Thursday 25th of July 2024

the worst trio of dumb katastrophik klowns at cirkus amerika.....

It is obvious to all, even the most ardent Ukrainian nationalists, that Ukraine is on the ropes, being battered relentlessly by a far better trained, prepared, and capable opponent. It is like watching a college boxer get hammered by a world champion heavyweight at this point, and one would think it would be in Ukraine’s immediate and long-term interest to cry uncle and try and make the best deal it can with Russia.


BY Seth Ferris


Even neocon mouthpieces like Politico realize this fact, but, of course, try and attribute this only to the recent “delayed delivery of weapons” caused by disagreements in the US House of Representatives.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


The fact is, that the Russian armed forces have a massive superiority in all aspects of this war, tanks and artillery, airpower, cruise and ballistic missiles, drones for observation and attack, air defense and electronic warfare, as well as the ability to produce well-trained and highly motivated soldiers. The Russian military logistics, particularly the manufacturing sector, are light years ahead of the west, producing several times more weapons and equipment, especially the lifeblood of what is, in effect, an artillery war, 152mm shells.

It is interesting to note that, despite both sides allegory linking to the Great Patriotic War between Nazi Europe and the USSR, this war more resembles the Great War of 1914 to 1918 in the way it is being fought. Like that grinding campaign, this war started with rapid “big arrow” attacks by Russia, and has evolved subsequently into trench warfare and grinding engagements over towns like Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdeevka, and now the strategic point of ChasovYar.

So it is today, with satellite and drone observation, combined with modern communications, making it impossible to achieve surprise. The Russian military have realized this far faster than their opponents, and quickly determined that, especially given their great superiority in firepower, a war of attrition proved an effective way to break the Ukrainian defense without suffering huge casualties on the Russian side.

Russian generals identified key strategic points in the Ukrainian lines which their opponents could not afford to lose, and proceeded to draw the Ukrainians into committing to defending them, trapping them in well-organized meat grinders, causing horrendous losses and the inevitable loss of each of the much-vaunted fortress cities, degrading not only the manpower but also the morale of Ukrainian troops, as the Russians took each in turn.

The Russian air force, especially the SU-34, are now bombing at will along the entire front line, as the Ukrainian air defences have been rendered ineffective. The liberation of territories by Russia from the neo-fascist regime is currently rapidly accelerating as the Ukrainian defense collapses.


The Ukrainians are staring defeat in the face.

Enter Macron and Cameron, two of the most odious cheerleaders of the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis in Europe. Macron has been threatening to deploy troops to Ukraine for some time, with his first utterances on the subject in February 2024. His apparent line of reasoning was that if Odessa was threatened, the appearance of French military units on the front lines would make Russia “think twice” about further advances.

Needless to say, the Russian response to this idea was rather blunt, later confirming that they have evidence that NATO troops have been present in Ukraine for some time, operating advanced weapons systems such as air defense, HIMARS, and Storm Shadow missiles to name but a few. Russia has also repeatedly warned that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine will be considered legitimate targets, the same has been said for NATO bases that are expected to be used by the F-16s that are to be supplied to Ukraine. France’s NATO allies also have not appeared keen to support the French idea of intervention, with thebacklash quite quick.

It seems that the French have already deployed some 100 men from the 3rd Regiment of the French Foreign Legion to support the Ukrainian 57th Brigade, supposedly a forerunner of an overall deployment of 1,500 men. What the French hope to achieve by these statements is unclear, as are their ideas for deployment.

The total number of troops that the French could deploy is severely limited by the French military’s poor ability to project power, as their previous problems in African deployments has shown. In those operations, it was found to be impossible to deploy or supply French troops without logistical support from the UK and US. This was for a reasonably small deployment. The deployment of any sizeable force to Ukraine would be an order of magnitude more difficult for the French.

Perhaps the French should dust off their history books about the previous disastrous French intervention in the Russian revolution and civil war from December 1918 to April 1919, which was a complete failure. Unfortunately, nobody seems to like learning from history any more.

Enter David Cameron, the former Prime Minister of the UK, and now Foreign Minister, who made the claim that Ukraine has the green light from Britain to use weapons to strike targets deep inside Russia.

“Ukraine has that right,” Cameron told Reuters. “Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it’s defending itself.”

Needless to say, such a statement led to a furor, with a rapid response from Russian spoke people.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described Cameron’s comments as dangerous.

“This is a direct escalation of tension around the Ukrainian conflict, which could potentially pose a danger to European security, to the entire European security architecture,” he said.

“This is where we see such a dangerous trend of escalating tension in official statements. This is a cause for our concern.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added:

“This is the first time that a Western politician has so frankly acknowledged what has long been a well-known secret for a majority of the world’s countries: That the West is waging a covert war against Russia with the hands of Ukrainians.”

Interestingly, the original article by Reuters was pulled from the internet, but the damage was already done.

In another strong response to the borderline insane behavior of Macron, Cameron, and US representatives, some of whom stated that US troops would have to be deployed if Ukraine could not hold their front line, Russian nuclear exercises have begun, with a strong Russian warning by former PM Dmitry Medvedev, now head of the Russian Security Council, that:

“Sending your troops to the territory of Ukraine will entail the direct entry of their countries into the war, to which we will have to respond. And, alas, not in the territory of Ukraine. In this case, none of them will be able to hide either on Capitol Hill, or in the Élysée Palace, or in 10 Downing Street. A world catastrophe will come.”

Meanwhile, Russia has accused the NATO alliance of using its four-month exercise, Steadfast Defender, to prepare for an offensive war against Russia. NATO officials claim that the exercise is defensive, but given the theme of the maneuvers was a rapid US reinforcement of border countries and a “counter-attack” this seems unlikely. Maria Zakharova put it this way:

“Right now, NATO’s largest exercise since the Cold War, Steadfast Defender, is taking place near Russia’s borders. According to their scenario, coalition’s actions against Russia are being practiced using all the instruments, including hybrid and conventional weapons,” she said in a statement. “We have to admit that NATO is seriously preparing for a ‘potential conflict’ with us.”

Meanwhile, clown number one, along with the certifiable nut case Ursula von der Leyen, are likely to put pressure on President Xi of the People’s Republic of China by haranguing him about the need to put pressure on Russia to “finish the war”, something that the Chinese President has reacted badly to in the past.

Given the duplicitous behavior of Europe and the US regarding the Minsk agreements, as well as the peace negotiations in Turkey in 2022, combined with Russia’s ongoing success on the battlefield, there is little to no reason for Russia to negotiate at this point, and every reason not to.

The clowns are getting desperate, as their plans to cripple Russia have had the opposite effect. Will common sense prevail, or will they risk a nuclear war to try and save face? It would be a bad comedy if it were not so serious.


bottes napoléoniennes?


BY Salman Rafi Sheikh


France has become the first NATO country to send its troops to Ukraine to fight the Russian military forces. This decision is a NATO decision, i.e., a decision involving the invocation of NATO’s Article 5. Yet, this is a significant development, which brings the possibility of a pan-European war closer to becoming an ultimate reality. The question, however, is why France took such a dangerous step that not even the US has. Its answer lies not in France’s sympathy with Ukraine and/or the possibility of Russia winning against NATO and establishing its domination in Europe. The answer to this step lies in how Russia is destroying the remnants of the French empire in Africa. France is, therefore, especially poised to inflict some damage on Russia. It cannot fight the Russians directly in Africa, but Paris does want to utilise the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine to ‘settle’ the score in some ways. This logic is pretty evident from the type of soldiers France has sent to Ukraine. In short, these are not regular French troops, composed of French nationals/citizens.

The troops France has sent to Ukraine are from its Foreign Legion, i.e., an elite corps of the French Army consisting entirely of foreigners willing to serve in the French Army. Until recently, this Legion had a significant presence in parts of Africa, keeping the French post-colonial establishment intact.

In October 2023, however, France faced a setback in Niger. It was asked to pack its troops and leave. Before Niger, French forces were also forced out of Mali and Burkina Faso after their militaries seized power and decided to break with their former coloniser. From Niger, France has already withdrawn its 1500 troops. More importantly, as media reports indicate, military bases previously occupied by French troops are now being put under Russian troops, including the Wagner Group. In Burkina Faso, the new regime expelled French troops and hailed its partnership with Russia as the dawn of a new era.

These developments are crucial – not only for France but also for the West. By displacing traditional French spaces of domination and putting itself in those spaces, Moscow is consolidating its position in Africa as part of its overall strategy to consolidate the Global South and push for a new, alternative, and multipolar world order that is not singularity-dominated by the West. While this is happening, for France, what matters – and what is clearly humiliating – is how it has been kicked out of a region that was its backyard for decades.

Niger was particularly important. It has been a key supplier of Uranium to France, which gets almost 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power plants. With France, not able to directly control the outflow of Uranium from Niger anymore, its domestic production is standing already on a slippery slope. France, therefore, has decided to send its troops to Ukraine to deter Russia from taking any steps that might disrupt the supply of Uranium.

But will this strategy work? Most of the policymakers in the West tend to blame Russian ascendance in terms of Moscow’s “conspiracy” against France in Africa. But this is not entirely true. Decades of French domination in this region have also paved the way for nationalist sentiments to emerge and grow, resulting in anti-French and anti-West attitudes to shape the domestic political landscape. If these sentiments continue to grow – which would clearly benefit Russia – this might also see a change in domestic preferences for trade with France. Could, then, Russia be blamed for any shortages in the supply of Uranium and any subsequent problems in the production and supply of electricity?

These domestic anti-French sentiments have genuine grounds that the West, including France, do not seem to recognise. For instance, French troops in Africa’s Sahel region were supposed to provide security from and eliminate militant groups. Even though some of these troops have been in active deployment for as long as 2009, armed groups remain powerful. Now, this failure can hardly be attributed to any external power, let alone Russia. Still, the subsequent growing dissatisfaction and disaffection with French troops has directly translated into a region-wide preference for Russia. This is despite the fact that Russia is not a big economic player in Africa. While China is a much bigger economic player in Africa, African states understand that China doesn’t have a policy of active military deployment in countries to maintain peace and/or fight conflicts. For Russia, which is a smaller economic player in Africa, offering military services is a preferred route to deepen its footprint.

Therefore, as opposed to making strictly economic contracts, Russia has already concluded, if media reports are true, military-to-military cooperation with at least 43 countries in the region. This is in addition to the fact that Russia is actively seeking agreement to establish new military bases in the region too.

What seems to be clear is that a Russia-China partnership is emerging in Africa, where China is managing the economic side of this partnership and Russia is positioning itself as a security guarantor – a role that Moscow played very successfully in Syria by defeating Washington’s “regime change” plan. For most African countries, therefore, Russia is naturally a better option.

But France is trying to resist this in Ukraine by sending its troops. This deployment is unlikely to affect its position in Africa, but it can certainly contribute to making Europe a lot less secure region than it currently is. If Russian forces come into direct contact with French troops and casualties happen on either side, it could significantly escalate tensions. But NATO would still not be legally able to jump in, for the French troops would be attacked and killed outside of France because it is France that decided to send its troops rather than Russia foraying into the French territories and attacking them. Yet, the outcome will be a much more complicated scenario than what we have today.