Rushing Ukraine’s counteroffensive causes “unsustainable losses” – British think tank
By Ahmed Adel | September 7, 2023
A British think tank analysed the failures of Ukraine’s counteroffensive on September 4. According to the report, prepared by two analysts from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and cited by Newsweek, Ukrainian forces are facing enormous losses of equipment and the training provided by the West is not adapted to the type of battle they are fighting against Russia.
“Attempts at rapid breakthrough have resulted in an unsustainable rate of equipment loss,” the London-based think tank reported.
As observers explained, conclusions about the reasons for the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive were drawn from the study of tactical actions for two weeks in the villages of Novodarovka and Rovnopol, which are located across the border between Donetsk and Zaporozhye. However, “this approach is slow” and the approximately 700–1,200 yards of progress every five days made by Ukrainian troops, was “allowing Russian forces to reset.”
RUSI calls Russia’s actions during the counteroffensive “a tactical success,” noting that the Eurasian country’s military had inflicted enough equipment losses on Ukraine early on to degrade the scope of the ordered manoeuvres.
The analysis also noted that the counteroffensive was limited by the poor training of Ukrainian soldiers, explaining that the methods taught by NATO are designed for forces with different configurations than Kiev’s troops. The report also highlights the adaptation capacity of Russian forces on the battlefield, pointing out this element as key to their success.
RUSI said that Ukraine’s counteroffensive requires fire dominance and that it was critical to ensure this advantage by properly resourcing ammunition production and spares whilst also making “preparations for winter fighting, and subsequent campaign seasons now, if [the] initiative is to be retained into 2024.”
This will obviously not come to fruition as Kiev has never had fire dominance at any point in 2023 and certainly will not now that their stocks are exhausted while Russia’s stock remains healthy.
Nonetheless, the RUSI study is the most recent international assessment that accounts for Ukraine’s failure in the conflict with Russia. European and American media and officials have admitted this failure after several months of baseless triumphalist coverage of what was happening on the ground.
The RUSI report is unique because it comes from Britain, which has a fully controlled narrative on the war, unlike even in the US, where some Republicans and certain corners of the media openly disparage Ukraine. This is one of the first major British information sources to openly and categorically acknowledge that Ukrainian forces are struggling and that Russia has achieved “tactical success.”
This disappointing result has caused Washington’s frustration with Kiev for what they consider a poor strategy on the battlefield.
It is recalled that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky announced the replacement of Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, who also resigned. Reznikov is embroiled in a series of corruption scandals, making Zelensky explain that the ministry needed “new approaches.”
At the same time, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu declared on September 5 that Ukrainian forces failed in all lines of operations during the three months of their counteroffensive.
“Despite the colossal losses, the Kiev regime has already been trying to carry out the so-called counteroffensive for three months. In none of the lines of operations have the Ukrainian Armed Forces achieved their objectives,” the minister said.
Ukrainian forces have lost more than 66,000 troops and 7,600 pieces of military equipment since the start of their counteroffensive, Shoigu reported. Russian air defence also shot down more than 1,000 Ukrainian drones over the last month. 159 Himars, multiple launch missiles, 13 cruise missiles, and 34 command posts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were destroyed.
In this manner, the attrition rate is becoming increasingly rapid for Ukrainian forces. Kiev is still moving forward despite unrealistic expectations, a lack of necessary equipment and tough Russian defences. However, there are concerns that such expectations could mean Ukraine receives less support from Western countries in the future and thus put the final nail in the coffin for the counteroffensive.
This revelation comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in his recent meeting with his Turkish counterpart that he never rejected mediation proposals on Ukraine, adding that the progress of the Ukrainian counteroffensive was not a stalemate but “a failure.”
It is a widespread belief now that the counteroffensive has failed, with Kiev and London being the only strongholds contesting against this. However, as the RUSI report demonstrates, the gripping reality is slowly beginning to set in even in London.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Here’s why NATO isn’t able to help Ukraine win
By Ilya Kramnik | RT | September 6, 2023
More than 18 months into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, NATO military aid to Kiev remains a constituent part of the war. This factor seeps into public consciousness, influences the political perception of the conflict, and affects the situation on the battlefield, whichever side of the hostilities people find themselves on. All these aspects are important in their own right, and each will influence the course of the conflict and its eventual outcome. But how long will NATO be able to provide military assistance to Ukraine?
Gloomy prospects for Ukraine
NATO began providing assistance to Kiev as soon as the conflict started in 2022, and the volume of aid increased throughout the course of last year. This assistance largely influenced the attitude of ordinary Ukrainians toward the hostilities and reinforced the myth of a speedy and inevitable “victory” for Kiev, certain to happen because “the whole world supports us.”
The same attitude prevailed in the area of public policy – the aid provided by a particular country indicated whose side it was on: Ukraine’s “allies” in NATO (primarily the US) provided direct military assistance, while “neutral” countries offered only financial and organizational assistance, or no help at all.
On the battlefield, NATO aid is fully responsible for the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF). If this aid is discontinued, the Ukrainian army will lose its combat capability within a few weeks, or as soon as the current ammunition stocks run out.
How likely is it that NATO assistance will continue? To answer this question, we need to understand the stocks of weapons and military equipment among members of the bloc – and it is important to note that many are lacking in this regard.
The US stands out for its available resources, and its weapons arsenal is larger than that of all other NATO countries. However, even though Washington has provided Kiev with large quantities of weapons and ammunition, it is still only supplying a relatively small share of what it has. Other countries with large weapons arsenals are Greece and Turkey. However, these stocks exist because of age-old tensions between the two countries, which limits their possible transfer to Ukraine.
In most other NATO countries, military stocks are relatively small and are intended mainly for export, particularly when the buyer is interested in used equipment which can be put to use in its existing condition or modernized.
These factors impose a limit on the volume of aid allocated to Ukraine, and are why military assistance to Kiev, which started in 2022 and peaked in early 2023, has begun to decline. It also means that unless the US starts handing over reserve military equipment, or, together with other allies, finds alternative suppliers, assistance will be cut further.
Why have things turned out this way?
NATO could have avoided this situation by increasing the production of weapons and military equipment back in 2022, and deploying additional production facilities. In this case, some progress would already have been visible by the winter of 2023-24.
However, the bloc did not have a unified vision regarding additional weapons production, which severely complicated the decision-making process. Not a single NATO politician was ready to guarantee arms manufacturing companies a steady, large-scale demand for weapons once the conflict in Ukraine ended. Moreover, even though the scale of the conflict is significant, it is in some cases insufficient to ensure the necessary demand for new weapons. Finally, it should be noted that a number of Western politicians and military leaders believed that the current military aid to Ukraine would suffice to meet the goals of 2023 – obviously, this was due to false conclusions made as a result of the battles in the Kharkov and Kherson regions in the summer-fall of 2022.
The result of these misguided conclusions has been twofold. On the one hand, Ukraine did not receive the necessary equipment and weapons to break through Russia’s well-prepared defensive lines. Indeed, we can posit that no army within NATO is currently prepared for this, and that perhaps this lack of practical and theoretical readiness prevented the bloc from realistically assessing the capabilities of Russian troops and their defensive positions.
As a result, the Ukrainian counteroffensive was launched with a clear lack of artillery, tanks, and particularly engineering equipment, despite the fact that NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Christopher Cavoli declared that Ukrainian troops were fully equipped.
On the other hand, NATO made a number of decisions and signed contracts to equip Ukrainian troops on a long-term basis. This included the transfer of missile defense systems and other weapons which, due to insufficient production capacities, will not be available for several years. Like the decision to transfer fighter jets – which hasn’t yet been publicly finalized in terms of volume and timing – these contracts were assessed by numerous experts as “post-war,” i.e. intended to compensate after the conflict for the losses sustained.
However, the unsuccessful course of the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in July makes the full-scale implementation of these contracts and intentions uncertain. Their prospects will be even more doubtful in the event of a successful Russian offensive in the coming fall or winter.
The upcoming US elections give rise to more doubts concerning NATO’s assistance to Ukraine in the coming year, considering that the subject of military aid will come under fire from the Republicans. There is no need to exaggerate the “pro-Russian” aspect of this criticism, since some Republican politicians treat Russia pragmatically at best – but little will prevent them from publically pointing out every mistake of the Biden administration, exclusively in their own interests.
What does it all mean?
Will NATO be able to significantly increase aid to Ukraine in the near future? No. Military production is an inertial industry, and even if the decision to considerably increase the production of weapons were made tomorrow, it would take up to two years to yield any results. Considering the unfavorable public image of Ukraine’s unsuccessful counteroffensive, it may take even longer.
Interestingly, Soviet-made military equipment, or Eastern European equipment produced under a Soviet license, has turned out to be the most effective for Ukraine’s army. Soviet tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other equipment that does not require special training, maintenance, infrastructure, and ammunition can be put into battle immediately, and its combat readiness level is higher compared to Western models that need to be incorporated into the new environment.
If, back in 2022, NATO had made use of Eastern European military-industrial cooperation, which allows the production of T-72 tanks, BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, a number of 122-152 mm artillery systems, and some other types of weapons and military equipment, this decision could have had consequences for the course of the conflict. However, this never happened, and – given the fact that the Polish defense industry is now shifting to the licensed production of South Korean-designed equipment – will likely not happen in the future. This means that for Ukraine, issues such as the insufficient supply of military equipment, the vastly different types of weapons, the shortage of ammunition, and the resulting problems with the management of troops will all remain unsolved. In such circumstances, the success of a new counteroffensive is hardly possible.
Generally, the ball – or in other words, the military-technical initiative in the conflict – is now in Russia’s court, and it depends on Russia how well this opportunity is used. It is quite likely that the initiative to transfer Western fighter jets to Ukraine will be quietly abandoned, since the AFU will no longer be able to use them. Russia knows full well that this is the case. In theory, this state of affairs should increase the willingness of the US to negotiate, although the upcoming election season will greatly complicate any potential talks.
So, unless something extraordinary happens, the West will most likely continue to support the Ukrainian armed forces to the extent necessary to continue resistance. This means Ukraine will not have enough equipment and weapons to launch a large-scale new counteroffensive unless the US decides to share its weapons arsenals. Such a decision, however, would go against US practice in recent years as well as its strategic planning, which sees China as the main rival on which to focus its financial, military, and technological resources.
Ilya Kramnik is a military analyst, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council and researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
WW3 has already begun – Ukraine’s security chief
RT | September 6, 2023
The head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council has claimed a third world war is already underway, with the Moscow-Kiev conflict pulling in countries far beyond the region.
Speaking at the Kiev Security Forum on Tuesday, Aleksey Danilov argued that NATO needs Ukraine as a member, as global turbulence is set to continue. “We’re going to strengthen the alliance,” he insisted.
“If somebody thinks that World War III hasn’t started then it’s a huge mistake. It has already begun. It had been underway in a hybrid period for some time and has now entered an active phase,” he said.
Sitting on stage beside former CIA Director General David Petraeus, Danilov said that “if somebody thinks that it [the conflict in Ukraine] is about settling the scores between Kiev and Moscow then it’s a mistake. Things are much more complicated.”
Petraeus also highlighted the scale of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, saying: “I haven’t seen anything like it since World War II,” he said.
“The Russians are not particularly impressive in terms of knowledge or performance on the battlefield, but they have created a rather outstanding defense system, and it is quite difficult to punch it through,” he claimed.
On Tuesday, Russia’s Defense Ministry said that during the three months of its counteroffensive, Ukraine has lost some 66,000 troops and 7,600 pieces of heavy weaponry while failing to achieve any significant gains. Kiev has so far claimed the capture of several small villages, but they are some distance from the main Russian defense lines. Speaking about the Ukrainian counteroffensive earlier this week, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin insisted that it “is not stalled; it is a failure.”
Moscow has been saying for months that the fighting in Ukraine is a “proxy war” waged by the US and its NATO allies against Russia. It warned that the supply of arms and training to Kiev’s troops and intelligence-sharing means that Western nations are already de-facto parties to the conflict.
Russia, which views NATO as a hostile bloc and vigorously opposes its eastward expansion, has also highlighted Kiev’s aspirations of joining the US-led military alliance among the main reasons for launching its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022.
Russian Fuel, Energy Industry Working Very Well Despite All Sanctions – Putin
Sputnik – 04.09.2023
MOSCOW – The Russian fuel and energy industry is working very well, is protected from external shocks and retains key positions in this sphere despite all sanctions, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday.
“In general, in the current difficult conditions, Russia not only confirms its energy self-sufficiency, independence, and protection from external shocks, but also occupies key positions in the global energy sector. Without any exaggeration, we work confidently and self-sufficiently,” the president stated at a meeting on the implementation of the Murmansk liquefied natural gas (LNG) project.
Russia’s fuel and energy sector should contribute to protecting the interests of the country’s economy, the needs of all consumers and tackling the issues of accessibility and prevention of serious price hikes which should be constantly monitored, Putin added.
Moreover, Russia is considering the possibility of accelerating the construction of the Far Eastern route, as well as the main Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline, the president stated.
“Given the good prospects for expanding cooperation with friendly countries, we are considering the possibility of accelerating the construction of the Far Eastern route, as well as the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline,” Putin stressed.
The Power of Siberia is a gas pipeline operated by Russian state-owned company Gazprom that is a part of the eastern gas route from Siberia to China.
The Power of Siberia 2 is a planned gas pipeline that is to contribute to Russian gas exports to China through Mongolia. The construction is expected to start in 2024, according to a statement by Mongolian Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai on July 18, 2022.
Kiev believes the conflict should be “extended” to Russia’s undisputed territory
By Lucas Leiroz | September 4, 2023
Once again, Kiev makes clear its intention to continue carrying out terrorist attacks on the undisputed territory of the Russian Federation. In a recent interview, the head of Ukrainian intelligence stated that the conflict should be “extended” to “Russian territory”, thus showing that neo-Nazi forces plan to continue with incursions into Russia’s demilitarized zone, unnecessarily endangering the lives of innocent civilians.
The words were spoken by Kirill Budanov, head of the Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR). During an interview with Ukrainian TV anchor Natalya Moseichuk, he stated that hostilities need to be extended to deep inside Russian territory, in addition to countries and regions where Russia “has influence”.
“The war must be extended to other territory – which for us is clearly Russia – and other areas where they have influence (…) The wider the operations are, the better”, he said.
For Budanov, the deepening of territorial incursions against Russia is an efficient strategy from the military point of view, since it would supposedly allow “paralyzing” Moscow’s forces, giving Kiev’s troops an advantage. In other words, in the face of heavy losses, Ukraine wants to gain time to reorganize itself and think about new combat tactics – and plans to do this by keeping the Russians busy trying to neutralize deep attacks.
It is also curious that Budanov mentions the possibility of attacks against areas where Russia “has influence”. In practice, he is admitting that Kiev plans to attack Russia’s allies, internationalizing the conflict. In this regard, it is necessary to remember that until now several sabotage operations have already been carried out by the Ukrainians against the territory of Belarus. Considering Budanov’s words, it is expected that new maneuvers of this type will happen in the near future.
A few days before Budanov’s interview, another Ukrainian intelligence officer had already made similar statements. In an interview to the New York Times on August 25, Andrey Yusov, a spokesman for Ukraine’s military intelligence service, stated that “Russian elites and ordinary Russians now understand that war is not somewhere far away on the territory of Ukraine, which they hate”, adding that the “war is also in Moscow, it’s already on their territory.”
Commenting on Yusov’s words at the time, New York Times journalists stated that Kiev’s drone attacks against Russia have been working as a “morale booster”. They also said that, despite previous American disapproval of this type of maneuver, now “US officials conceded that attempted Ukrainian strikes had so far been calibrated, and they had not provoked any drastic escalation by Moscow.”
In fact, both Budanov’s and Yusov’s words directly contradict the statement by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky himself, who on August 27th showed a lack of interest in carrying out in-depth attacks, stating that such operations risk Kiev being “left alone“. Zelensky apparently thinks the attacks create an uncomfortable situation for the West, which, despite maintaining a proxy war, tries to avoid a direct conflict with Moscow.
So, once again Ukrainian internal disagreements become clear. Officials claim different things and expose strategies for the conflict that contradict each other. In practice, there are only two possibilities in this scenario: either Zelensky is acting propagandistically, and privately he authorizes attacks in depth, while publicly denying them. Or, on the other hand, the regime’s officials are acting in a totally decentralized way, with military and intelligence agents carrying out attacks without prior authorization from Zelensky.
Both scenarios seem plausible, but to analyze the case properly it is necessary to consider what the West says on the topic, as the Ukrainian state is not sovereign and acts only as a proxy for NATO. There have been several US pronouncements so far disallowing attacks on undisputed Russian territory, but according to the New York Times, the current trend among US officials is to recognize drone incursions as “calibrated” and with low risk of escalation.
So, it is possible that US officials coordinating Ukrainian military operations on the battlefield are authorizing these drone strikes, as well as other forms of territorial invasion of Russia, without any communication to Zelensky. With so much evidence that the Ukrainian president is now isolated, without Western support and on the verge of being replaced, his exclusion from the military decision-making process seems likely.
However, these attacks will not bring any military advantage to Kiev. Escalation possibilities exist and Moscow will certainly react incisively if it perceives enemy incursions as a significant threat. This has not happened so far because the Russian forces have been efficient in neutralizing or reducing the damage of most attacks, but, having military control of the conflict, the Russians could assume a more escalatory attitude at any time. If it is necessary to increase the frequency and intensity of attacks on Ukraine to prevent the conflict zone from expanding into its undisputed territory, Moscow will certainly do so.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
HOW BAD IS IT FOR UKRAINE?
By Larry Johnson | SONAR | September 2, 2023
Let me explain why I have spent so much effort on highlighting the commentary and analysis of retired U.S. Generals and some of their foreign counterparts, like Mick Ryan — they are engaged in a massive propaganda campaign designed to mislead the Western public about the true state of the war in Ukraine. They insist that Ukraine is winning, that Russia is losing and that the only prescription for Ukraine’s continued “success” is to pour more money and weapons into the maelstrom consuming Ukraine. This is not a disagreement over what is the best flavor of ice cream. The citizens of the United States and Europe have a right to be properly informed about their resources that are being recklessly expended in Ukraine and that there is no path for victory for Ukraine because Ukraine lacks the material resources, the trained manpower and the weapons required to match up against Russia. Even if Ukraine was endowed suddenly with three fighter wings (that’s about 180 combat planes), these would not be enough to penetrate and destroy Russia’s echeloned defenses.
Take a hard look at this map. The green shows how far Ukrainian forces have advanced over the last three months of their counter offensive. This minuscule “progress” has cost Ukraine an enormous toll in casualties and equipment, such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. Skeptics in the West want to dismiss this as Russian propaganda. Okay. The please show me the reports from Western war correspondents who are on the ground reporting from Topmak or Melitopol. Those do not exist. How about a video or two of triumphant Ukrainian fighters standing atop the wreckage of the first line of the Surovikin defense? Ukraine and its NATO allies would be giddy with joy if they could show such images.
If you want to gauge the desperation of the Ukrainian situation, just read this interview with Polish volunteer who just returned to Poland from the front:
Polish volunteer Slawomir Wysocki traveled to Ukraine, returned home and in an interview for the media told what is really happening with the counter-offensive, which is so publicized by the Ukrainian authorities.
💬 “The human losses of the Ukrainian side are huge. Western equipment is burning like matches. Things are much worse than is commonly imagined. I counted the graves in Lviv. In the old part of the cemetery there are about 100 graves, in the new part there are more than 600.
In the villages this proportion is colossally different. When I drive by, I see cemeteries along the streets. Each has up to a dozen new graves. There are flags near each one, they are easy to recognize. There are more than two thousand graves in Kharkov. It is impossible to hide these losses.
Two months ago I was full of optimism about Kupyansk. Now we are still managing to hold our ground. It seems that the Russians are doing everything they can to reach Kupyansk, where they will take their positions for the spring offensive.”
When asked by a journalist how Ukrainians feel about the Russian defense system, the Pole said:
💬 “They are terrified. They know that the Russian army has already foreseen everything. The defense system was built by construction companies. This is not a peasant waving a shovel to build a trench. Companies came in, poured concrete, made fortifications in the style of the Maginot Line. And there are three or four such lines. Ukrainians say that there are five mines per square meter. You can’t put your foot on the ground without one of them exploding”.
The journalist further asks, with this situation on the front and the growing losses, are there still people willing to fight? The volunteer replies:
💬 “There are no willing ones. They are looking for them on the streets. In Lviv there are “round-ups”, people are taken from construction sites, from bars. Recently I witnessed such a situation at the bus station in Lvov. Five policemen stood and checked everyone who wanted to leave Lvov.
Eight people were detained in this way. Many reasons for the current situation with mobilization originate in Bakhmut. It was such a plum, such a meat grinder that there was no one left to fight”.
If Ukraine was vanquishing Russian forces do you think that Zelenksy would be pressuring European nations, such as Germany, to round up military-aged Ukrainian refugees to send them back to Ukraine? According to the German paper, Bild :
“Surrender us the deserters!”: More than 160,000 Ukrainians of military age fled to Germany, they can be returned back.
Western pundits need to pay attention to what Putin and his Generals have said about the purpose of this “special military operation” — demilitarize and de-nazify Ukraine. This was not some idle political talking point. While Russia’s lack of big movement of massed forces frustrates many Western arm chair generals, Russia appears quite content to continue the systematic destruction of Ukraine’s ground, air and sea forces. Time favors Russia. But not Ukraine. Each passing day brings Ukraine closer to the precipice of disaster.
Ukraine blackmailing Europe by refusing to renew gas shipment deal
By Uriel Araujo | September 2, 2023
Russia’s Gazprom has said it would ship 42.4 million cubic meters of gas to Europe – such a volume is in line with recent days. There are concerns regarding the future of gas shipments to Europe, however. Last month, Ukrainian energy minister Herman Galushchenko ruled out the prospect of Kiev participating in new Russian gas transit talks pertaining to a five year agreement which will expire at the end of 2024. He added that by 2024 Europeans should be ready to manage without Russian gas. This is the latest chapter of a long dispute.
Writing for Politico in September 2022, energy correspondent America Hernandez highlighted that Russian energy giant Gazprom and Ukraine’s Naftogaz were in a battle regarding arbitration and payments for gas shipments through Ukraine – and this threatened gas transit to Europe. Here, some context is needed.
Despite the ongoing confrontation, Gazprom (Russia’s state-owned energy corporation) has been honoring a pre-conflict 2019 transit agreement: the 2019 deal, which runs until the end of 2024, allows Gazprom to export over 40 billion cubic meters of gas a year via Ukraine – and this earns Kiev about $7 billion.
Gazprom chief Alexei Miller, however, warned in July 2023 that the Russian energy giant could stop exporting if Kiev did not cease its campaign to seize Russian state assets. Ukraine has been in fact fighting a legal war to make Moscow pay over $5 billion as compensation for Ukraine’s state energy firm Naftogaz losses pertaining to the annexation of Crimea after the 2014 referendum. Naftogaz’s lawyers have been filing enforcement petitions in several jurisdictions internationally. According to Elena Chachko, a Harvard Law School’s Rappaport Fellow, Ukrainian endeavors to combine warfare and lawfare are an attempt to set a precedent in their own way: “The Ukrainians have been pretty active and pretty sophisticated in how they leverage various legal avenues to attack the Russians. They’ve been very creative.” She adds: “The route of arbitration is one they’ve been very sophisticated in utilizing to impose sanctions on Russia in a sort of indirect way”.
Moreover, in July 2023, mentioning a Hague court ruling favoring Ukraine’s claims for compensation, which Moscow is to appeal, Naftogaz CEO said: “We don’t expect Russia to pay voluntarily. It will take time to enforce it and monetize it, and we will be targeting Russian sovereign assets abroad.” In other words, under the justification that there is a European court decision, Ukraine is illegally seizing Russian assets.
Gazprom ceased to supply gas through Yamal-Europe and the (now gone) Nord Stream and pipelines, thus making the transit line through Ukraine the one and only route to supply Russian gas to Central and Western European countries.
By telling Europeans to be ready to go on without Russian gas, Ukraine’s energy minister Herman Galushchenko is providing music to Washington’s ears. In December 2021, there was an energy crisis in Europe already and I wrote on how the US war on the Nord Stream 2 project made perfect sense from an American perspective: Washington wanted neither to lose leverage on the European continent nor to have Moscow having more leverage there. Moreover, the US created obstacles to Russian-European energy and gas cooperation so as to promote its own resources to European markets. Washington would thus have Europeans buying more and more of American liquified natural gas (LNG) – despite the fact that it is more expensive and despite the fact that Russia lies at the “doorstep” of Europe. These American geoeconomic and private (and even shady) interests play an important role here – in addition to US-led NATO geopolitical goals pertaining to encircling Russia. One cannot make sense of the current conflict without taking those into consideration.
In any case, by refusing to transit Russian gas, which Europeans need, Kiev is basically blackmailing the European bloc, as it hopes to see an ever-larger supply of NATO-provided weaponry and aid. It remains to be seen how European powers will play along.
The hard truth is that the Western strategy to isolate Moscow from global energy markets has been a failure. Of course crude oil supplies to the West have dropped, but overall Russian hydrocarbon exports are back to pre-conflict levels, while India has occupied the share of Western nations when it comes to Russian exports. With rising de-industrialization, the US’ own subsidy war against the EU, and with sanctions having backfired, it would seem that sooner or later Europe will have no choice but to gradually ease sanctions against the Russian energy resources it badly needs. The framework for that could involve lots of good diplomacy and the de-escalation of tensions. Right now, truth be told, Ukraine’s blackmail handicaps this prospect.
Indonesia rubbishes Pentagon’s ‘joint statement’ on China and Russia
RT | September 1, 2023
Indonesia’s military chief has denied issuing any shared statements with his US counterpart during a visit to Washington last week, after the Pentagon published a “joint” press release attributed to Jakarta which criticized Moscow and Beijing.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto said the US statement does not reflect his country’s positions, stating that Indonesia seeks friendly relations with both Russia and China.
“There is no joint statement and no press conference. What is important for me to underline is that our relationship with China is very good. We respect each other, we already have mutual understanding. I conveyed that in the US,” he said, adding “We are close friends with China, we respect America, and we seek friendship with Russia.”
The official went on to announce plans to visit Beijing and Moscow in the coming months, voicing hopes that Jakarta could serve as a “bridge” between rival states.
The Pentagon missive, published on August 24 was titled ‘United States DoD and Indonesia MoD Joint Press Statement’ and took on a different tone. It claimed that both the US and Indonesia “shared the view that the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea are inconsistent with international law.” It also went on to “jointly” condemn Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, demanding a “complete and unconditional withdrawal” of Russian forces.
Though Indonesia’s Defense Ministry noted Subianto’s meetings with Pentagon head Lloyd Austin, it made no mention of any joint statement with Washington, and offered no comments about Russia or China.
Beijing was quick to jump on the American statement, with China’s embassy in Jakarta claiming the remarks had not been approved by Indonesian officials beforehand.
“We’re informed by the Indonesian side that what the US side described is not true. In fact, no such content can be found in the press release by the Indonesian side at the same meeting,” the embassy told reporters last weekend, slamming US efforts to “to sow discord and stir up trouble.”
During Subianto’s trip to the US, the two countries agreed to boost military cooperation, including joint war games and additional US weapons sales. The Pentagon further said Washington would help Jakarta’s military modernization drive, proposing “fighter aircraft upgrades, new multi-role fighter aircraft, and additional fixed and rotary wing transport aircraft,” among other gear.
Highlighting the growing military ties, Indonesian officials announced a deal to purchase 24 Sikorsky S-70M Black Hawk transport helicopters from US arms giant Lockheed Martin last week, soon after signing a major contract with Boeing for two-dozen F-15 fighter jets. Jakarta is working to revamp its air fleet, which currently operates systems from several different countries, including both US- and Russian-made fighter jets.
Ambassador Calls on US to Return ‘Every Single Piece’ of Property Stolen from Russia
Al-Manar – August 31, 2023
Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov demanded that Washington “stop the bacchanalia” and return every single piece of diplomatic property in the United States stolen from the Russian Federation.
“We demand Washington to stop the bacchanalia, comply with international obligations and return every single piece of diplomatic property in the United States stolen from us,” the Russian embassy quoted the diplomat as saying on its Telegram channel on Wednesday.
Antonov recalled that exactly six years ago, on August 31, 2017, the US administration “took a new round of unprecedented measures to restrict the activities of Russian diplomatic and consular missions in the United States and, in fact, further curtail bilateral ties.” “In the form of an ultimatum it demanded us to close in two days the Consulate General in San Francisco – one of the largest institutions providing visa, notary and other consular services to citizens of Russia and the United States. Simultaneously, we were groundlessly ordered to cease the activities of the Trade Representation in Washington, D.C.,” Antonov said.
According to him, over the past six years, the Russian embassy has sent “hundreds of diplomatic notes to the State Department regarding access to the real estate assets owned by the Russian Federation,” but each has been rejected. “The United States flagrantly violated fundamental norms of international law, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, as well as the bilateral Consular Convention of 1964. In addition, the US authorities flouted their own legislation, encroaching on the principle of inviolability of private property, guaranteed by the US Constitution,” the ambassador said with confidence.
All this, Antonov said, happened under the pretext of “alleged Russian interference in US elections,” however, “after years of slandering,” Washington has presented no real evidence in support of its claims. “The case of [former US President] ‘Donald Trump’s collusion with Moscow’ fell apart, but all the imposed sanctions are still there,” he lamented.
“We are cynically told that, according to the documents, Russia has not been deprived of ownership title to the real estate assets – just ‘banned from using them.’ There is a pseudo-legitimate attempt to juggle basic legal concepts,” the ambassador concluded.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s Plan For Ending The NATO-Russian Proxy War In Ukraine Is Pragmatic
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 31, 2023
The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine has been trending towards a stalemate since the beginning of the year after Moscow’s growing edge in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” ensured that it won’t be defeated. NATO is unlikely to be defeated either, however, since it’ll probably intervene directly – whether as a whole or via a Polish–led mission that draws in the bloc via Article 5 – to freeze the Line of Contact in the event that Russia achieves a breakthrough and threatens to sweep through Ukraine.
The counteroffensive’s spectacular failure and the subsequently vicious blame game between the US and Ukraine strongly suggest that talks with Russia will resume by year’s end for freezing the conflict. Ahead of that happening, these wartime allies are frenziedly trying to convince their respective people that the other is responsible for this debacle simultaneously with formulating an attractive post-conflict vision of the future. The first is served by their vicious blame game while the second will now be discussed.
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s now polling third after winning last week’s debate and had earlier attracted enormous media attention for his outspokenness on sensitive issues, just published his “Viable Realism & Revival Doctrine” in an article for The American Conservative. Of relevance to this piece is his plan for ending the NATO-Russian proxy war. Liberal–globalist policymakers and their media allies responded with fury, and it’s not difficult to see why.
Ramaswamy describes the conflict as a “no-win war” that’s needlessly depleted Western stockpiles to China’s benefit. With a view towards more effectively containing the People’s Republic in the Asia-Pacific, he therefore suggests extricating the US from its proxy war with Russia as soon as possible. To that end, he proposes recognizing the new ground realities in Eastern Europe, ending NATO expansion, refusing to admit Ukraine to the bloc, lifting sanctions, and having Europe shoulder the burden for its own security.
The explicit goal is to “get Putin to dump Xi”, and that’s why he says that the quid pro quo is “Russia exiting its military alliance with China.” Ramaswamy is convinced that his plan will “elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia” if it’s implemented into practice, but the problem is that no such “military alliance” exists between those two. Moreover, it’s unrealistic to imagine that the US will “get Putin to dump Xi” since they’re good friends and their countries are strategic partners.
Having clarified that, this plan does have its merits. From the Russian side, it ensures that country’s objective national security interests and gives it the chance to rely on the EU for preemptively averting potentially disproportionate economic dependence on China upon the lifting of sanctions. On the home front, Ramaswamy’s plan appeals to the pragmatic policymaking faction whose influence is on the rise as proven by the success over the summer of their policy towards India that was detailed here.
The timing couldn’t have been better. The US is looking for a “face-saving” way to resume peace talks as previously explained, and the rising influence of pragmatic policymakers could lead to them overruling the liberal-globalists’ objections to this, though their rivals could still try to sabotage this. The enormous media attention that Ramaswamy has already generated, not to mention what he’s now receiving as a result of his proposal, could reshape the national discourse on the proxy war’s endgame.
Americans are becoming fatigued with this conflict but no one had yet articulated an attractive post-conflict vision of the future until now. Irrespective of Ramaswamy’s political future, his plan serves to spark a wider conversation at all levels about the pragmatism of compromising with Russia in order to free the US up for more effectively containing China in the Asia-Pacific. This can in turn facilitate the resumption of talks with Russia, especially if it emboldens pragmatic US policymakers.
The vicious blame game between the US and Ukraine over the counteroffensive’s failure leads to the inevitable one over who’s responsible for losing this proxy war, with all of this preceding America’s formulation of an attractive post-conflict vision of the future for its people and policymakers alike. The first dynamic is continually intensifying and making more headlines by the day, while the second is also presently unfolding but mostly in silence, and it’s this dynamic that Ramaswamy’s plan contributes to.
Accepting the impossibility of Russia abandoning its mutually beneficial cooperation with China and acknowledging that lifting the sanctions likely won’t happen either, the rest of his proposals could form the parameters of a potential Russian-American deal for ending their proxy war in Ukraine. That former Soviet Republic wouldn’t join NATO, nor would that bloc expand any further, and the West would de facto recognize the new ground realities in Eastern Europe while the EU bears the burden for its security.
Russia would obviously have to agree to some regional compromises too in that scenario, such as Ukraine’s privileged post-conflict relationship with NATO and the hard security guarantees that the Anglo-American Axis will likely provide, but these could be acceptable if its other interests are met. If there’s any movement in this direction, then it shouldn’t be maliciously spun as Russia conspiring to facilitating the US’ containment of China, but seen for what it truly is: Russia putting its interests first.
US desire for WW3 escalates as it mulls resumption of nuclear weapons testing
By Drago Bosnic | August 31, 2023
While the troubled Biden administration keeps parroting the same narrative about the CO2 emissions, even insisting that a ban on gas stoves would “help fight global warming”, it’s also actively working on the return of the ever so “climate-friendly” live nuclear weapons testing. The Russian Foreign Ministry has been warning about this for months, although this is usually decried as “Russian disinformation” by the mainstream propaganda machine. It’s important to note that thanks to the efforts of the United States, the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty) never entered into force and its implementation is largely dependent on the goodwill of the signatories.
“The situation involving the CTBT is causing increasing concern. The responsibility for the situation in which the treaty has not entered into force over more than a quarter of a century of its existence lies squarely with the United States, which defiantly refused to ratify it and is now demonstrating its clear intention to resume testing,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned back in early March, adding: “We cannot afford to remain idle spectators to what is happening. If the United States nevertheless decides to take such a step and be the first to conduct nuclear tests, we will be forced to respond proportionately. No one should have dangerous illusions that global strategic parity can be upset.”
However, it seems that’s exactly what the US is trying to accomplish. Its intention to restart nuclear weapons testing isn’t subsiding in the slightest. Quite the contrary it would seem, as the belligerent thalassocracy is now actively working on restoring and improving its nuclear test sites. Andrey Belousov, Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN and International Organizations in Geneva, stated that the US is still engaged in covert activities in Nevada, which shows that it doesn’t intend to stop testing new nuclear warheads. Belousov warned that Washington DC is working to improve and maintain the nuclear test site in a state of full operational readiness.
“The United States does not hide the development of new types of nuclear warheads, the effectiveness of which will sooner or later have to be tested in practice,” Belousov stated.
What the high-ranking Russian diplomat is most likely referring to is the so-called “nuclear super-fuse” technology that the US has been testing for decades, particularly under the Obama administration (and ever since). Investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote extensively on the topic, warning that the sole purpose of this controversial technology is to exponentially amplify the effectiveness of America’s first-strike capabilities, meaning that the belligerent thalassocracy is contemplating a direct attack on Russia. Zuesse’s warnings are not to be discarded or ignored, as he argues that Finland’s NATO accession is a crucial part of this sinister plan.
It’s estimated that the US is planning to trap Russia by positioning its nuclear missiles about 500 miles or 7 minutes of missile-flying distance from the Kremlin. The Pentagon believes this would be a “checkmate move” as it would allow a decapitation strike on Russia’s central command so that it doesn’t have enough time to launch retaliatory missiles. The goal is to demand Russia’s surrender on the assumption there would be no way for Moscow to assess the situation within only 7 minutes and respond accordingly. The plan was set in motion no later than 2006 when the relations between Russia and the US were cordial and years before there were major tensions between them.
Namely, at the time, America’s two most prestigious national security academic journals, Foreign Affairs and National Security, both recommended replacing the idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) with the new strategy of so-called “nuclear Primacy” that involves America’s dominance in first-strike capabilities, all in order to win a nuclear war against Russia. Zuesse argues that positioning missiles in Ukraine was supposed to be the way to achieve “nuclear primacy”, but since that’s no longer a possibility, Finland is to take the central role in this plan. It should be noted that Moscow will certainly know if the deployment of American nuclear weapons in Finland ever takes place.
This is precisely the reason why Russia has rearmed half of its ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) with maneuvering hypersonic warheads and why it has the “Perimeter” system. Namely, this system allows the Russian military to respond even in the extremely unlikely case that the entire Russian leadership is killed in a decapitation strike that Washington DC is openly contemplating at this point. Apart from its second-to-none strategic arsenal, world-class SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines) and unrivaled strategic bombers/missile carriers, Moscow has also deployed a number of “Poseidon” nuclear-tipped underwater drones that are so destructive they can cause literal radioactive tsunamis.
In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that Moscow is in the late stages of developing weapons based on new physical principles. These have been in testing for several years now. Such Russian claims are usually discarded by the mainstream propaganda machine, as the political West still believes that Moscow is supposedly “incapable” of fielding such high-tech weapons. However, Russia has been proving this notion wrong for centuries now. For instance, when Putin announced that Moscow was developing hypersonic weapons back in 2004, this was met with ridicule in the West. However, nobody was laughing when Russia inducted its first hypersonic weapons several years later.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Featured Video
The Destruction of Libya in 2011
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
On Herd Mentality
By Jeb Smith | April 14, 2026
I no longer trust “we the people,” because of the powers influencing them. Media and government schooling form their general ideas on reality and governance. Therefore, it’s not a case of the voter choosing the politicians. Instead, the system is conditioning and conforming the voter to the authorities’ desires.
In democracies, the people are kept occupied working and paying taxes, too busy to acquire information outside the approved sources. You will find they know and care far more about the next iPhone than political philosophy. Of those who hold some interest, 95% just toe the party line, holding the same opinion as the primary media source they listen to. They lack both the desire and time to expand their horizons.
Media’s purpose is to conform people’s thought to a preferred goal, which is why Republican and Democratic voters both firmly hold their parties’ general stances, reciting the same talking points. The people do not originate ideas; their thoughts are fed to them by the media so they can consume, digest, and parrot back whatever they are served. When it comes to politics, we rarely think for ourselves. We are told what to think.
Watch PBS, MSNBC and read your local newspaper for six months, and you will receive a particular view and understanding of the world. Then listen to The Mike Church Show, The Blaze, and The Daily Wire, and you will get not just another perspective but a whole different world of facts and events. The world people believe they live in can be entirely different depending on their news sources.
We enjoy seeing the enemy humiliated, which describes why those engulfed in politics love their preferred media sources; they keep returning for more like a drug addict. Networks ensure their “experts” align with the worldview they and their audience desire. The people who watch PBS, BBC, and so forth expect a specific perspective to be presented. Fox News watchers demand the same. In doing this, we both encourage and assure we are misled.
In their book Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, professors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue, based on substantial research, that voters do not decide the party platform and agenda. Instead, the parties control the “ideologies” of the voters. When the party the voter identifies with changes its position, the individuals also change theirs. They discovered the individual would quickly adopt the views of their group; they will ignore or change their own opinions over time to fit in with the collective they identify with. Achen and Bartels wrote “group memberships largely drove policy views, not vice versa.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Tankers transit Strait of Hormuz amid US attempt to impose blockade, data shows
- US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
- EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
- France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
- There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks
- China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us
- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll
- Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief
- UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
- If Americans Knew
- Mighty Israel wants all of its neighbors to be defenseless – Daily Update
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- Mark Levin Seems Upset We Haven’t Nuked Iran
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 