment on the cease-fire propositions from Putin, which apparently were publicized by Poroshenko's press-service in its own interpretation.


"First stop active offensive operations of the armed forces, armed militia groups from the south-east of Ukraine in direction of Donetsk and Luhansk.


Second remove the armed units of the Ukrainian security forces to a distance that precludes the possibility of their firing artillery and using multiple rocket launchers against civilian areas.


Third provide full and objective implementation of international enforcement of the parties compliance with the conditions of cease-fire and monitoring of the situation in the created safety zone.


Fourth exclude the use of military aircraft against civilians and settlements in the conflict zone.


Fifth organize exchange of the prisoners based on the formula "all for all" without any preconditions.


Sixth open humanitarian corridors for the movement of refugees and the delivery of humanitarian supplies to the cities and other settlements of Donbass - Donetsk and Luhansk regions.


Seventh facilitate sending to the affected Donbass region of repair crews to restore social and life-supporting infrastructure, to assist them in preparing for the winter."


http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1206701/#ixzz3CGFhhjpK (in Russian) - link (n.b. translation of the points taken from here).

PS. Actually, there's nothing surprising in them and they fit quite well into the political line that is carried out after the replacement of the military and political leadership of the DPR and the LPR and the departure of Strelkov, the main proponent of the war to a victorious conclusion. Of course, with a living Strelkov on the position of the minister of defense of the DPR, who speaks of the campaign on Kiev, there's no speaking of any armistice.

Well, and so the line on creating Novorossia in the form of "Larger Transnistria" is persistently carried out since August. In this scenario there such a constant as a Ukraine that's still under the junta in some or other borders and with which there will be negotiations.

The proposed plan, under the theory that Poroshenko will accept it, implies creating Novorossia based on the DPR and the LPR and freezing the conflict. This also means that Kharkov, Zaporozhye, and Dnepropetrovsk will remain with the junta.


Of course, given such a result, the exit of Novorossia from Ukraine will be set de-facto, but many were not fighting for this but for the possibility to fight back the fascists and to go to Dnieper and punish the culprits.

The injection of these initiatives before the NATO summit where the new steps of the USA and their satellites against the Russian Federation may reflect a dominating line: the reluctance to burn all bridges with the West. A significant part of the political elite of the Russian Federation and of its major capital, whose interests are expressed by Putin, in spite of all the hurrah-patriotic rhetoric for the masses, perfectly understand the huge risks of escalating tensions in the relationship with the USA, which already unambiguously threaten with the deployment of military bases right near the borders of the Russian Federation, which includes Ukraine. In this regard, the long-standing threat of the NATO bases near the borders of the Belgorod region may suddenly become reality. This is in addition to tightening the regime of sanctions.

After losing all of Ukraine in February of 2014, the Kremlin managed to recoup in Crimea and partially in Donbass. The sounded proposals and the general policy direction reflect the desire to wrap up the conflict and end this gamewith a draw, satisfying oneself with Crimea and Donbass (plus another 1-2 regions if the course of events will be lucky). At this time there is no serious long-term policy with respect to fighting for the whole Ukraine, the "united pro-Russian Ukraine" is a media propaganda phantom, which is completely divorced from the real state of the Ukrainian society and the real instruments of the Russian influence on it. Some use it for the routine support of the changing line of the political leadership, some sincerely believe that this is still possible, but by now these are simply pipe dreams. The same applies to the attempts to reinvigorate the long since rancid topic of federalization, which peacefully died back in March-April. In essence, Ukraine is in a state of disintegration since March. Taking Crimea into account, it already lost 3 regions, because, even with a strong desire of the Kremlin, it is effectively impossible to ram Novorossia into some sort of "united Ukrainian state" because this goes against the interests of the overwhelming majority of the residents of Novorossia. This includes those who shed their blood for it. An attempt to forcefully push this scenario is unlikely from my point of view. The consequences of this will be comparable to the consequences of completely refusing to support Novorossia.


Thus, the policy of the Kremlin, which is manipulating the situation by turning the valve of the "military surplus store", remains one-legged: on the one side the republics are not allowed to perish, but on the other side this aid is quite measured and directed to achieving certain limiting results from the positions of achieving which it is supposed to negotiate with the junta and its masters.

The problem is that the USA are absolutely not interested in this. And it is precisely their opinion that will be crucial to how the war in Donbass will develop and where the future borders will be drawn. The USA, as it is not hard to see, are not concerned with the negotiating movements of Kiev and Moscow too much. They are eagerly building a coalition for yet another conflict, feeding the fascist regime in Kiev simultaneously.
For Moscow it would be indeed more convenient to reach some kind of an agreement with Kiev and to wrap up the open phase of the war, achieving a minor tactical victory which makes the defeat in the struggle against the USA for the whole Ukraine less bitter. As I wrote in the Summer, it was impossible to completely dump Donbass, because this was likely to cause significant consequences in the internal politics.

But here everything runs into the lack of the negotiating capacity of the opponents. It is impossible to make piece on some conditions if they may call from the State Department and correct the course in the necessary direction. Because there were no major negotiations of the Russian Federation and the USA, I wouldn't count on signing the armistice with these or other conditions. The "Khasavyurt", which is expected by many, will happen after the Washington and Moscow will reach some sort of an agreement. The projection of these agreements will become the foundation for the negotiations of the fascist junta and the leadership of Novorossia. In this regard, at this stage it is exactly the position of the USA and of the junta that impede the agreement on the fate of Novorossia. To some extent this is even better, because from the one side Novorossia will be able to capture even more territory for future state-building. The institutionalizing conflict of the USA and the Russian Federation will force to activate the involvement of the Russian Federation into the situation in Donbass to achieve the result. This will strengthen the positions of those circles who initially stood for splitting Ukraine not by the borders of the DPR and the LPR but by the Dnieper, i.e., those who proposed a project of liquidating "united Ukraine" and creating a pro-Russian Novorossia instead of the chimera of "united pro-Russian Ukraine".

The arguments from the category of this being simply an injection in order to demonstrate the lack of negotiating capacity of the junta are only suitable for internal consumption because, as the information war around Ukraine shows that no matter what Russia would do, the Ukrainian and pro-American media declare it to be guilty of everything. This applies even more to the struggle for the European public opinion. As it is not hard to see, despite all the efforts of the diplomacy and the official propaganda, the involvement of the EU in the war in Ukraine on the side of the fascist junta didn't go anywhere. The "European military surplus store" successfully opened a long time ago. However, the trading volumes aren't as high as the junta would have it.

PS. Regarding the points themselves, the first point clearly outweighs all other points because it gives the junta time to regroup and to resume military action. The junta will be soon pushed out of the positions that it uses to shell Donetsk and Lugansk in any case, which will be accompanied with large losses for it.

In general and as a whole this is just diplomatic rhetoric for now, which reflects certain aspirations of the political elites of the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian question, which are not at all guaranteed to come true in the light of the peculiarities of the position of the USA and its Kiev puppets. We will soon see how will it be. The talks in Minsk and the coming NATO summit will determine the direction of the development of the conflict. Either it will be gradual drifting towards the talks on "Larger Transnistria" or further escalation with the involvement of the "workers of Euro-Atlantic military surplus store" on the one side and the continuation of the "seasonal discounts and bonuses" in the "Russian military surplus store" on the other side.


The main thing here is to understand that there cannot be an agreement between Donetsk and Kiev without an agreement between Moscow and Washington. The confrontation of the fascist junta and the army of Novorossia is just one dimension of the conflict in Donbass. The main nerve passes through the line of competition of the major imperialist states for control over Ukraine. And while they won't agree on a split or somebody won't capitulate, the war will continue, because both the junta and Novorossia have the political freedom to determine the future of territories that once constituted "united Ukraine".

http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/85133.html

[Lauren Johnson]

BTW, the cease fire seems already to be over in some places.

He makes a number of important points.

http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/
Saturday, September 6, 2014

[URL="http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/ukrainian-ceasefire-q-and-rfc.html"]Ukrainian ceasefire Q&A/FAQ and RFC
[/URL]

There are so many rumors and opinions about the latest ceasefire for Novorussia agreed between the Novorussian leaders and the Junta reps that I have decided to make a small survey of the issues in the format of a Q&A/FAQ. I will write up a real analysis next week. I also will use this opportunity to explain a few thing about what my own personal position is. So here goes:

Q: Do you support or oppose the latest peaceplan?

A: Neither. First, I still have not seen the 14 points actually agreed upon and, most importantly, I don't believe that this plan will hold.

Q: Why not?

A: Because it is opposed by all the following groups: the USA, NATO, the Ukie Nazis, most of the Novorussian field commanders and a large segment of the Russian nationalist ideologues in Russia. Furthermore, Poroshenko is so weak that he probably cannot impose his will on others. Finally, the Ukies and their western supporters have so reneged on every agreement they signed/

Q: So you think that this agreement is irrelevent?

A: No, not at all. For one thing, it's perfect timing took a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-Russian crowd at the NATO summit which, after all, did not result in anything more than hot air and empty threats.

Q: Are you saying that this is a victory for Russia?

A: Hardly, but it has been an effective way to temporarily defuse a potentially dangerous situation. Also, the very fact that neither the EU or NATO or the US were even present in Minsk is a very powerful symbol of the fact that the "indispensable nation" and it instruments of colonial domination are not indispensable after all.

Q: But will this ceasefire not allow the Junta Repression Force (JRF) to regroup?

A: Yes, but that is not that relevant because of the size of its strategic depth the Junta can to reorganize and regroup anyway. Most the JRF units close to the front are so beat up that "regrouping" will not help very much. At best ("best" for the JRF of course), this ceasefire will turn a hasty retreat into a more or less organized withdrawal followed by a much needed break. But the key thing to always remember is this: wars are won by willpower, by moral strength, by a fighting spirit. Unlike the Russians, the Ukies have had their fighting spirit completely broken by the NAF. Check out the picture circulating on the RuNet which I have posted above. It shows a wounded Russian solider (from the 08.08.08 iirc) war against Georgia and a Ukrainian solider captured in Novorussia (who had been made famous by his militaristic and neo-Nazis videos posted on the Ukie social media). This montage shows something crucial: just compare the determined and undefeated expression of the severely wounded Russia private with the totally broken and terrified expression of the Ukrainian "paratrooper". The difference here is not "Russian" vs "Ukrainian" in an ethnic sense (there is no such thing as an "ethnic Russian" or an "ethnic Ukrainian" - they are all ethnically mixed), but the difference in the fighting spirit of the Russian solider and the Ukrainian one. And no amount of US/NATO aid can change this: unlike the Ukie, the Russian knows what he is fighting for and he is determined.

Q: What about Mariupol?

A: What about it? The city is still surrounded and the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) will not retreat. All this ceasefire does is "freeze" the situation around this city. If anything, the Ukies will use it to cut and run.

Q: Will the NAF benefit ceasefire?

A: Yes. There are several "cauldrons" in the NAF rear which are a pain, well, in the rear, which will hopefully be flushed out by a mutual agreement to have the JRF units to move out and leave their weapons behind. If not, then please remember that the NAF control all of the Novorussian/Russian border and that the "voentorg" (cover delivery of weapons and specialists) will continue unabated.

Q: Are you saying that all is good and we should rejoice?

A: Not at all. First, there are clear signs of infighting in Novorussia. Not only was Strelkov apparently blackmailed out of control, but there have been rumors of an attempted coup by Antiufeev yesterday. The Novorussians denied this info, others say that the coup failed, but there is no doubt that there are real tensions inside Novorussia now and that while some support the current strategy of negotiations (we can refer to them as the "Zakharchenko clan") others clearly oppose it (we can refer to them as the "Mozgovoi clan"). Likewise, in Russia there are those who favor this strategy (most of the "near-Kremlin" circles "околокремлевские круги" - I explain this term here) and those who oppose it (Dugin, Colonel Cassad, el-Miurid, and many other generally para-Marxist bloggers and activists).

Q: So you agree that this is bad for Novorussia?

A: No, I did not say that either. I think that this is probably an inevitable and possibly indispensable temporary phase in this conflict with is neither a triumph nor a disaster, but something which is a natural consequence of the situation on the ground.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Contrary to most commentators here, I do not believe that the NAF have been "treacherously stopped in what could have been their triumphant march on Kiev". The amazing successes in the south have totally obscured in the minds of many the undeniable fact that the JRF forces north of Luganks are still big, powerful and holding their ground, that the Ukies even managed a (small and useless) counter-offensive in the region of Dukuchaevsk and that, contrary to initial reports, the Donetsk airport is still not under full NAF control. Those who had imagined that the NAF would soon move on and take Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk or even Kiev just don't understand the military situation. Right now, the NAF can't even take back Slaviansk, nevermind reconquer all of Novorussia.

Q: What about the notion that Russian and Ukie oligarchs are the real force behind this deal?

A: What oligarchs? Akhmetov has not only lost Donetsk forever, even the material infrastructure of this assets is now in ruins. Kolomoiski has had this assets in Crimea nationalized and he is now locked in a struggle with both Akhmetov and Poroshenko. As for the Russian oligarchs - they have exactly zero needs for anything in the Donbass and they are way too smart to invest anything in such a dangerous, unstable and ruined region. At least in the short term, only the Russian state will provide help for political reasons, but the Russian oligarchs have much safer and lucrative options than the ruined Donbass.

Q: Okay, then what about the accusation that rather then allowing the creation of a viable and independent Novorussia, Putin has created yet another Transnistria?

A: What is this thesis based on? On a 14 point plan which nobody has seen and which will be soon broken anyway?

Q: No, on the fact that instead of fighting Poroshenko and the Nazis, the Novorussians have been forced to negotiate with them.

A: Oh come on! How many times will I have to explain that, unlike westerners, Russians have no problems at all talking to their enemies? Study the history of the Tatar-Mongol invasions of Russia when the Russian Princes were always talking "negotiating" with the Khans of the Golden Horde, and yet that never prevented them from rising up and fighting them regularly. Russians are much more Asians than Europeans and in Asia talking to your enemy is normal, it is an integral part of warfare. If in the West talking or negotiating with your enemy is a sign of weakness, in Asia it is not talking or negotiating with your enemy which is a sign of weakness.

Q: So what do you think Putin want in this war?

A: What he always said he wanted: a united, independent, neutral, prosperous and friendly Ukraine, in other words - "regime change" in Kiev.

Q: So will he "sell out" Novorussia to achieve this goal?

A: I don't know. Unlike so many armchair generals who apparently also moonlight as telepaths and prophets, I cannot read Putin's mind or predict the future. What I can say is that so far I see no signs of Putin betraying or "selling out" anybody. In fact, it takes an amazing degree of blindness or intellectual dishonesty not to notice that the first and immediate consequence of what many assume was a Kremlin-ordered change in the Novorussian leadership has been a huge and successful offensive which crushed the JRF. If Putin wanted to "sell out" Novorussia to the Nazis, he could have easily done so just before that counter-offensive was launched.

Q: So you really love and trust Putin, don't you?

A: No, but I will admit that what I have seen this man do for Russia and the world fills me with sincere admiration, often bordering an awe, and that I see absolutely no signs of him changing course. What I see is a leader whose methods and strategies are simply too subtle and complex for most "armchair heads of states" to understand. The very same Putin-bashing crowd which now is hysterically yelling about betrayal was saying exactly the same things about Syria when Putin single handedly stopped the US attack on it. And when the Russians told the Syrian to get rid of their (dangerous and useless) chemical weapons the same Putin-bashers were yelling from the top of their lungs that this was the ultimate proof of Russian back-stabbing. Now Assad has, if not won the civil war, but conducted a successful reelection and the West is now eating humble-pie and pondering how to best get Assad's help in Iraq. So while I don't "love" Putin, I sure despise the Putin-bashers not only for their short-sightedness and lack of expertise, but for their mind-blowing intellectual dishonesty. They are like a broken record constantly repeating "Putin betrayed, Putin betrayed, Putin betrayed". In Russia this kind of rabid nationalists are called "горе патриоты" or "sorrow-patriots". They are the kind that never actually do anything useful, but are the most vociferous about what should be done. I want to make it clear that I am not referring to Strelkov, Mozgovoi or any other real patriot who happens to disagree with Putin. I am referring to those for whom Putin-bashing is an end in itself and who basically don't give a damn as long as they get to bash the man.

Q: Still, Novorussia wants independence while Putin wants a united Ukraine. Don't you see the contradiction here?

A: Of course I do. So? That does not mean that one side is "bad" and the other one "good", it just shows the truth of the US saying that "where I sit is where I stand". The real question is how this contradiction will be resolved. So far I don't know and I reserve judgment precisely because, unlike the "professional and full-time Putin bashers" I like to base my opinions on fact, not telepathy or prophetic visions.

Q: You constantly speak of "Putin bashers" - that is offensive to many!

A: Guess what? I am not a nice guy. I am an direct guy who calls it as he sees it and if that offends anybody, they are welcome to hug a teddy-bear and go sob on their bed. My message to them is - grow-up and remember that I owe you nothing. This is my blog and I write it for adults who value truthfulness and honesty over sugar-coated affirmations.

Q: What about Poroshenko - has he not won a huge break if not victory?

A: Yesterday I was watching the latest edition of the priceless Ukie propaganda show "Shuster Live" and it felt like I was watching a funeral. The host and all the guest were in a somber, sorrowful and quasi-depressed mode. Though they did not want to admit the magnitude of the beating which their "invincible Ukrainian army" just had taken, it was pretty darn clear that flag-waving was no more the order of the day. One Ukie official even said "when we are talking about 30 to 40 thousand armed men then we *have to* talk to tehse "terrorists"" - it was hilarious, really. So no. Poroshenko, far from having "won" anything, is in real deep trouble. For starters, his own Prime Minister - Iatseniuk - is absolutely outraged about the deal and makes no bones about it. Ditto for Timoshenko. I won't even go into the Nazi freaks. The fact is that the protecting Poroshenko will now become a major headache for the local CIA station in Kiev: the guy is in HUGE trouble and his only hope is that during the next elections he will look less bad and less crazy then the rest of them. That is assuming these elections are held and that Iarosh or Tiagnibok do not simply seize power and execute Poroshenko for "high crimes, treason or being an FSB agent" (he is not, but how cares?!). The regime is so much on the defense that even though everybody knows that this plan is really Putin's plan, the Junta is engaged in a massive PR effort to convince the public that this is really Poroshenko's plan. The Russians, typically, just smile and are happy to give him the credit (remember, this is Asia - different rules apply).

Q: So what will happen next?

A: As I said, I am not a prophet. But what I know is this: Putin clearly has full control of Russia and Novorussia - what he says happens, he can deliver. Poroshenko has no control over anything, not even "his" own" ruling coalition. There is no real power in Banderastan right not, not even the local CIA station. For this simple reason I do not see how the ceasefire could hold. Then I don't see much change in the military balance either. The NAF is far more capable than the JRF whose only advantage lies in the huge strategic depth of this territory. The JRF used to (past tense!) have a huge advantage in hardware and manpower, but even this is changing now. In terms of hardware, most of the best hardware they had is now either lost or in NAF hands. Yes, they still have huge reserves, but of old and terribly maintained equipment. As for manpower, the Junta clearly has more and more difficulties finding enough men to compensate for its huge losses. Just ask yourself a basic question: if you were Ukie, even a nationalist, would you want to join to JRF and go fight the NAF? Exactly. Yes, NATO has promised 15 million dollars. That would buy the Ukies, what, maybe 10 old and used T-72 or 3 T-80? This is a joke, really. But even if the US provides 150 millions in covert aid - this will not affect the balance, nevermind tipping it. As for the NAF, it is doing well and will probably get even more men and modern gear through the "voentorg", but it cannot push too far. As one NAF commander said, "so far we have been liberators, but we don't want to become occupiers". The rule of thumb is simple: the further west the NAF goes, the less support it will get and the more it will expose itself to guerrilla warfare lead by a local insurgency. A far smarter strategy is to sit tight and watch the Ukies go after each other.

Q: Why do you think that will happen?

A: Because no matter what all this still holds true: the Ukraine was always an artificial country, Banderastan is even worse. There is no real power in control, even the Junta is "kinda" in power only. The country is economically dead dead dead. The economic crisis is only at it's very early stages, and from now on it's only going to get worse. Socially, the people are increasingly mad, disillusioned and feel lied to and, at the same time, less and less afraid to speak up. The Nazis are by far the most united and best armed group in the country, except for a theoretical "Ukrainian military" which, at least so far, has no leader and is therefore is not united (might this change in the future? Maybe). Basically, any person who took Social Sciences 101 in college will tell you that the Ukies will now turn on each other, God willing just with words and ideas, but violence is most likely. For the NAF it is far better to wait until Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov or even Odessa turn into lawless cities which nobody really controls then to try to take them by force now. There is even a real possibility that the NAF might be seen as a liberator in these cities if chaos there reaches a "Mad Max" level.

Q: What if NATO sends in forces to prop-up the Junta?

A: LOL! First, I would strongly advise our AngloZionist "partners" (as they say in Russia) to first consult with their German, French and Polish colleges to see if the latter have pleasant memories of being in charge of the Ukraine. Second, I would remind our AngloZionist partners that their move into Iraq and Afghanistan was supposed to be a love fest which would pay for itself. Third, I would also suggest to them that if they did not like Maliki, they might not like Iarosh either. Of course, sending a symbolic force to some maneuvers with whatever is left of the Ukie military is a good idea - it's called "showing the flag" - but to try to do something meaningful by trying to use NATO military forces inside the Ukraine would be very, very, dangerous even if Russia does nothing at all to make things worse.

Q: What about the EU?

A: I think that it lost it's willpower (not that it ever had much!). That ridiculous performance by Hollande has already come crushing down: turns out that his loud statement was an "individual opinion" with no legal meaning. Now, of course, the EU Kindergartgen (Poland, Lithuania, etc.) will keep on being what it is, a Kindergarten, but the adults (Germany, France, etc.) are showing signs of getting fed up. I don't expect them to make a 180 overnight, no, but I just expect them to stop pro-actively making things worse. One of the possible signs of that might be a decrease in the role of the EU and an increase in the role of the OSCE.

Q: And what about Uncle Sam?

A: He is totally stuck in his only mode: demands, threats, condemnation, demands, threats, condemnation, etc. etc. etc. Normally "aggression" is part of that mantra, except that neither the US nor NATO have what it takes to militarily attack Russia. As for the AngloZionist 'deep state' it will continue to try subvert and economically cripple Russia, but as long as Putin is on the Kremlin I don't see that strategy succeeding either.

Q: Sounds like you are optimistic.

A: If so, then only very very cautiously so. I don't see a big drama, much less so a disaster, in what just happened, I think that Russia holds all the good cards in this game, and I see no danger for the people of Novorussia. To those who wanted to ride on a tank straight to the Maidan I can only say that even though I very much share their hopes and dreams, politics is the art of the possible and that smart politics are often slow and time-consuming politics. Maximalism is good for teenagers, not heads of state whose decision affect the lives of millions of people. Thus my temporary and provisional conclusion is this: so far, so good, things are better than they seemed to be only 2 months ago and I see no reason to expect a major reversal in the foreseeable future.

Q: What do you consider the biggest danger for Novorussia right now?

A: Political infighting. I don't know if this is possible right now, but I would like to see the emergence of an undisputed Novorussian leader who would have the official and full support of Strelkov, Zakharchenko, Borodai, Mozgovoi, Kononov, Khodakovski, Tsarev, Bolotov, Gubarev and all the other political and military leaders. This has to be a truly Novorussian leader, not just a "Putin proconsul", a person capable of negotiating with Putin for the interests of the people of Novorussia. I don't mean to suggest that these negotiations cannot be friendly, if only because there can be no Novorussia against Russia, but this leader needs to represent the interests of the Novorussian people, and not the Russian people whose interests are (very well) represented by Putin himself. Right now, the main reason why Putin has so much power in Novorussia is primarily because there is still no real Novorussian political leadership. There is a Novorussian military leadership, and even they probably have to more or less do what the Russian military tells them to do. Far from being weakened by the emergence of such a truly independent and truly Novorussian leader, I think that the Russian-Novorussian alliance would be greatly strengthened by it. Novorussia should not, and cannot, be micro-managed from the Kremlin. In other words, what I hope is for a "Novorussian Nasrallah" who would be a loyal and faithful but sovereign and independent ally of Putin (like Nasrallah is for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), but not a poodle like Blair or Hollande. Novorussia needs a spokesman and negotiator who could really have a mandate to speak for the people of Novorussia. Until that happens, I will always be worried for the future of the people of Novorussia.
*******
That's it for now. I hope that with this self-made Q&A/FAQ I have replied to many, if not most, of the questions, comments and emails I simply had no time to respond to in the past. I also hope to have set the record straight about my own views which have been constantly and systematically mis-represented by either dishonest or plain stupid individuals. If I am succeeded in terminally offending and discouraging the Putin-haters - good. I am tired of dealing with their illiterate rants. Ditto for Saker-haters (- : told you: I am not a nice guy :-), to whom I will add this personal message: stop telling me what I am supposed to do, say, think or write. This blog is like an AA meeting: "take what you like and leave the rest". But don't expect me to change and don't expect me to change my views unless you can show me by facts and logic that I am wrong (in which case I will gratefully welcome the opportunity correct my mistake). Rants just annoy me, especially racist ones, but they won't make me turn into a clone of you.

Sorry if I forgot many good questions or points and please feel free to post more comments or questions, and I will try to answer those which a) do not misrepresent my views (no more strawman) or b) which I have not already answered ad nauseam elsewhere. To those of you who have - correctly - detected my irritation and/or frustration with certain comments I will simply say "guilty as charged" (- : told you: I am definitely not a nice guy :-). I won't even bother justifying myself, either you can or you cannot imagine how frustrating it is for me to deal with, shall we say, some "personality types". But either way there is nothing I could add to affect that. To the many kind, supportive, respectful, generous, educated, wise, interesting, funny, sophisticated, compassionate, intelligent, principled, honest, honorable and otherwise wonderful members of our community I want to express my most heartfelt and sincere gratitude: I simple don't know how I could have made it through these terrible and tragic months without your help, support and kindness.

RFC: Now let's get a good brainstorming session going about any and all the topics above.

Cheers and kind regards,

The Saker
Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 18:28