Friday 14th of June 2024

deal please.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMv7OxwddaE

Putin’s Gamble on Kharkiv Offensive

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

the old deal....

The Russian December 2021 ultimatum (GUS: IT WAS NOT AN ULTIMATUM — IT WAS A PROPOSAL TO AVOID FURTHER CONFLCIT AS THE KIEV GOVERNMENT WAS BOMBING THE DONBASS SINCE 2014) were a set of documents presented by Russia to the United States, NATO, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) on 17 December 2021, during (GUS: BEFORE) the prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[1][2] The ultimatum (THE PROPOSAL) outlined Russia's demands and expectations regarding the security situation in Europe, especially in relation to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the future expansion of NATO. The proposals were seen as an attempt by Russia to exert pressure and influence on the Western countries, and as a sign of its dissatisfaction and distrust with the existing security architecture in Europe.[3][4][5][6] The ultimatum (PROPOSAL) was soundly rejected (WAS NOT EVEN STUDIED), and the Russian invasion of Ukraine followed two months later.

The proposals contained several controversial and provocative elements, such as:

  • A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
  • A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997.
  • A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.
  • A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe.
  • THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINSK AGGREEMENTS, GIVING AUTONOMY TO THE DONBASS REPUBLICS, INSIDE UKRAINE.

THE REFUSAL TO EVEN NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF THIS PROPOSAL WAS AN INSULT TO DIPLOMACY, CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE THAT HAS VOWED TO DESTROY RUSSIA SINCE 1917, BY WHATEVER MEANS, INCLUDING DESTROY THE RUSSIAN CULTURE...

 

NOTE THE NEW DEAL WILL BE FAR MORE PAINFUL TO YUCKRAINE: BE DESTROYED OR ABANDON THE RUSSSIAN PROVINCES BACK TO RUSSIA.... THE THIRD OPTION IS WW3......

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

UK wants WW3...

Britain will not support any solution to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine that involves what it sees as concessions to Moscow, Defense Secretary Grant Chapps told Times Radio on Tuesday.

The UK has been among the largest arms donors to Kiev. In recent weeks, London has stepped up its rhetoric by saying that the British weapons supplied to Ukraine may be used for attacks deep inside Russia. Moscow recently summoned the UK ambassador over the matter and warned of possible retaliation, including strikes targeting “any British military facilities and equipment” in Ukraine and beyond.

Earlier on Tuesday, Chapps confirmed that Kiev could use British-supplied weapons to strike Russia’s Crimean Peninsula. London considers the region, which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum, to be an “integral part of Ukraine,” the defense secretary stated.

When asked by Times Radio about whether London would consider any agreement between Moscow and Kiev, Chapps simply answered: “No.” He then further elaborated that the UK sees “no sense at all” in persuading or “strong-arming” Ukraine into accepting any peace conditions and “giving up some of their territory.”

Apart from Crimea, four other former Ukrainian territories – two Donbass Republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – joined Russia in autumn 2022 following a series of referendums. Kiev branded the votes a “sham” and claims as its own all four regions and Crimea.

On Tuesday, Chapps maintained that the only way to end the conflict was by inflicting a military defeat on Russia. “I do not think it is plausible at all for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to win this war,” he said, calling for increased arms shipments to Ukraine.

“It is very, very important that the US follows the UK lead. Remember: we’ve just increased our money to Ukraine this year to £3 billion ($3.78 billion), our biggest-ever package,” the defense secretary said, referring to an earlier announcement by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who committed to spend that sum on military support for Ukraine per year.

Chapps also indirectly compared modern Russia to Nazi Germany by saying that “we have been in this position before in Europe and we will simply not allow that to happen again.”

“If you give a bully like Putin an inch, he will take a mile. In this case, he will probably take quite a lot, not just Ukraine. I’m not sure he will stop there either,”Chapps added.

In the years prior to World War II, Western nations are seen as having sought to appease Adolf Hitler, most notably through the infamous 1938 Munich Agreement, under which Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France coerced Czechoslovakia into surrendering its border regions to Germany.

Russia has repeatedly stated throughout the conflict that its goals are to protect the people of Donbass against persecution by Kiev and ensure its own security in light of constant NATO expansion toward its borders. Moscow has also repeatedly pointed to the nationalist nature of the Western-backed post-Maidan governments in Kiev that have persecuted Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine...

https://www.rt.com/news/597602-uk-no-deal-moscow-kiev/

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

front collapse.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt6fhuiM2Co

Kharkiv Front Collapses / Putin Still Wants to Negotiate

 

In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the RUSSIAN portions of Ukraine (the Donbass and Crimea) should have been returned to Russia... Then the FRIENDSHIP between Russia and Ukraine "stopped" this, while the West (aka the American Empire) was covertly waiting to strike Ukraine with a Holloywoodian change of ideology, by cultivating the long-existing NAZI spirit of some of the Ukrainians, which culminated in the Maidan "rightwing Nazi revolution" in 2014... Some of the Russian portions of Ukraine objected to this "revolution" and decided to become AUTONOMOUS, eventually protected by the "Minsk Agreements" — which were croks.

The "territorial integrity" of Ukraine is to say that "EIRE" (Ireland) is still part of the United Kingdom. It's not.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

 

advancing....

 

Here’s why Russia’s Kharkov offensive is far more than just a military setback for Kiev
With Moscow’s forces advancing on Ukraine’s second-largest city, more and more voices are having to admit the reality of the situation...

 

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

 

In Chapaev,” a 1930s Soviet film classic still very familiar in both Russian and Ukrainian popular culture, a famous key scene depicts a “psychological attack.” In the movie, this does not refer to propaganda or information warfare, as we might assume now. Instead, the attack is a disciplined advance across a real battlefield, carried out with so much panache that it almost panics the defenders into a rout. In the old Soviet film, this assault is repelled.

Yet, in reality, things can turn out differently: There are signs that Russia’s recent offensive in Ukraine’s north-eastern Kharkov region, while unlikely to have been designed for such effects, may be turning into a psychological defeat for Kiev and its Western backers.

Without insider knowledge, we cannot know the exact aims that Moscow intends to pursue with this operation. We do know what it has achieved, at this point, in terms of territory and positions taken: more than 100 square kilometers, including a growing number of villages. According to Ukrainian officers and media, Russian forces are fighting in the town of Volchansk, a local center of military importance. It is hard to predict where this particular advance will stop. But given the – as of now, at least – comparatively small forces deployed in this operation, it is unlikely that it was meant to capture the city of Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-most-important urban center. It may, however, serve to bring it within the range of Russian artillery again, which could serve future and larger offensives.

More probable guesses regarding Russia’s goals include the creation of a buffer zone to protect the Russian region and city of Belgorod and exert pressure on Ukraine’s military to over-extend its already depleted resources. Russian forces starting fresh attacks in additional regions (Sumy and Chernigov) – opening what one British newspaper has already termed yet another, “third” front –would fit this pattern. And Russian aims need not be static, of course: Moscow can begin operations with one set of aims but revise them when fresh opportunities open up, which may be happening in this case.

What requires less guessing is assessing the impact of the attack on Russia’s two opponents: Ukraine and the West, in particular the United States. Unsurprisingly, both Kiev and Washington are making efforts to put on a brave face. Both – most likely with a degree of coordination – are trying to downplay their losses and future risks. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has paid a surprise visit to Kiev. Acknowledging that the situation is challenging,” he has tried to keep hope alive by promising that American aid will arrive soon and make a great difference. The problem is that he cannot know that; and it is inherently unlikely. For two reasons: There is not enough aid, and there cannot be enough aid, given Ukraine’s underlying weaknesses in manpower which cannot be repaired with any amount of Western funding.  

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky as well, has sought to reassure domestic and international audiences. Claiming that his military understands Russian plans to stretch the Ukrainian defense thin, he has promised that other important sections of the front, for instance in the Donbass town of Chasov Yar, will not be abandoned. But what if it does not matter if Zelensky sees through Russian strategy or not? His real choice may only be between where Russia will make gains and where Ukraine will lose. That is the essence of being over-extended. Ukraine’s military has already, according to CNN, hinted clearly at further retreats on the Donbass front.

More interesting than these rationalizations of a worsening battlefield crisis are reactions that are both more candid and less optimistic. For one thing, the Russian advance is turning into not only a Ukrainian (and Western) defeat, but also a Ukrainian scandal reported in the West in an unusually forthright manner. In Ukraine, the quick and almost unresisted Russian march through what should have been a zone of fortifications, minefields, and traps has led to accusations of corruption on a level that can only be described as treasonous. Ukrainskaya Pravda, a traditional stalwart of pro-Western sentiment and patriotic mobilization rhetoric, is asking where the fortifications are. Pointing out that regional authorities have paid millions to fictitious companies to build what clearly either is not there or is so shoddy that it might as well be missing entirely. 

In the West, the BBC – no less – has given global resonance to a Ukrainian special reconnaissance officer, Denys Yaroslavsky, who says that he and his men saw Russian forces “simply walk in.” Something important that should have been there to at least slow them down, was missing: While Ukrainian officials “claimed that defenses were being built at huge cost,”as the BBC reports, the costs (and, for someone, profits) materialized, but the defenses did not. “Either it was an act of negligence, or corruption,”Yaroslavsky has concluded. “It wasn’t a failure. It was a betrayal.”

That Ukraine’s war effort suffers from great corruption would be news only to the most naive. But its open denunciation in and outside Ukraine points – not for the first time, it is true – to the decreasing capacity of the Zelensky regime to shape and control crucial narratives. In a similar vein, the self-contradictory output of Ukraine’s notorious head of Military Intelligence, Kirill Budanov bespeaks, at least, confusion. On one side, Budanov has painted what the New York Times has called a “bleak picture.” In conversation with the American newspaper, he has described Ukraine’s situation as “on the edge.” More specifically – and more importantly – he even went as far as to openly name his country’s worst Achilles heel, its stark lack of reserves to shift around under acute pressure on any given part of the frontline. While also predicting a future “stabilization,” Budanov stressed risks and constraints. Yet speaking to a home audience, via Ukrainian TV, the general shifted his emphasis to “stabilization” only, promising that Russian forces are already contained, at least “in principle.”

Clearly, Russia’s operation in Kharkov Region is an ongoing battle within an ongoing war. It would be rash to predict outcomes, at least in detail. Yet, if we zoom out and focus on major developments, two things are certain: First, Moscow has and retains the initiative. That is why its forces are on the offensive and why it decides about the purpose of their attacks, while Ukraine and the West are now reduced to reacting. Second, despite the laboriously maintained facade of optimism and perseverance, both Ukraine and the West are openly showing signs of nervousness, and more specifically of a nervousness induced by Russian pressure. That, for now, is the most obvious effect of the Kharkov operation, even if it may be hidden in plain sight.

https://www.rt.com/russia/597626-latest-attack-russia-ukraine/

 

SEE ALSO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGwXOahI8oU

Scott Ritter: Israel is losing

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....