Empty Quiver
By William Schryver – imetatronink – December 21, 2023
As the sun sets here at the Winter Solstice of 2023, I would like to draw attention yet again to what, in my estimation, is one of the most strategically significant battlefield humiliations inflicted upon NATO over the course of the Ukraine War: the progressively comprehensive defeat of their precision-guided strike missile inventory — ATACMS, HARMS, JDAMS, GMLRS fired from HIMARS, cruise missiles (Storm Shadow and SCALP).
The Russians have demonstrated that they can routinely shoot down ANY species of strike missile the US/NATO can field against them — not all of them all of the time, but most of them most of the time.
And they get better and better at it as time goes on.
Indeed, over the past few months it is increasingly becoming “all of them most of the time”.
As Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported earlier this week:
“We are using air defence systems in a comprehensive manner during the special military operation. This significantly improved their responsiveness and strike range. Over the last six months, we have shot down 1,062 of NATO’s HIMARS rockets, short-range and cruise missiles, and guided bombs.”
No other military on the planet has previously attested this level of capability. The US does not have it, and is at least a decade away from developing it.
And, it is important to bear in mind that the precision-guided systems the US and its NATO allies have provided for Ukraine are representative of the best their own militaries could deploy in a conflict with Russia.
The current front-line inventory of US tactical ballistic missiles and sea- and air-launched cruise missiles would present no greater technical challenge for Russian air defenses than what they have already seen and defeated in the Ukraine War.
The significance of this battlefield development defies exaggeration. It alters the war-fighting calculus that has been assumed for many decades.
Against Russia at least, the Pentagon must know that the success of a large conventional strike missile package is far from assured. There is no doubt some damaging hits would be inflicted, but Russian retaliatory capacity would not be appreciably affected, and the subsequent Russian counterstrike against NATO targets would be devastating — for the simple reason that US/NATO air defenses are not even remotely as effective as their Russian counterparts. In fact, they are rookie league in comparison. They would be as utterly befuddled as was the Patriot system in Kiev the night the Russians launched a very modest attack against it.
It would also be logical to assume that China, if not as fully proficient as Russia in every respect, is very likely not far behind.
It is also increasingly apparent that Iran has made great strides in the same direction.
As I have noted repeatedly in recent months: for the declining empire and its decrepit vassals, there are no easy wars left to fight.
UK about to escalate naval tensions in Black Sea
By Lucas Leiroz | December 20, 2023
The UK appears to be close to launching a new dangerous anti-Russian naval policy. According to reports, the British Navy will send new combat ships and heavy weapons to the Black Sea in order to help Ukraine strengthen its regional presence there. It appears that a formal agreement between both countries will be signed in the near future, setting out the terms for naval cooperation, which will obviously result in increased tensions with Russia.
The data was published by The Telegraph. The outlet’s sources claim that the agreement between the UK and Ukraine will be signed “in the coming weeks”, generating expanded British participation in the activities of the Ukrainian Navy. The Black Sea, which is currently a conflict zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, is expected to receive a large number of British military ships that will support Kiev in hostilities.
The news comes shortly after the British Ministry of Defense announced the sending of at least two mine clearing ships to Ukraine. The measure was taken within the framework of a coalition of naval support for Kiev that also involves Norway. As the UK is one of the most active sponsors of the Ukrainian regime, constantly sending packages of weapons and equipment to Kiev, the delivery was not seen as something “surprising” at the time, but, apparently, London still plans to further deepen its interventionism, starting to participate in even more actions in the Black Sea.
According to anonymous sources mentioned by the newspaper, the new agreement would also make it possible to send heavy ground and air weapons, with the aim of making Ukrainian units close to the Black Sea more “interoperable” with NATO. More modern and lethal versions of British ship-based Brimstone missiles are also expected to supply the Ukrainian Navy, giving it more capability for the high-intensity fighting that is currently taking place in the region.
In addition, it is planned to advance in the training of commando troops focused on amphibious assault and mine-clearing operations. The UK has been training many Ukrainian troops since the beginning of the Russian military intervention. It is estimated that more than 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers were trained by the British last year as part of the so-called “Operation Interflex”. Now, it is believed that, under the new agreement, the Navy’s special forces training programs will be expanded.
Unconfirmed rumors also indicate that the new security pact between the UK and Kiev will have as one of its objectives to provide guarantees to Ukraine regarding post-conflict British aid. Faced with Ukraine’s evident military defeat, concerns are growing about possible aid packages to rebuild Ukraine in a post-war scenario, which is why Kiev officials are expected to pressure their partners to include guarantees in this regard in new agreements signed with Western countries.
In fact, all these measures seem irresponsible and anti-strategic from a realistic point of view. It is more than clear that no Western aid will be able to make Ukraine reverse the military scenario of the conflict, which is absolutely controlled by the Russian Federation. Defeats on the battlefield, territorial losses and the humiliating failure of their attempted “counteroffensive” have proven that Kiev’s forces have no chance of defeating their adversaries, and that it is pointless to continue supporting the neo-Nazi regime with weapons, money and equipment.
The situation is particularly delicate for Ukraine in the Black Sea, where Russia is focused on destroying all enemy targets, including suspicious commercial ships and critical infrastructure. Kiev has been using the region’s ports to store weapons, as well as transporting military equipment and troops via ships disguised as commercial vessels. After suffering several attacks against its territory due to the Ukrainian military use of civilian naval infrastructure, Moscow decided to consider such suspicious ships and ports as legitimate targets.
In this sense, the UK may be making a serious mistake by planning to expand its participation in Black Sea’s hostilities. British ships sent to the Ukrainian Navy will be seen by the Russians as a priority target and it is likely that most of the vessels will be neutralized even before they begin to be operated by Kiev’s forces. Moscow is not willing to tolerate any foreign interventionism in the region and is focused on preventing further attacks on Russian civilians from Ukrainian units in the Black Sea, so there will certainly be efforts to destroy all equipment sent by London.
Instead of creating new military agreements and aid packages, the West should simply encourage Kiev to negotiate peace, ending hostilities without further damage.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Ukraine joins NATO’s Arctic projects against Russia
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | DECEMBER 19, 2023
In a plea earlier this month to Republicans not to block further military aid to Ukraine, US President Joe Biden warned that if Russia is victorious, then President Vladimir Putin will not stop and will attack a NATO country. Biden’s remark has drawn a sharp rebuke from Putin when he said, “This is absolutely absurd. I believe that President Biden is aware of this, this is merely a figure of speech to support his incorrect strategy against Russia.”
Putin added that Russia has no interest in fighting with NATO countries, as they “have no territorial claims against each other” and Russia does not want to “sour relations with them.” Moscow senses that a new US narrative is struggling to be born out of the debris of the old narrative on Ukraine war.
To jog memory, on 24 February, during a White House press conference on the first day of Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, Biden said western sanctions were designed not to prevent invasion but to punish Russia after invading “so the people of Russia know what he (Putin) has brought on them. That is what this is all about.”
A month later, on 26 March Biden, speaking in Warsaw, blurted out, “For God’s sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power.” These and similar remarks that followed, especially from Britain, reflected a US strategy for regime change in Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot.
This strategy dates back to the 1990s and was actually at the core of the expansion of NATO along Russia’s borders, from the Baltics to Bulgaria. The Syrian conflict and covert activities of US NGOs to foment unrest in Russia were offshoots of the strategy. At least since 2015 after the coup in Kiev, CIA was overseeing a secret intensive training programme for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel. Succinctly put, the US set a trap for Russia to get it bogged down in a long insurgency, the presumption being the longer the Ukrainians can sustain the insurgency and keep Russian military bogged down, the more likely is the end of the Putin regime.
The crux of the matter today is that Russia defeated the US strategy and not only seized the initiative in the war but also rubbished the sanctions regime. The dilemma in the Beltway narrows down to how to keep Russia as an external enemy so that the West’s often fractious member states will continue to rally under US leadership.
What comes to mind is a sardonic remark by Soviet Academician Georgy Arbatov who was advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, to an elite group of senior US officials even as the curtain was coming down on the Cold War in 1987: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you -– we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”
Unless black humour in this cardinal truth is properly understood, the entire US strategy since the 1990s to rebuff the efforts of Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and early Putin to establish non-adversarial relations with the West cannot be grasped.
Put differently, if the US’ post-cold war Russia strategy has not worked, it is because of a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, Washington needs Russia as an enemy to provide internal unity within the western alliance, while on the other hand, it also needs Russia as a cooperative, subservient junior partner in the struggle against China.
The US hopes to draw down in Ukraine and stave off defeat by leaving behind a “frozen conflict” which it’s free to revisit later at a time of its choice, but in the meanwhile, is increasingly eyeing the Arctic lately as the new theatre to entrap Russia in a quagmire. The induction of Finland into NATO (and Sweden to follow) means that the unfinished business of Ukraine’s membership, which Russia thwarted, can be fulfilled by other means.
After meeting Biden at the White House last Tuesday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky headed for Oslo on October 13 on a fateful visit to forge his country’s partnership in NATO projects to counter Russia in the Arctic. In Oslo, Zelensky participated in a summit of the 5 Nordic countries to discuss “issues of cooperation in the field of defence and security.” The summit took place against the backdrop of the US reaching agreements with Finland and Sweden on the use of their military infrastructure by the Pentagon.
The big picture is that the US is encouraging Nordic countries to get Ukraine to participate in strengthening NATO’s Arctic borders. One may wonder what is the “additionality” that a decrepit military like Ukraine’s can bring into NATO. Herein hangs a tale. Simply put, although Ukraine has no direct access to the Arctic, it can potentially bring in an impressive capability to undertake subversive activities inside Russian territory in a hybrid war against Russia.
In a strange coincidence, the Pentagon recently prepared the Starlink satellite system for use in the Arctic, which was used by Ukrainian military for staging attacks on the Crimean Bridge, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and strategic assets on Russian territory. The US’ agreement with Finland and Sweden would give the Pentagon access to a string of naval and air bases and airfields as well as training and testing grounds along the Russian border.
Several hundred thousand Ukrainian citizens are presently domiciled in the Nordic countries who are open to recruitment for “an entire army of saboteurs like the one that Germany collected during the war between Finland and the USSR in 1939-1940 on the islands of Lake Ladoga,” as a Russian military expert told Nezavisimaya Gazeta recently.
Russia’s naval chief Admiral Nikolai Evmenov also pointed out recently that “the strengthening of the military presence of the united NATO armed forces in the Arctic is already an established fact, which indicates the bloc’s transition to practical actions to form military force instruments to deter Russia in the region.” In fact, Russia’s Northern Fleet is forming a marine brigade tasked with the fight against saboteurs to ensure the safety of the new Northern Sea Route, coastal military and industrial infrastructure in the Arctic.
Suffice to say, no matter Ukraine’s defeat in the US’ proxy war with Russia, Zelensky’s use for the US’ geo-strategy remains. From Oslo, Zelensky made an unannounced visit on December 14 to a US Army base in Germany. Analysts who see Zelensky as a spent force had better revise their opinion — that is, unless the power struggle in Kiev exacerbates and Zelensky gets overthrown in a coup or a colour revolution, which seems improbable so long as Biden is in the White House and Hunter Biden is on trial.
The bottom line is that Biden’s new narrative demonising Russia for planning an attack on NATO can be seen from multiple angles. At the most obvious level, it aims to hustle the Congress on the pending bill for $61 billion military aid to Ukraine. Of course, it also distracts attention from the defeat in the war. But, most important, the new narrative is intended to rally the US’ transatlantic allies who are increasingly disillusioned with the outcome of the war and nervous that US involvement in Europe may dwindle as it turns to Indo-Pacific.
When Putin reacts harshly that Biden’s new narrative is “absurd”, he is absolutely right insofar as Russia’s focus is on things far more important than waging a senseless continental war in Europe. After all, it was one of the founding fathers of the USA, James Monroe who said that a king without power is an absurdity.
NATO troops directly involved in Ukraine conflict – Russia
RT | December 19, 2023
Several NATO member states have boots on the ground in the Ukraine conflict, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has claimed. He alleged that Western military personnel are operating certain weapons systems, and that hundreds of satellites belonging to the US-led military bloc are providing Kiev with surveillance.
Speaking at a meeting of Defense Ministry officials on Tuesday, where President Vladimir Putin was also present, Shoigu stated that “NATO service members are directly operating air defense systems, tactical ballistic missiles, and multiple launch rocket systems” in Ukraine. He cited radio intercepts featuring English and Polish speakers. According to the minister, Western officers are also playing an active role in preparing Ukrainian military operations as well as training troops, both in their home countries and in Ukraine.
Russian officials have repeatedly warned that ever-deepening Western involvement in the conflict unnecessarily increases the chances of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Moscow.
The Russian defense chief went on to claim that more than 5,000 foreign fighters have been killed since hostilities broke out in February 2022, with 1,427 Polish, 466 US, and 344 UK nationals among them.
“Working in the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ interest are 410 NATO military and dual-purpose space devices,” Shoigu estimated.
He also lauded Russia’s defense industry for ramping up production in the past 18 months and helping prevent ammunition shortages on the front lines. “Despite the sanctions, we are manufacturing more high-tech weaponry than NATO countries,” Shoigu continued.
The minister concluded by stating that “as of today, the Russian army is the best-prepared and most combat-ready in the world, armed with cutting-edge weapons tested in combat.”
Putin insisted at the same meeting that the West’s efforts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia have failed.
Speaking to the Ukrainian branch of US state-run broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) on Friday, Kiev’s former ambassador to the UK, Vadim Prystaiko, claimed that Britain is developing plans to potentially deploy troops to Ukraine.
The diplomat, who was fired after criticizing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, went on to suggest that while Western officials will deny any such plans, foreign deployments are still possible under certain circumstances.
Will political West transfer $300 billion of stolen Russian assets to Kiev regime?
By Drago Bosnic | December 19, 2023
When the political West insists on the so-called “rules-based world order“, it’s perhaps the most laughable claim of our time, as this supposed “international community” doesn’t abide by its own rules and laws which formally state that private property is protected. The nominally capitalist power pole has no problem using what it usually calls a “communist practice” of illegal confiscation of the said property. In the aftermath of the special military operation (SMO), the United States and its numerous vassals and satellite states illegally froze hundreds of billions in Russian foreign exchange (forex) reserves. Estimates vary, but the most commonly cited number amounts to approximately $300 billion in assets.
The original idea was to cause an artificial default in Russia. In turn, this was supposed to result in massive financial destabilization. Namely, when a country defaults, it disposes of (or ignores, depending on the viewpoint) its financial obligations towards its creditors. The immediate consequence for the country is a reduction in its total debt and a reduction or even cessation of payments on the interest of that debt. A credit rating agency then takes this into account in its gradings of capital, interest, extraneous and procedural defaults, and failures to abide by the terms of bonds or other debt instruments. In short, the country in question becomes a geoeconomic pariah, which then affects its diplomatic standing.
Precisely this was what the political West wanted to ensure for Russia. With no access to its forex reserves, Moscow was expected to bleed dry financially, forcing it into a default that would then isolate the country and make trading with it not just hard, but nearly impossible. This geopolitical tool has been the mainstay of non-kinetic segments of Western hybrid warfare against the world for well over half a century now. And it might work against small to medium-sized countries. However, the Eurasian giant is neither of those. Russia is an energy superpower and a net exporter of natural gas, oil, rare earth metals and nonmetals, fertilizer, food and many other commodities that are absolutely essential to the world.
It’s also an industrial power that produces heavy machinery, chemical products, manufacturing tools, etc. Trying to isolate such a country is simply impossible. What’s more, even much smaller and less powerful countries targeted by US sanctions are finding ways to circumvent them, simply because others need their commodities. This is true for Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Syria and even North Korea, which bore the brunt of Western sanctions before the SMO. Rather schizophrenically, even the political West itself is trying to find ways to circumvent its own sanctions. Still, it’s trying to make Russia’s life as difficult as possible by attempting to turn it into a failed state or at the very least making it look like one.
All this accomplishes little more than propaganda “wins”, effectively serving only for optics purposes. Thus, the US-led power pole is now trying to find other uses for frozen Russian forex reserves. Namely, according to the Financial Times, G7 is moving closer to approving a plan that would funnel approximately $300 billion in stolen Russian assets to the increasingly cash-strapped Kiev regime. According to the FT’s own admission, the proposal constitutes “a radical step that would open a new chapter in the West’s financial warfare against Moscow”. The troubled Biden administration is yet to announce that this is their official stance, but FT posits that American officials are “actively engaging G7 countries to see it through”.
“A US official said Washington was engaged in active conversations on the use of Russian sovereign assets and believed there was a short timeline to make a decision,” the FT report reads, adding: “They suggested it could be discussed at a possible G7 leaders’ meeting to coincide with the second anniversary in February of Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine.”
In other words, the “exclusive club” of closest Anglo-American vassals and satellite states is being given instructions on how to handle their own financial and foreign policy, including the theft of other countries’ forex assets. As previously mentioned, the sanctions warfare has not only been a miserable failure, but has also backfired. Thus, the political West is trying to hurt Russia by not only stealing its reserves, but also illegally transferring them to the Neo-Nazi junta. The obvious goal is to “adequately” substitute US funding that is now virtually guaranteed to run out thanks to the peculiarities of America’s political system, as the growing Republican-Democrat divide turns into an even bigger headache for the Kiev regime.
Apart from the halt in Washington DC’s financing, the EU is also having major issues in finding consensus about continued support for the Neo-Nazi junta. Namely, last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban blocked another “aid” package worth €50 billion. This happened on the same day Budapest abstained from a vote on starting formal EU membership talks with the Kiev regime. It can be argued that Brussels is its last chance to stay afloat financially, although this is virtually guaranteed to break Europe’s already flailing economy. In other words, the political West is risking the dismantling of its entire financial system and stability for the sake of the Neo-Nazi junta that is bound to lose anyway.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
No Russia at Davos – ambassador
RT | December 19, 2023
Russia will again be absent from the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos early next year, Russian Ambassador to Switzerland Sergey Garmonin has confirmed.
The high-profile gathering of international business and political figures is scheduled to take place at the Swiss Alpine resort between January 15 and 19.
“Russia will not be represented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, since the organizers didn’t send invitations to the Russians last year and this year,” Garmonin told TASS news agency on Tuesday.
Russia skipped Davos 2023 after the organizers said its participation at the event would be “unwelcome” due to Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine. According to the WEF, its relations with Russian firms sanctioned due to conflict were frozen.
The ambassador said he didn’t think Russia would lose anything by missing out on the WEF again in 2024. “In my opinion, only the forum itself loses from such a decision,” he said. According to Garmonin, Moscow “will continue to solve… problems in other formats and on other platforms.”
The diplomat also criticized plans by the Swiss organizers to hold a meeting dedicated to discussions about Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s ten-point peace plan to settle the conflict with Russia. Meetings like this “are divorced from reality and lack any added value. They will not bring peace any closer,” he argued.
Zelensky’s “peace formula” calls for Russia’s withdrawal from all territories claimed by Kiev, reparations from Moscow, and a war crimes tribunal.
Ukraine “is in no position to put forward any ultimatums to Russia, and everyone understands this perfectly well,” Garmonin insisted. “The Kiev regime, which has no hopes of achieving even the slightest success on the battlefield, is denying the obvious and feeding the West with unfeasible projects in its attempts to solicit yet another military assistance package.”
Russia’s Deputy UN Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy said last week that Kiev had squandered its chances of a “favorable” agreement with Moscow. “Any possible deal now will be reflecting its capitulation,” he wrote on X.
During his Q&A session on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted that “there will be peace [in Ukraine] when we achieve our goals.” The aims of the Russian military operation “are not changing,” and include the “denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, its neutral status,” Putin reiterated.
Finland’s new ‘defense’ deal with US eerily reminds of similar one with Nazi Germany
By Drago Bosnic | December 18, 2023
Ever since NATO formally (re)started the (New) Cold War, it has been expanding its military presence all across Europe, effectively escalating its crawling aggression on the continent. The obvious target – Russia. The belligerent alliance is determined to create a new “frontline” on Moscow’s western borders, this time by drastically increasing American military presence in Finland. Namely, last week, Helsinki announced that it will sign a bilateral “defense” cooperation agreement with the United States, allowing the latter to station troops and store weapons in Finland. During a news conference in Helsinki on December 14, the Nordic country’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen stated that Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen will sign the so-called Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) on December 18 (today).
“The pact is very significant for Finland’s defense and security,” Häkkänen was quoted by Euronews, adding: “It bears a very strong message in this time. The United States is committed to our defense.”
The DCA will allow American troops to access 15 military areas and facilities in the entirety of Finland, ranging from a key southern naval base and inland air bases to a vast remote army training area in Lapland in the north. Interestingly, Finnish officials admitted that American troops are allowed a permanent presence and regular exercises in the country, but they insist that “there are no plans to establish permanent US military bases in Finland”. These two claims are extremely contradictory, not to mention the fact that such deployments contribute nothing to Finnish security. On the contrary, this can only attract the attention of Russia, which otherwise would’ve never considered Finland a threat. The Nordic country of 5,6 million shares a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia, nearly tripling the line of direct NATO-Russia contact.
Along with the Baltic states, it’s also the European Union’s external border with Russia. The troubled bloc itself is militarizing and effectively unifying with NATO, cementing Europe’s position as a mere pendant of America’s geopolitical strategy of so-called “containment”. Other countries on the continent have similar bilateral agreements with the US, including the neighboring Sweden, while Denmark (already a NATO member) is very likely to do the same. The obvious question arises, why are Finland and Sweden doing this? Will they feel safer with American and other NATO troops stationed in their military facilities? It’s quite obvious that the belligerent alliance has always been an auxiliary extension of the Pentagon and this has been the case since NATO’s unfortunate inception 74 years ago, as well as its subsequent expansion.
Thus, an increase in American military presence in Finland should always be observed from the perspective of US expansionism, as the world’s most aggressive country keeps moving its “defense” infrastructure ever closer to the borders of its geopolitical adversaries. This has been the case in the (First) Cold War and it’s no different nowadays when Washington DC is pushing one European country after another into a broader anti-Russian coalition that now includes the entire EU. The US is also trying to do the same by constituting a near carbon copy of NATO in the Pacific in a virtually identical step, only aimed against China. The formal admission of Finland back in April and the current military expansion are just steps toward the so-called “globalization” of NATO, a terrifying prospect for the security of the world.
It could be argued that Finland was never truly neutral, not even during the (First) Cold War and particularly not since it entered the EU. It has always been packed with US/NATO intelligence assets, although this has escalated significantly in the last several decades. Since then, the country has essentially become a NATO member in all but name. Helsinki directly broke from its formal neutrality when it decided to acquire F-35 fighter jets from the US in late 2021. The Pentagon has direct access to everything the F-35’s sensors can detect, meaning that Finland would be sharing key military data with the US regardless of whether it was a NATO member or not. On the other hand, as I argued back in early April, being a direct member means that the Nordic country is virtually guaranteed to see the deployment of American offensive weapons.
The details of the latest “defense” deal are yet to be revealed, but it can only be expected that it will involve much more than simple infantry deployments. For Russia, this is particularly concerning, as Finland and Estonia, now both NATO members, are in close proximity to St. Petersburg, its second most important city. The stationing of any US offensive weapons such as cruise missiles and nuclear-capable fighter jets would deeply destabilize the otherwise largely stable region. There’s also a quite eerie historical dimension in all this. Namely, Helsinki is essentially repeating the same mistake it made over 80 years ago when it joined the Axis led by Nazi Germany. Now when it’s among “old friends” once again, maybe the Nordic country should dust off the history books and pay very close attention to how this ended the last time.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
UK contemplating sending troops to Ukraine – ex-ambassador
RT | December 17, 2023
British military leaders are making contingency plans for sending troops to Ukraine in case a disastrous turn of events on the battlefield necessitates their deployment to help fight Russian forces, Kiev’s former ambassador to the UK has claimed.
Despite public opposition, the UK government would directly join the fight in Ukraine if there’s a “catastrophic development of the war,” such as “the continuation of the occupation,” ex-diplomat Vadym Prystaiko said on Friday in an interview with the Ukrainian branch of US state-run broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).
The possibility of military deployments to Ukraine is a well-kept secret among Kiev’s Western allies, Prystaiko said. “No one will ever admit it, especially politicians. Every time they are asked, they will say, ‘no, no no way, come on, we’d rather give them everything they need.”
However, Prystaiko added, British officers are making plans “for the worst” – circumstances dire enough to prompt elected leaders to order a direct military intervention in the former Soviet republic. “In reality, the military is making calculations that, God forbid, they will have to use armed forces. That’s why the military and diplomats are there, to plan for the future.”
Prystaiko, who also served a stint as Kiev’s foreign minister, was fired as ambassador last July, after he criticized Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. His career downfall began when Zelensky responded sarcastically to a suggestion by the UK’s then-defense chief, Ben Wallace, that Ukraine should show more gratitude to its Western benefactors. Asked by Sky News about the tone of Zelensky’s remarks, he said, “I don’t believe that this sarcasm is healthy.”
Wallace’s successor as UK defense chief, Grant Shapps, hinted in September at deeper British involvement in the Ukraine crisis, including protection of commercial shipping traffic in the Black Sea. UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak later said there had been “misreporting” when Shapps also seemed to suggest that London might send military instructors to Ukraine.
Russian officials have repeatedly described the conflict as a battle between Moscow and the “entire Western military machine.” British special forces have reportedly operated covertly in Ukraine, and Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed last year that there were entire military units in the country “under the de-facto command of Western advisers.”
Polls have shown consistently strong UK public opposition to deploying troops to Ukraine. Prystaiko said that given the mood of voters, none of Kiev’s backers is ready to fight the Russians directly. “It’s very difficult for democratic states that depend on the reelection cycle, that depend on their voters, that have to explain themselves a hundred times to make the first step.”
Putin: “Odessa is a Russian city”
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE |DECEMBER 17, 2023
At the year-end news conference on Thursday lasting four hours, Russian President Vladimir Putin made some key remarks on the conflict in Ukraine which throw light on the likely trajectory of the war through 2024. To be sure, Russia will not accept a “frozen conflict” that falls short of realising the objectives Putin had laid out at the commencement of the special military operations in February last year.
Putin stated: “There will be peace when we achieve our goals… Now let’s return to these goals – they have not changed. I would like to remind you how we formulated them: denazification, demilitarisation, and a neutral status for Ukraine.”
He spelt out denazification and demilitarisation as work in progress while leaving out the crucial question of a neutral status for Ukraine, a notion which the collective West outright rejects while pressing ahead with its intervention in newer forms despite the failure of Kiev’s months-long counteroffensive. Ironically, the accent in the revised western narrative is to create a strong resilient defence industry in Ukraine eventually with western technology and capital to ward off any Russian military threats in future.
On denazification specifically, Putin said that during the negotiations in Istanbul last year in March, Kiev showed receptiveness towards the idea of legislating against the spread of extremist ideology, but that lies buried in the past. As for demilitarisation, that idea also never caught on as Ukraine began receiving weaponry “even more than what was promised by the West.”
Therefore, Russia is left with no other option but to keep destroying the Ukrainian military capability as the core of the demilitarisation process. But Putin believed that certain parameters can still be negotiated, and, in fact, “We actually agreed on them [with Ukrainian negotiators] during the Istanbul talks; although these were thrown out later, we managed to reach agreement.” The alternative to reaching an agreement on demilitarisation is to “resolve the conflict by force. This is what we will strive for.” However, to this end, Putin ruled out another mobilisation as already “there will be about half a million people [in the war zone] by the end of this year.”
These remarks bear the hallmark of a statesman speaking from a position of strength who is conscious of it, too. Putin asserted that Russian forces are “improving their position almost along the entire line of contact. Almost all of them are engaged in active combat. And the position of our troops is improving along [the entire line of contact.]” Putin conveyed no willingness to compromise with the US and EU.
Significantly, Putin said that the southern part of Ukraine has “always been Russian territory… Neither Crimea nor the Black Sea has any connection to Ukraine. Odessa is a Russian city.” This is an ominous statement implying that the Russian operation may after all extend to Odessa which is on the western side of the Dnieper and even further westward along the Black Sea coast to Moldova that renders Ukraine a land-locked country. A prolonged conflict is in the cards.
On the contrary, the reports from the US media quoting American officials convey the impression that there is no willingness to throw in the towel at the present stage. That is of course predicated on the belief that Russia will be hard put to realise its objectives and by the end of 2024, the tide of war can change and Russia may be compelled to compromise. Thus, a new strategy is being worked out between the US and Ukrainian military that can be executed by the early part of 2024 with the American accent on holding the territory that Ukraine controls as of now and digging in.
The New York Times reported that the Ukrainian military subscribes to a “forward policy.” The Pentagon is stationing a three-star general in Kiev with a view to “stepping up the face-to-face military advice it provides to Ukraine.” This could be the beginning of deployment of American military advisors to Ukraine to oversee the war, which will put the Pentagon in a direct role in the management of the operations from both the tactical as well as strategic perspectives.
Meanwhile, the final word is not yet spoken by the US Senate on the Administration’s demand of $61 billion as additional funds for Ukraine. The likelihood is that the senate will eventually pass the bill since there is a big groundswell of support among Republican lawmakers for the war effort. The Administration is driving home that Russia has an “imperial” agenda toward NATO countries and vital US interests are at stake in preventing Russia from winning the war.
Interestingly, in a related development two days ago, Congress approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the US from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. Equally, Europe is also circling the wagons and taking a long-term view that Russia’s scale-up of arms production to sustain its operations in Ukraine poses a real threat to Europe, especially to the Baltic states, Georgia and Moldova. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg last week warned that “If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is real risk that his aggression will not end there.”
The German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius echoed that sentiment when he said on Saturday that Europe must ramp up its security and defence capabilities to respond to the threat Russia poses, as the US will likely reduce its involvement on the Continent in the coming years and increasingly turn its attention to the Pacific region in the next decade. As he put it, “This isn’t just sabre-rattling. Dangers could lie ahead at the end of this decade.”
The message from the European Council meeting in Brussels last Friday is also that in circumventing Hungary’s opposition, EU leaders are navigating a pathway to ensure Ukraine will still get its €50 billion aid package to help prop up its hollowed out economy — if necessary, by taking the radical step of sacrificing EU unity and providing the money on a bilateral basis. The EU leaders are expected to reconvene at the end of January or early February to unlock the issue.
On Friday, Ukraine’s foreign ministry released a statement lauding the opening of EU membership negotiations and voicing optimism about the €50 billion aid package from Brussels. The tough talk notwithstanding, Russia too must be sensing that the EU will ultimately find a way somehow to solve the financial question. For the present, though, the deadlock in Brussels and Washington on aid has generated an air of uncertainty, which is bad optics for Kiev and plays into the Russian narrative.
All in all, Putin’s tough remarks on Thursday factor in that the US isn’t going anywhere but stays put in Ukraine and the Biden administration’s game plan is to revamp the war strategy to put it on a stronger footing and make it sustainable through the period ahead till the November 2024 election.
Kremlin’s hope that US support for Ukraine is on the wane seems misplaced. Curiously, spokesman Dmitry Peskov added in good measure in an interview on Friday with broadcaster NBC News that Putin would prefer an American president who is “more constructive” toward Russia and understands the “importance of the dialogue” between the two countries. Peskov added that Putin would be ready to work with “anyone who will understand that from now on, you have to be more careful with Russia and you have to take into account its concerns.”
Between now and the presidential election in March in Russia, domestic politics will be hotting up. After Putin’s re-election for a fresh 6-year term as president, which is widely expected, by the time the new government is formed, the campaign for the US election will have accelerated and it is a safe bet that the Ukraine war will be on auto-pilot with the priority almost entirely lying on averting any serious embarrassment to Biden’s reelection bid.
Suffice to say, staving off a military defeat in Ukraine and keeping the stalemate on track will be the Biden administration’s singular aim through 2024. The big question is whether Putin would “cooperate” or have some surprises in store. Peskov has begun looking beyond the Biden presidency.



