Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Skybird]

BBC Breaking News:
----------------------

The Russian-installed deputy governor of Kherson, Kirill Stremousov, has been killed, Russian state media say.



They quoted the regional governor's press service as saying he died in a car crash.


Mr Stremousov, 45, was appointed to his job two months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.


He was one of the most prominent proponents of the Russian occupation and became known for aggressive statements on social media.


He was wanted for treason by the Ukrainian police.
-----------------------

[Jimbuna]

Traitor Stremousov is dead, - Russian media

Information appeared on social networks that the traitor Kyrylo Stremousov allegedly died in a road accident.

Readovka.news reports this with reference to its own sources, Censor.NET informs.

"Kyrylo Stremousov, the deputy head of the administration of the Kherson region, died in a road accident, the source of Readovka reported. It is not known exactly how it happened," the message reads.

RT source confirms this information.

"Deputy governor of the Kherson region, Kyrylo Stremousov, died in a road accident near Henichesk, his personal driver informed the WarGonzo project," writes the Telegram channel "Earlier than all".

Currently, there is no official confirmation of the information. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379380

[Jimbuna]

Putin will subsequently visit Donbas, - Peskov

The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, may soon go to the occupied Donbas. Specific terms have not yet been named.

This was stated by the press secretary of the Russian dictator Dmytro Peskov, Censor.NET informs with reference to TASS.

"Putin will later visit Donbas, but so far there are no concrete plans for such a trip," Peskov assures. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379328

[Rockstar]

Recently Captured Russian Military Documents Within Kherson Front Lines Exposes More Information on Russian Military Radio Codeword Use

https://www.numbers-stations.com/rus...-callsign-use/

On July 27th, 2022 the Ukrainian governmental site sprotyv.mod.gov.ua (National Resistance Center) published photos, Russian military tables, glossaries and maps that had been said to been captured from the destroyed Russian enemy within the Kherson district. The documents obviously contain tables for meanings of various codwords, their use in action and what specific unit must use them. The units mentioned there are known to be active in this region. The documents however, does not contain any frequencies.

It seems plausible that these codewords or monoliths are used not only using radio, but also in digital or written form. Documents show that these monolith codewords indeed have special meanings for combat orders. They also show how Russians intend to make situation reports using misleading synonyms, like combat situational report is masked as a simple weather report. In so, documents are valuable to understanding how Russian radio communication works. For these reasons, a manual translation has been done and presented in this post.

To note a few critical notes beforehand; these documents are the instruction manuals. They instruct the Russian units the way they should use these callsigns and codewords. As we know that in case of real combat situation things can go of the hand, especially if conscripts or recruits are involved. In such situations they would rather use clear speak, making this elaborate system ineffective.

[Jimbuna]

Great Britain will hand over batch of winter equipment to AFU, - Prime Minister Sunak

Great Britain will provide a consignment of winter equipment to the Armed Forces of Ukraine to help them defend their country in grueling winter conditions.

This was announced by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Censor.NET informs with reference to Interfax-Ukraine.

"We must continue to support the Ukrainian people in their resistance to Putin's brutality. I am glad that the equipment donated by Great Britain will warm and ensure the safety of the Armed Forces of Ukraine at a time when they are facing a dangerous winter struggle for their country," the head of the British government emphasized.

In particular, it is noted that Great Britain will transfer another 12,000 sleeping sets and 150 heated tents.

"By mid-December, Great Britain will deliver more than 25,000 sets of clothing for extreme cold, so that troops can operate and survive the low temperatures in Ukraine," the British government said.

The extreme cold weather kits are in addition to the 7,000 normal cold weather kits distributed to recruits as part of Operation Interflex. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379348

War in Ukraine will not be resolved by "infantile logic of weapons", "soft power of dialogue" is needed - Pope Francis

Pope Francis said that Russia’s war against Ukraine "cannot be solved with the help of infantile logic of weapons", but a dialogue should be conducted.

This is reported by Censor.NET with reference to the EP.

"I am referring to the raging war, of which tortured Ukraine became a victim, and many other conflicts that will never be resolved by the infantile logic of weapons, but only by the soft power of dialogue," the leader of the Catholic Church said.

The pontiff referred to his recent trip to Bahrain, emphasizing the need to practice dialogue: "In Bahrain, as is customary in the East, people put their hand over their heart when they greet someone. I also did this to make room for those I met. Because without acceptance, dialogue remains empty, it would seem, it remains a matter of ideas, not reality." Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379358

[Jimbuna]

Russian court handed down first sentence for setting fire to Military Commissariat

Former village teacher Farber was imprisoned in the Russian Federation for 3 years for throwing a "Molotov cocktail" at the Military Commissariat

This was reported in the press service of the courts of Udmurtia, Censor.NET informs.

The man fully admitted his guilt, saying that he "wanted to check himself, whether he could throw the bottle at the military commissary and the conscription point, when he saw the fire, he realized what he had done, he regrets what he did." He also refused to testify in the case.

The court, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of Farber's punishment (including his state of health, the presence of minor children), found him guilty of committing two crimes under Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (deliberate destruction and damage to someone else's property causing significant damage, committed by arson with hooligan motives).

At the end of May of this year, a court in Udmurtia arrested Ilya Farber for two months in the case of setting fire to the Military Commissariat and the conscription station.

On the night of May 21, an unknown person threw a "Molotov cocktail" at the building of the Military Committee of the village of Igra, as a result of which one of the rooms burned down. The fire was extinguished. Two days later, another military commissar was set on fire, the fire broke out in the room where official documents and file records of veterans were kept.

The FSB detained Ilya Farber on suspicion of setting fire to buildings, finding two gasoline canisters, wire, potassium permanganate and smartphones in his possession. Later, the detainee confessed to arson.

Ilya Farber is a Moscow artist and former director of a cultural center in the Tver region. In 2013, he was convicted of abuse of office and receiving a bribe. At first, Farber was sentenced to eight years in prison and a fine of three million rubles, then the sentence was reduced by one year. After President Vladimir Putin called Farber's sentence "egregious", the court reduced the sentence to three years. In 2014, he was released on parole.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, attempts have been made to set fire to more than 50 military commissars in Russia, including in the Ryazan, Voronezh, Omsk, Rostov, Moscow, Ivanovo regions and Mordovia. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379364

[Skybird]

BBC Breaking News:
-----------------------
Russia's military has been ordered to pull out of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital captured since the invasion began in February.

Russia's commander in Ukraine, Gen Sergei Surovikin, said it was no longer possible to maintain supplies to the city.

The withdrawal means Russian forces will pull out entirely from the region on the western bank of the River Dnipro.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
------------------------

If true - that is still a big If to me - I wonder whether this is readying a trap or m aking it more inviting, or the result of US-Russian talks: and maybe a move to open the road to negotiations bypassing Putin. It was said that there are American ideas that once Cherson hasa fallen to Ukraine it could more willingly signal readiness for negotiations from a position of strength. But that is only my own speculation so far. It could also be that the Russians plan to blow of that damn once the ukrainains have moved in. In any way, leaving Cherson is a loss of face to Putin, hence my idea that maybe this is a development where he gets bypassed, I cannot imagine he allowed this retreat. Which would indicate a rebellion, sort of. But that also is just my speculation.

[Jimbuna]

Russia is open to negotiations with Ukraine, - Zakharova

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stated that Russia is allegedly open to negotiations with Ukraine.

This was said by the spokeswoman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Maria Zakharova, Censor.NET informs with reference to "Ria-Novosti".

"Russia, as before, is open to negotiations with Ukraine - of course, taking into account the current realities," she said.

Here it is worth reminding that President Volodymyr Zelensky clearly made it clear to the Russians that negotiations with them will be possible only when the occupying forces leave all the captured territories of our state. But he also explained that the further conversation will also depend on how the Russian occupiers will leave our country: if it will be a voluntary exit, then this is one type of dialogue, a somewhat softer transition from war to diplomacy, but if they are knocked out hence the Ukrainian troops are a completely different type.

Earlier, the Deputy Head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Andriy Rudenko, said that the Russian Federation was allegedly only waiting for Ukraine's "good will" to return to negotiations. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379387

Germany handed over new aid package to Ukraine: armored vehicles, missiles for air defense and defense against drones

Germany provided Ukraine with an additional package of military aid.

As Censor.NET informs with reference to Suspilne, this is stated on the website of the German government.

The military aid package included:

30 "Dingo" all-terrain vehicles;
missiles for the Iris-T air defense system;
18 sensors and "jammers" for protection against drones;
18 reconnaissance drones;
5 M1070 Oshkosh heavy-duty semi-trailers;
3 loaders.
Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379390

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Kyiv cannot like that apparently russians and Americans seem to very well talk to each other about the future of this all. Kyiv must be aware of that it hardly can continue the war without the massive military aid by the US. And its also not appreciable that the two others are talking about the ukraine and not with the ukraine.
General Hodges said they could retake Crimea next summer.
The chances for that the West betrays Ukraine, are mounting with every month now.

Indeed, the hard part about fighting 'Merika's favorite form of of warfare, Proxywar, is being the proxy ie: thoroughly expendible! and well away from US Monroe Doctrine interests. Nikita Khrushchev gave the Crimea to Ukraine and was a Ukrainian himself, highly improper imho. But at least ol' Nikita knew when to withdraw from his proxy war over Castro's Cuba in exchange for nuclear missiles removed from Turkey. The war will be proxied 'till 'Vlad the Grate' is deceased, either from alleged disease or a Makarov to the occiput in the Moscow woods, as he is proving to be an embarrassment to Mother Russia. President Zelenski, in today's WSJ, has said "he's open to genuine negotiations". He seeks reparations for invasion, return of territory, and tribunal for war crimes. Russia will not do any such 'genuine' negotiating as long as it believes it can outlast NATO, sap western support by escalating the war with conscript non-russian peasants troops from its myriad 'republics' under the primary Stalinst-Russian tenet of warfare: "Numbers(of expendible peasant conscripts) have a cachet of ther own." My only negotiating point is to have 'the Donald' join Vlad in the Moscow woods for allowing Russia and China, currently waiting-in-the-wings over Taiwan, the temerity to even engage in territorial aggrandizement of sovereign states in the 21 century.

[Jimbuna]

China will strengthen readiness of army for war - Xi Jinping

China intends to strengthen the combat readiness of its army due to the unstable security situation in the world.

This was stated by the President of the People's Republic of China, Xi Jinping, Censor.NET reports with reference to Ukrinform.

"China will comprehensively strengthen the training and preparation of its military for any war," said Jinping.

According to him, "China's security is increasingly uncertain and unstable."

Such a statement by Xi Jinping was broadcast by the state-run CCTV channel on Tuesday.

The President of China expressed the opinion that the security of the country is becoming "increasingly unstable and uncertain". Source: https://censor.net/en/n3379284

[les green01]

i think also the countries that been supplying equipment and aid to Ukraine should send the bill to putin and russia or give subsim a mega yacht we could have meetings in style then

[Dargo]

'Everything we have in Europe of weapons is in Ukraine. We can still fight for about 24 hours with what remains'
With fighting possibly being put on pause for a while during the winter, this seems the right time to take stock of eight months of war in Ukraine. How do the pawns stand on the blood-soaked battlefield? How has small but brave Ukraine managed to subdue the Russian Goliath? How can the conflict end? And is he throwing The Bomb or not? We dive into the trenches with former Lieutenant General Mart de Kruif, former commander of the Netherlands Army, and one of the clearest-phrased - sorry, Roger Housen - and best-informed military analysts.

When the Russians invaded Ukraine with a large force on Feb. 24, the expectation was that they would be in Kiev in no time. Surprisingly, that did not happen. Where did things go wrong for the Russian military?
Mart de Kruif: "The Russians attacked across a lot of different axes. That means you can't really make a fist anywhere, because you can't provide air support everywhere at once. You only choose such an approach if you think your opponent is weak. It is clear that the Russians did not expect any major opposition, and assumed that the Ukrainian people would be neutral. They severely underestimated their opponent."

Even then, it remains curious that the much weaker Ukrainian armed forces were not immediately overrun by the Russians.
De Kruif: "In war, it is not only about how many tanks and cannons you have, but also about how you deploy those resources. There is also the mental component. I'm talking about leadership, professionalism and motivation. The latter has been horribly underestimated by Russia. While, it is often precisely the determining factor in a war. After five days, the Russians learned that they were suffering enormous losses because they were being attacked from all sides. "What surprised the Russians enormously was the quality of leadership in the Ukrainian army, even at the lowest levels. Ukrainian commanders are given an enormous amount of freedom: they get to decide the best way to achieve their objectives. Whereas in the Russian army, everything is controlled from Moscow, which makes everything very unwieldy. Hence, the Russians took an operational break after four weeks. Even Putin saw that this was in no way sustainable for his troops."

The Ukrainian army leadership deliberately sacrificed territory in the early stages and allowed the Russians to advance far. A poisoned gift: thus, the distance to their supply lines became greater and greater, and the Ukrainians could not only attack the Russians' vanguard, but supplies in the rear also became an easy target.
De Kruif: "The Ukrainians very cleverly exploited those tactical lapses. The Russians very consistently assumed an ideal scenario in their planning. They had no alternative plan in case things went wrong. "After four weeks, the Russians couldn't operate the way they wanted because of logistical problems. They were short of ammunition and fuel. They suffered huge losses because they were so vulnerable. Their attack was bleeding to death. They had taken a gamble to occupy as much territory as possible in as short a time as possible, and it turned out wrong."

Surely you wouldn't expect this kind of rookie mistake from the Russians.
De Kruif: "The question is: Did anyone in the Kremlin dare to contradict Putin? How did the expectation arise that Ukraine would not fight back? That assumption is based on the experience of 2014 (when Russia occupied Crimea and war broke out in eastern Ukraine, ed.), but in the meantime Ukrainian troops have been trained by the United Kingdom and the United States. While their army made a huge leap forward, the Russians continued in the old way. And history teaches: an army that loses one war often wins the next, because you learn from your mistakes."

Another blunder: in all recent conflicts, the attacker tried to gain air superiority as quickly as possible. This way, you not only make the opponent wingless, but you can also provide air support to ground forces. However, the Russians never succeeded in conquering the airspace.
De Kruif: "The quality of the Russian air force is much less than many had thought. A source at NATO told me that the Russians' aircraft are very poorly maintained. Less than 50 percent of them are deployable. "Russian fighter pilots also make half as many flying hours as NATO pilots. So they have much less experience. They did fly over Syria, but there was no anti-aircraft defense there and no enemy. That was kind of a playground. This situation was new to them, and you saw that: cooperation with the troops on the ground was very poor."

In recent weeks, the Russians have begun massive bombing of power plants, why the turnaround?
De Kruif: "Again, that has to do with that optimistic outlook of the Russians. If you want to annex a country, it makes no sense to lay the power plants in ruins. "Sergei Surovikin, the new Russian commander, has been doing just that since taking office. This is a deliberate campaign to create flows of refugees into Europe, because the Russians see that as our Achilles heel."

Meanwhile, Surovikin is already the third Russian commander-in-chief in Ukraine. Does such a personnel change actually have a major impact on the ground?
De Kruif: "No. I often say: you can be a brilliant general, but if your sergeant on the ground is useless, you will not win any war. Success on the battlefield is determined by the sergeant's will to fight. With a new commander-in-chief, the campaign may be different, but it changes little about the motivation of the soldiers on the ground."

Another important phase of the war was the counteroffensive launched by Ukraine in early September. In this, a surprising amount of territory was conquered in a short time and Russian troops had to flee headlong. Were you similarly surprised by the Ukrainian advance?
De Kruif: "Not quite. You noticed for some time that Ukraine had taken over the initiative on the ground. Moreover, they masterfully misled Russia beforehand. The Ukrainians first sent reinforcements to the town of Kherson, to the south. That forced the Russians to respond and bring troops to Kherson as well. Then the Ukrainians broke through on the other side of the country, near Kharkiv. "How Ukraine managed that? They kept three brigades over 200 kilometers away from the front, so the Russians couldn't see exactly where they were. Within 48 hours, they moved them to the front line near Kharkiv. The Russians arrived hopelessly late. The Ukrainians were able to advance quickly because there was little depth in the Russian defenses. Their rear guard had been completely eroded: those troops had been sent to Kherson as reinforcements. Once the Ukrainians had broken through the front line, they were able to advance deep with their tanks."

It still remains bizarre that the Russians foolishly fell for that. Deceiving the opponent is just about the oldest trick in the military manual. The Chinese general Sun Tzu already talked about it extensively in the fifth century B.C. in his standard work The Art of War.
De Kruif: "It is certainly not new, but the problem lies in how the Russian army is organized. I can't imagine that nobody had seen this coming, but who would dare to say it? The Russians have a very centralized way of leadership where people don't want to hear bad news. That paralyzes the troops on the ground."

According to some analysts, the Ukrainian counteroffensive is a turning point, but not the final coup de grâce. Far more important is Kherson, which is now being battled. If the Ukrainians succeed in taking the city, the strategically important Crimea peninsula will be more or less cut off. That is why Putin is said to have ordered that his troops not be allowed to withdraw from the city.
De Kruif: "That's all true, but I don't see how Ukraine could retake Crimea. I also don't think Washington wants that: it would mean a new escalation in the conflict. The importance of Cherson is more at the tactical level. If you conquer that city, you displace all the Russians west of the Dnieper. That 1-kilometer-wide river then, like a defensive line, cuts the entire country in two. Moreover, it also gives you back the access road to Odessa. And that, after the loss of Mariupol, is Ukraine's only remaining major port for grain exports. In the coming weeks, the fight will be about that too. "After that, we really enter another phase of the war. Winter is coming, there will be less movement, and then both countries will rearm. Putin will switch his economy to a war industry. He can afford it, because he still has his income from oil. He will rearrange and move his military. Ukraine, on the other hand, is totally dependent on aid from the West. About 10 billion euros a month flows into the country to keep the economy afloat, and in addition there is the military support. "Putin knows that this dependence on the West is Ukraine's biggest weakness. And he is doing everything he can to undermine that unanimity, especially in Europe. Everything he has done to drive up energy prices is just to play us apart. With the mobilization, annexation and conversion to a war economy, Putin is actually waging an all-out war. In this, time is ticking in his favor. A winter is coming now, and another one next year. He wants to put the conflict on the back burner and see how long the West keeps up its support for Ukraine."

Ex-CIA director and former four-star general David Petraeus was very clear in a recent interview: according to him, the current situation is irreversible for the Russians.
De Kruif: "True. Especially because the motivation of the Russian soldier in this war is beyond saving. Then you can still bring up military equipment all you want."

So that means Putin can no longer win the war?
De Kruif: "I think so, too. Locally, the Russians might have another success. But what did Putin want in the beginning? In my opinion: take Kiev, occupy the entire east ánd the coastal strip up to Odessa. That did not succeed, and will not succeed again."

The Russians have deployed on heavy artillery with so-called dumb bombs since the beginning of the war. What is the military gain of this?
De Kruif: "According to Russian military doctrine, you should not bypass a defense, but break through with brute force. That idea dates back to World War II. At the beginning of this conflict, that approach worked: the Russians gained the upper hand because the range of their artillery was greater than the Ukrainian. That changed with the arrival of the American HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, ed.) and other Western weapons. Then the battle tilted in favor of the Ukrainians."

Why is the HIMARS such an effective weapon?
De Kruif: "The HIMARS is actually nothing more than a mobile missile launcher, which takes out targets from 80 kilometers away, with less than 1 meter deviation. That's unprecedented precision. If you have good intelligence - which plays into Ukraine's hands, because they're fighting on their own turf and have eyes everywhere - you can fire targeted very quickly. The Ukrainians did that very consistently and consistently: they flattened countless logistical lines and command posts. That's how they cut off the Russians from their supply. The HIMARS is also a very mobile system. It is shoot-and-scoot: you fire, and you quickly drive away again. That way you don't even give the opposition a chance to fire back."

How long can the Russians keep up their massive missile attacks? According to British intelligence chief Jeremy Fleming, the Russians are almost out of their supply of precision missiles. With the Western boycott, it won't be simple to produce those missiles anymore either.
De Kruif: "For a cruise missile you need microchips, and the Russians are having trouble getting them. So they will rarely deploy those precision missiles anymore. You could say: the dumber the bomb, the more the Russians have of it. After all, they can produce them in-house."

What about the Americans' supplies? Those may not be inexhaustible either.
De Kruif: "Absolutely not. Europe is already empty. We in the Netherlands can still fight for about 24 hours (laughs). Everything we have is in Ukraine. But America does not have a bottomless reserve either. What is produced now goes to Ukraine or serves to replenish its own supplies, not to NATO allies. Europe will have to wait a very long time for replenishments."

What is the role of the Americans now? At first they were somewhat reluctant, now they seem to be getting more and more involved in the conflict. Is their support limited to arms supplies and training of troops, or are they also strategically helping to set the lines?
De Kruif: "That is difficult to assess. I see very strongly the hand of the US and UK in the operations that Ukraine is conducting, but that's because their soldiers are trained there. I am also reassured that the Ukrainians will not be surprised by large troop concentrations from the Russians: the intelligence about that is passed on to them in advance."

How important is this intelligence?
De Kruif: "At the beginning of the war, American President Joe Biden said, 'The question is not whether the Russians are going to attack, but when.' While we in Europe kept believing until the last day that it would not happen. That shows how solid American intelligence is. Still, I don't think they help determine tactics. You can't actually do that without having Americans on the ground. They won't do that because it's too dangerous. Nor is it necessary, because Ukraine can actually do it themselves. They also have a very capable intelligence apparatus. So the Americans will mainly provide strategic intelligence: what are the Russians going to do in the coming weeks? What is happening on the ground, and how can Ukraine respond in a timely manner?

The chances of Putin reaching for nuclear weapons, including a smaller tactical nuclear bomb, are currently considered small by most experts. Indeed, the impact on the battlefield would be very limited, and most importantly, Russia would lose the support of whole or half allies such as China and India.
De Kruif: "I'm not so in favor of a division between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. It's like being pregnant: you're pregnant or not. You deploy a nuclear weapon or not. That is also clearly the line the Americans take: any use of a nuclear weapon, including a tactical nuclear bomb, leads to armageddon. Talking too much about such a tactical nuclear weapon has the effect of lowering the threshold. So we should not do that. "The effect on the battlefield is limited, it is true. Using such a tactical nuclear weapon on the front line is very difficult, because the own troops are there too. "I have also heard people say that Putin may want to impress with a small nuclear explosion over the Black Sea, as a deterrent. But then, apart from the radiation, you create an electromagnetic pulse that knocks out all the computers in Turkey. Then again, Erdogan won't be happy about that. "The bottomline is: any deployment of a nuclear weapon has huge consequences. I have no proof of it, but it seems perfectly logical to me that China made a phone call to the Kremlin to draw a red line. The deployment of a nuclear weapon would collapse world trade and lead to a huge recession, and China would be the biggest victim of that."

Problematic, according to some observers, is that Putin's conventional power sucks. This forces him to rely more on non-conventional weapons. And, however small, the chances of him reaching for a nuclear weapon rise again.
De Kruif: Look, Putin is addicted to power. He knows: if I deploy a nuclear weapon, it may take a day, a week or a year, but then it's over for me. Although Putin does not always act rationally, in our eyes then, I still think that deploying a nuclear weapon is not an option for him. The only thing that has worked for eighty years is to say: if you use one, you will get ten in return. That's the morbidity of the world we live in."

The Americans release little about their possible response to the deployment of a nuclear weapon. One tip of the iceberg was lifted, again, by David Petraeus: in response to a nuclear weapon, he said, the U.S. would destroy all Russian forces in Ukraine, and completely sink its fleet in the Black Sea.
De Kruif: David Petraeus was my old boss in Afghanistan, I know him well. He doesn't just say things like that. It wouldn't surprise me if he was whispered in by Biden or the Pentagon to make it briefly clear how severe the consequences would be for Russia. You can also see Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan in that context. That is no coincidence either. Lately, the U.S. is again very clearly playing the card of deterrence. And that strikes me as a sensible option."

The US and its European allies are showing great restraint, but - despite all their tough talk - to some extent so are the Russians: they have yet to bombard supply lines in Poland to disrupt Western logistical support.
De Kruif: "If they attack just one more target in Poland, they will have NATO all over them. And with what they have already shown, the Russian military is not capable of taking sides with the US. I am deliberately not talking about the European part of NATO, because that has been neglected for 10 years. Moreover, they have already sent just about everything they have to Ukraine."

Does such a major conflict also say something about how wars will be fought in the future? For example, after the Russian offensive stalled, some analysts cried out that the tank has gone altogether.
De Kruif: "I always have to laugh a little at such discussions. The interesting thing is: the basic principles of warfare don't actually change that much. The principles Carl von Clausewitz described in his book On War in the 19th century still apply today. Hold terrain, screw the opponent, have a good plan and persevere: then you will get very far."

Russian doctrine is betting on so-called hybrid warfare. But we haven't heard much about cyber attacks. Have there been no attempts? Or have they all been skillfully repelled?
De Kruif: "We know that this cyberwar is going on and that both countries have a lot of capabilities in that area. We just don't see how that is leading to results in the field so far. What we do know is that the Russians have tried to hack Elon Musk's Starlink satellite system, to no avail. The Ukrainian military uses that to communicate."

Admiral Tony Radakin, the head of Britain's armed forces, recently warned that Russia could attack Ukraine and Europe by using missiles to take out satellites. Last November, the Russian Defense Ministry conducted another test by blowing up an old satellite with a rocket in space. So the danger of a space war is real.
De Kruif: "Certainly. If the Russians were to destroy European or Ukrainian satellites, it would have no effect militarily, because the American satellites would still be flying there. And the Russians won't dare touch that. But that space, like cyber, will become a factor in the future is obvious. Within NATO, above all, we should not organize that defense nationally. I think that is one of the first lessons to be learned from this war."

Putin recently proceeded with a partial mobilization. The invasion force of 170,000 would be reinforced by 300,000 troops. Many doubt that will make a difference. One analyst even suggested that the combination of frustrated soldiers forced to stay on the front lines against their will and a host of frightened, barely trained civilians could lead to desertion or even mutiny.
De Kruif: "I have nothing to add to that (laughs). Those mobilized men represent no added value. By the way, the first new troops have already been deployed in the Donbas: as expected, that proved to be little successful."

Wesley Clark, an ex-general and once NATO commander-in-chief, said that even in these high-tech times, well-trained soldiers who sense each other perfectly are still the backbone of an army. Forging such units takes months or even years. For that reason alone, he said, the hastily mobilized new Russian troops are utterly worthless.
De Kruif: "Clark is 100 percent right. You can't occupy a country through a cyber attack. You will always need boots on the ground. Men willing to fight in trenches for every morass of ground."

Some say the war will literally and figuratively freeze over the winter, but others expect no pause. In eastern Ukraine, the war has been going on since 2014, and fighting has continued there all these years. How do you assess those chances?
De Kruif: "Large operations will no longer take place. Especially with your logistics, you can't get off the major roads in the winter. But that doesn't mean there won't be more fighting locally."

Is there a past conflict to which this war can be compared? Some military experts see parallels with the Vietnam War, where the Americans set out to save the population from communism, had grossly underestimated the resistance, and had to walk away bleakly despite great military superiority.
De Kruif: "As I said, an army that loses a war often wins the next war. That is also a concern. The Russian army will learn a lot of lessons from this. In five or 10 years there will be a different and better Russian army."

Also, have you ever thought of a scenario where Putin would have done this a year and a half earlier, when Trump was still president of the US? How would he have reacted?
De Kruif: "Trump was wrong on many issues, but not on two: he felt that we in Europe were far too dependent on Russia for our energy, and that we urgently needed to start spending 2 percent of GDP on military resources. "What would have happened, I don't know. I think Putin's trigger for this raid was the withdrawal of the U.S. and Europe from Afghanistan. I think he thought after that chaotic exit: wait a minute, they're just giving up Afghanistan. If I have a window to go into Ukraine it is now, because I have an opponent who is showing signs of weakness."

Everyone wonders how long this can go on. But research shows that wars rarely have a clear winner, and often turn into a frozen conflict that continues to fester for years. How likely is it that we are heading for such a scenario in Ukraine as well?
"It is in the interest of all of us, though, not to let this turn into a frozen conflict. I really hope, as a military man and as a human being, that China and the U.S. take responsibility and make sure both sides sit down at the table. Because this war will not be decided on the battlefield. So a diplomatic solution will have to be sought. Perhaps the winter and limited operational activity offers an opportunity for that. Both sides will have to hand something in and bring something home, and that will require a lot of creativity. But it is necessary. Because a frozen conflict with NATO rubbing up against Russia is not something you want to sustain for long."

https://www.demorgen.be/oorlog-in-oe...ijft~b09391e5/

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

BBC Breaking News:
-----------------------
Russia's military has been ordered to pull out of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital captured since the invasion began in February.

Russia's commander in Ukraine, Gen Sergei Surovikin, said it was no longer possible to maintain supplies to the city.

The withdrawal means Russian forces will pull out entirely from the region on the western bank of the River Dnipro.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
------------------------

If true - that is still a big If to me - I wonder whether this is readying a trap or m aking it more inviting, or the result of US-Russian talks: and maybe a move to open the road to negotiations bypassing Putin. It was said that there are American ideas that once Cherson hasa fallen to Ukraine it could more willingly signal readiness for negotiations from a position of strength. But that is only my own speculation so far. It could also be that the Russians plan to blow of that damn once the ukrainains have moved in. In any way, leaving Cherson is a loss of face to Putin, hence my idea that maybe this is a development where he gets bypassed, I cannot imagine he allowed this retreat. Which would indicate a rebellion, sort of. But that also is just my speculation.

The left bank of the Dnipro is lower, just saying. No signs that Russia is leaving Kherson without a fight a part of the Russians is preserved in the city, and additional reserves are charged to the region Ukraine is liberating territories based on intelligence data.

[Jimbuna]

[mapuc]

Putin prepares to test Satan-II nuclear missile, Daily Express.

“Putin said that the missile would make the enemies of Russia think. And Rogozin said in May that about 50 missiles were in mass production and would be ready soon.”

https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status...99810280226816

Markus