I feel so bloody sorry for those on whatever side fighting in all the conflicts, Ukrainians possibly most because they are being killed and wounded for the Nazi/Banderite faction and USA/NATO's wishes.
I dislike the idea of weapons being shipped around the world, but as the West is allowing the terrorist regime in Kiev to target Russia, giving Russian weapons to forces fighting the Western axis of evil makes total sense. Just imagine if the Houthi had other missiles what would happen to the Western navies and ship traffic. There are several places around the world that could be closed to Western ships.
Tim Watson at Consciousness of Sheep site has been discussing the British foolishness of stealing money from wealthy investors as Britain is so dependant on investment to run its bankrupt economy.
I think its disgusting that the Z puppet turns up in a jumper to the D Day commemorations. Classless.
Perhaps he was happy to represent the Ukrainians that fought for the nazis from the bunkers that day whilst he was scavenging for weapons from one of the chief Western lunatics-Macron..
On the battles on the fronts it Looks like there are more operational encirclements in place with the RF push into Georgiyevka trapping UA units against the lakes.
Also taking control of the main supply road into Ugledar.
These moves and others will eventually lead to the destruction of 1 or 2 more UA brigades.
Yet still, for now, they try to hold the line unquestionably.
Unless, like you say, something big is around the corner.
Like a Seydlitz Kurzbach (Stalingrad pocket) attempt to pre-empt a UA withdrawal or a mass surrender somewhere else even?
There were actually more Ukrainians at Normandy that day than French soldiers. Only 203 French military took part in the invasion. Thousands of Polish and Ukrainian auxiliaries fought for the Germans. I was surprised by how few allied soldiers actually died. The D day landing casualty figures were like a slow day on the Eastern front and a quarter of the current weekly totals for the UA.
I was reading the Nato Charter the other day. My reading is that England and France have colonies or areas linked to them which aren't part of Nato to the nature of their relationship to the mother country for eg Channel Islands. And other areas which lie south of the Tropic of Cancer. I presume an attack on these areas wouldnt invole Article 5. Im open to being corrected.
"But at the SPIEF conference in St. Petersburg, Putin reassuringly told the Western press that talk of Russia attacking NATO is ‘bullshit’." Totally different context really, the question he was asked was about invasion of NATO countries , not about specific retaliatory strikes.
Agreed. Gilbert Doctorow discussed the likely escalation ladder in his interview with Napolitano yesterday. He said Russia would likely give various warnings, then escalate with strikes on airfields in Poland and Romania, and only go farther afield if NATO continued to escalate, although that could result in strikes on military targets in France and Germany - eventually. I agree with that. Putin is cautious, he's not interested in starting WWIII. At the same time, he's not interested in being bullied by NATO. And the only way to stop a bully is to hurt him enough that he backs off - or is put down.
It's the issue of whether the West is willing to go to the point of needing to be "put down" that is the WWIII risk. We're still quite a ways from that - but it's coming up real quick now.
There were some pictures doing the rounds on Telegram of an aircraft carrier with a hole on the deck - which was supposed to have been caused by the Houthis. But I couldn't get confirmation of the story so didn't include it because it could have been photoshopped. But it would have been a great story if the Eisenhower has been attacked and damaged on D-Day.
I meant to say earlier, hasn't been anything from MOA. Looks like bigger issue than he thought. Wish him well. Yours is the better blog though. Appreciate the hard work you put in.
He was supposed to have been back on the 6th June, I think. It is worrying. I've been on the MoA for years - so it feels as if I know the guy a little. There is some nastiness on the site but also some very well informed and expert contributions.
I wouldn't worry too much yet. It's only been a day since he was expected back. And it's a weekend. If he's not operating again by, say, end of next week, then maybe we should be concerned. If he's able, he'll probably post an update - maybe on Sunday when he usually does the week's recap.
Apparently no damage. But what I find much more interesting is the Chinese are tracking the ship - and no doubt passing the intel on to the Russian fleet in the Med - who really can sink that ship if necessary without even leaving the Med.
Also remember that China has a naval base in Djibouti which has a destroyer, a submarine and a logistics ship - and no doubt an intelligence center. They're undoubtedly tracking the US ships as well - and passing the intel on to the Russians.
Yes, it would, and I won't be surprised if Russia does that. At first I thought Russia doesn't have the kind of ties with Yemen that it does with Iran and North Korea, but a quick Google search indicates Russia-Yemen ties go back a century.
I suspect Russia would have no problem giving Syria more advanced air defense, plus planes and other hardware, if Israel keeps pushing Syria. Russia still wants good relations with Israel, but if Israel keeps doing what it's doing, Russia may decide enough is enough and start supporting Syria more directly.
Russia has also previously offered military cooperation to Lebanon, although not specifically Hezbollah. Hezbollah seems to be doing well on its own, and of course if Russia supplies Iran, Iran can supply Hezbollah - and Syria.
My prediction is that once the Middle East war gets going, Israel will end up destroyed and the US driven out of the Middle East. That in turn will also contribute to destroying NATO in payback for Libya.
And then we're back to the point of the US stepping up and needing to be "put down."
To let you understand Britain. My village in Scotland borders the lands owned by the family of the late Queen's mother. They have owned it since the 13th century. Although Scotland has its own parliament now, Scottish ministers would need to get consent from English ministers to travel to Putin's economic forum, in the unlikely event that they wanted to visit. Most Scots like the Russians and dont share the hatred of Russia that seems to pervade British elites. Im not sure where the hatred comes from. The best speculation is a hangover from the colonial days when Britain and Russia were vying for power in India during the 'Great Game'. British power since those days is well gone. The reality is that in military terms Britain is a third rate power and would last about a week at best against Russia in a conventional war.
We also live in the Borders in a cottage owned by the Duke of Roxburgh who obtained land and a castle from James 1st - but not the castle he currently lives in. His family had been Reivers (outlaws) but changed sides as it were.
With regard to Russophobia, this has puzzled me for some time. Anyway, I watched an interview at Dialogue Works with US scientist Theodore Postol. It is worth a look for lots of reasons but he suggests that the Russophobia in the UK goes back to Catherine the Great who presided over a great deal of expansion during her tenure which led to fears that Russia could grown too strong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uesyZ8Z6zQ.
"Thus the idiotic actions of the West are actually pulling Russia deeper into Ukraine than they had originally intended."
To be precise, we don't know what Russia initially intended. My theory is that Putin and Lavrov came up with a bone-headed plan to scare Ukraine into negotiating to get back to what was essentially the Minsk II agreement with the additional proviso that Ukraine would "not join NATO". This plan initially worked until the West forced Zelensky to walk away from it.
The plan was bone-headed from the start since there is no way Ukraine or the West would have kept the agreement any more than they did Minsk II. Why Putin thought this would work is beyond me.
Fortunately he appears to have come to his senses, since he has subsequently mentioned how he was "played" by the West. The Russian General Staff undoubtedly told him back in 2021 or 2022 that he needed a Plan B in case Plan A failed (which they knew it would) - which is to take Ukraine off the board entirely and permanently. That is the plan currently underway.
People still read too much into Putin's comments. Even Gilbert Doctorow mentions the problem with Putin's guarded speech in his interview with Judge Napolitano yesterday. Putin is always fairly vague about what Russia will or will not do. He never commits himself until he actually orders something done, and he never telegraphs what he's going to do. So everything is vague. Doctorow said a lot of people in Russia don't like his vagueness. For instance, he didn't actually say Russia would supply weapons to the US' enemies - he just said Russia "might" do that. Well, they already have - supplying missile technology to North Korea and selling advanced planes to Iran. So clearly his comment adds nothing to the table. It's just another way of not saying explicitly what Russia will do until it does it.
The same thing applies to his vague comments about western Ukraine once being part of Poland. Everyone takes that to mean Russia will never occupy all of Ukraine including the western oblasts. But Putin has never said that, and objectively from a military security and geopolitical matter it would be a bad idea to NOT take that territory. So until a final decision has been made and executed by Russia, these sorts of assumptions are unwarranted.
I based my assumptions on two things: 1) what is objectively in Russia's best interests from a military security standpoint, and 2) on what I would do if I were Putin. And since I'm a rational psychopath, like Putin, I think I stand a better chance of being right than people like Mercouris or Napolitano who think Russia will stop short.
Thank you Richard. I'm not so sure Russia wants Western Ukraine as I've said before but time will tell. As you say, they may feel they need to do so from a security standpoint.
I feel so bloody sorry for those on whatever side fighting in all the conflicts, Ukrainians possibly most because they are being killed and wounded for the Nazi/Banderite faction and USA/NATO's wishes.
I dislike the idea of weapons being shipped around the world, but as the West is allowing the terrorist regime in Kiev to target Russia, giving Russian weapons to forces fighting the Western axis of evil makes total sense. Just imagine if the Houthi had other missiles what would happen to the Western navies and ship traffic. There are several places around the world that could be closed to Western ships.
Tim Watson at Consciousness of Sheep site has been discussing the British foolishness of stealing money from wealthy investors as Britain is so dependant on investment to run its bankrupt economy.
Thank you for your great work.
Thanks for that. I'll check out the Consciousness of sheep site.
Thanks for the update Rob.
I think its disgusting that the Z puppet turns up in a jumper to the D Day commemorations. Classless.
Perhaps he was happy to represent the Ukrainians that fought for the nazis from the bunkers that day whilst he was scavenging for weapons from one of the chief Western lunatics-Macron..
On the battles on the fronts it Looks like there are more operational encirclements in place with the RF push into Georgiyevka trapping UA units against the lakes.
Also taking control of the main supply road into Ugledar.
These moves and others will eventually lead to the destruction of 1 or 2 more UA brigades.
Yet still, for now, they try to hold the line unquestionably.
Unless, like you say, something big is around the corner.
Like a Seydlitz Kurzbach (Stalingrad pocket) attempt to pre-empt a UA withdrawal or a mass surrender somewhere else even?
Lets see what happens next week.
It could be an interesting week.
There were actually more Ukrainians at Normandy that day than French soldiers. Only 203 French military took part in the invasion. Thousands of Polish and Ukrainian auxiliaries fought for the Germans. I was surprised by how few allied soldiers actually died. The D day landing casualty figures were like a slow day on the Eastern front and a quarter of the current weekly totals for the UA.
In reference to Macron: i suspect he is the only western leader whose wife gets her son to give her husband some fatherly advice.
I was reading the Nato Charter the other day. My reading is that England and France have colonies or areas linked to them which aren't part of Nato to the nature of their relationship to the mother country for eg Channel Islands. And other areas which lie south of the Tropic of Cancer. I presume an attack on these areas wouldnt invole Article 5. Im open to being corrected.
I have no idea - maybe Richard will know.
"But at the SPIEF conference in St. Petersburg, Putin reassuringly told the Western press that talk of Russia attacking NATO is ‘bullshit’." Totally different context really, the question he was asked was about invasion of NATO countries , not about specific retaliatory strikes.
Agreed. Gilbert Doctorow discussed the likely escalation ladder in his interview with Napolitano yesterday. He said Russia would likely give various warnings, then escalate with strikes on airfields in Poland and Romania, and only go farther afield if NATO continued to escalate, although that could result in strikes on military targets in France and Germany - eventually. I agree with that. Putin is cautious, he's not interested in starting WWIII. At the same time, he's not interested in being bullied by NATO. And the only way to stop a bully is to hurt him enough that he backs off - or is put down.
It's the issue of whether the West is willing to go to the point of needing to be "put down" that is the WWIII risk. We're still quite a ways from that - but it's coming up real quick now.
Giving the Houthis missiles which can sink US ships would really hurt American, especially it's pride and reputation without involving NATO countries.
There were some pictures doing the rounds on Telegram of an aircraft carrier with a hole on the deck - which was supposed to have been caused by the Houthis. But I couldn't get confirmation of the story so didn't include it because it could have been photoshopped. But it would have been a great story if the Eisenhower has been attacked and damaged on D-Day.
I meant to say earlier, hasn't been anything from MOA. Looks like bigger issue than he thought. Wish him well. Yours is the better blog though. Appreciate the hard work you put in.
He was supposed to have been back on the 6th June, I think. It is worrying. I've been on the MoA for years - so it feels as if I know the guy a little. There is some nastiness on the site but also some very well informed and expert contributions.
I wouldn't worry too much yet. It's only been a day since he was expected back. And it's a weekend. If he's not operating again by, say, end of next week, then maybe we should be concerned. If he's able, he'll probably post an update - maybe on Sunday when he usually does the week's recap.
Chinese satellite images track USS Eisenhower in Red Sea
https://defence-blog.com/chinese-satellite-images-track-uss-eisenhower-in-red-sea/
Apparently no damage. But what I find much more interesting is the Chinese are tracking the ship - and no doubt passing the intel on to the Russian fleet in the Med - who really can sink that ship if necessary without even leaving the Med.
Also remember that China has a naval base in Djibouti which has a destroyer, a submarine and a logistics ship - and no doubt an intelligence center. They're undoubtedly tracking the US ships as well - and passing the intel on to the Russians.
Yes, it would, and I won't be surprised if Russia does that. At first I thought Russia doesn't have the kind of ties with Yemen that it does with Iran and North Korea, but a quick Google search indicates Russia-Yemen ties go back a century.
I suspect Russia would have no problem giving Syria more advanced air defense, plus planes and other hardware, if Israel keeps pushing Syria. Russia still wants good relations with Israel, but if Israel keeps doing what it's doing, Russia may decide enough is enough and start supporting Syria more directly.
Russia has also previously offered military cooperation to Lebanon, although not specifically Hezbollah. Hezbollah seems to be doing well on its own, and of course if Russia supplies Iran, Iran can supply Hezbollah - and Syria.
My prediction is that once the Middle East war gets going, Israel will end up destroyed and the US driven out of the Middle East. That in turn will also contribute to destroying NATO in payback for Libya.
And then we're back to the point of the US stepping up and needing to be "put down."
The Duran had a fascinating interview (at least for this foreigner) on UK elections and the ruling class, including the lack of debate on Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/live/OpW5xSLQ0_o?si=WPXrdY_cB8oMhxV8
That was excellent - Neema Parvini provides an insightful analysis of British politics - cheers.
I'll give a look when I get some time. - Cheers
To let you understand Britain. My village in Scotland borders the lands owned by the family of the late Queen's mother. They have owned it since the 13th century. Although Scotland has its own parliament now, Scottish ministers would need to get consent from English ministers to travel to Putin's economic forum, in the unlikely event that they wanted to visit. Most Scots like the Russians and dont share the hatred of Russia that seems to pervade British elites. Im not sure where the hatred comes from. The best speculation is a hangover from the colonial days when Britain and Russia were vying for power in India during the 'Great Game'. British power since those days is well gone. The reality is that in military terms Britain is a third rate power and would last about a week at best against Russia in a conventional war.
We also live in the Borders in a cottage owned by the Duke of Roxburgh who obtained land and a castle from James 1st - but not the castle he currently lives in. His family had been Reivers (outlaws) but changed sides as it were.
With regard to Russophobia, this has puzzled me for some time. Anyway, I watched an interview at Dialogue Works with US scientist Theodore Postol. It is worth a look for lots of reasons but he suggests that the Russophobia in the UK goes back to Catherine the Great who presided over a great deal of expansion during her tenure which led to fears that Russia could grown too strong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uesyZ8Z6zQ.
"Thus the idiotic actions of the West are actually pulling Russia deeper into Ukraine than they had originally intended."
To be precise, we don't know what Russia initially intended. My theory is that Putin and Lavrov came up with a bone-headed plan to scare Ukraine into negotiating to get back to what was essentially the Minsk II agreement with the additional proviso that Ukraine would "not join NATO". This plan initially worked until the West forced Zelensky to walk away from it.
The plan was bone-headed from the start since there is no way Ukraine or the West would have kept the agreement any more than they did Minsk II. Why Putin thought this would work is beyond me.
Fortunately he appears to have come to his senses, since he has subsequently mentioned how he was "played" by the West. The Russian General Staff undoubtedly told him back in 2021 or 2022 that he needed a Plan B in case Plan A failed (which they knew it would) - which is to take Ukraine off the board entirely and permanently. That is the plan currently underway.
People still read too much into Putin's comments. Even Gilbert Doctorow mentions the problem with Putin's guarded speech in his interview with Judge Napolitano yesterday. Putin is always fairly vague about what Russia will or will not do. He never commits himself until he actually orders something done, and he never telegraphs what he's going to do. So everything is vague. Doctorow said a lot of people in Russia don't like his vagueness. For instance, he didn't actually say Russia would supply weapons to the US' enemies - he just said Russia "might" do that. Well, they already have - supplying missile technology to North Korea and selling advanced planes to Iran. So clearly his comment adds nothing to the table. It's just another way of not saying explicitly what Russia will do until it does it.
The same thing applies to his vague comments about western Ukraine once being part of Poland. Everyone takes that to mean Russia will never occupy all of Ukraine including the western oblasts. But Putin has never said that, and objectively from a military security and geopolitical matter it would be a bad idea to NOT take that territory. So until a final decision has been made and executed by Russia, these sorts of assumptions are unwarranted.
I based my assumptions on two things: 1) what is objectively in Russia's best interests from a military security standpoint, and 2) on what I would do if I were Putin. And since I'm a rational psychopath, like Putin, I think I stand a better chance of being right than people like Mercouris or Napolitano who think Russia will stop short.
Thank you Richard. I'm not so sure Russia wants Western Ukraine as I've said before but time will tell. As you say, they may feel they need to do so from a security standpoint.