Civil War in Ukraine: Western Empire vs Russia

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Insider report indicating that Strelkov would be implicated in the murder of Nemtsov. In one of my previous post I mentioned a article about the two pillars of a possible Maidan in Russia - the liberals and conservatives combined - where Strelkov was also mentioned as possibly involved in a revolt in Russia.

Insider update in Nemtsov's case - the foreign trace has been found

http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2015/03/insider-update-in-nemtsovs-case-foreign.html

 

[s-kur]

Where is this quote from?

[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/markitanty-i-udav]
В плане развития международных отношений текущий год в ряде аспектов становится переломным. На сегодняшний день контролирующая десятки триллионов долларов вкладчиков и все крупнейшие мировые корпорации группа инвесторов-владельцев группы по управлению активами «Vanguard», включающая в себя Дональда Рамсфелда, Ричарда Чейни, кланы Ротшильдов, Бушей, Рокфеллеров и многих других влиятельных людей, практически монополизировала внешнюю и оборонную политику США.

The development plan of the international relations the current year in a number of aspects becomes critical. Today the group of investors-owners of group on management of assets of "Vanguard" controlling tens of trillions dollars of investors and all largest world corporations, including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, clans Rotshildov, Busha Rokfellerov and many other influential people, practically monopolized foreign and defensive policy of the USA.

Страна эта является лидером так называемого свободного мира, и обладает мощнейшим дипломатическим и пропагандистским потенциалом. Группа «Vanguard» сама по себе также контролирует важнейшие мировые СМИ. Кроме того, на неё работают ряд ключевых фигур Центрального разведывательного управления США, включая тёзку и однофамильца управляющего «Vanguard», директора ЦРУ Джона Бреннана.

This country is the leader of a so-called free world, and has the most powerful diplomatic and propaganda potential. The Vanguard group in itself also controls the major world mass media. Besides, a number of key figures of CIA work for it, including the namesake of operating person of "Vanguard", the director of CIA John Brennan.
[/quote]

I want provide some facts at first:

Google:
[quote author=pravosudija.net/article/sprut-chast-iii]

You already guessed, it is about our pride, the corporation belonging to our former compatriot Sergej Brin — Google.
Perhaps wi'll begin with it. You should go to https://de.finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG —as as I already spoke, Germans treat monitoring over the securities which are quoted including at their exchanges more attentively.

The list of owners: Eric E. Schmidt —1240463 stocks, John L. Doerr —2767 аstocks, to all of us known Sergey Brin —75000 stocks, David C. Drummond —21332 stocks, и Paul S. Otellini —643 stocks. Cool guys

Going down slightly below to the major institutional investors, and on the first place we find State Street Corporation с 22757690 stocks, keeping the whole 6,73% Google company.

And here is who real master?! Anything similar. On the second place a certain abbreviation FMR LLC with 20368861 stocks and 6,02%. Nothing wierd, it's Fidelity Management and Research.
Third place — Vanguard Group, Inc. with 14624137 stocks and 4,32%. At this stage of count a summary share Vanguard and Fideliti already makes 10,34%. [...]

However, we go further: among the major investment funds — shareholders Google — on the first place Fidelity Contrafund Inc. with 6925967 stocks or 2,05%, on the fourth place —Fidelity Growth Company Fund (1809678, 0,54%), on the sixth place —Vanguard/Primecap Fund (1417843, 0,42%).
Total the summary share Vanguard and Fidelity in the Google corporation for August 28 is 45 146 486 stocks, while all the world know that Goggle's owner of course Sergej Brin! He has 75 thousand stocks...
[/quote]

[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/imperiya-pytaetsya-nanesti-otvetnyy-udar]
In the crusade on unmaskers of octopuses the author of a critical series complicates a pattern, bifurcating an octopus on Vanguard and Fidelity though behind both companies there are same key characters[/quote]

Microsoft:
[quote author=pravosudija.net/article/sprut-chast-iii]
Let's look who controls Microsoft. For this purpose again we will come to boring Germans, this time on https://de.finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT .
The list of direct owners, natural persons on August 28:: Steven A. Ballmer c 333254734 акциями, William H. Gates III —c 297992934, Mason G. Morfit —827 акций, Brian Kevin Turner —1295454, и Steven J. Sinofsky с 1176195 акциями.

The list of the major institutional investors shows Vanguard Group, Inc. with 386749214 stocks, and on the fourth place here FMR, LLC with 272942627. On the first place in the list of the major funds Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund with 115585047 stocks, and below presents Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-Institutional Index Fund —75214603 and Vanguard 500 Index Fund —74414992. [/quote]

Monsanto:
[quote author=pravosudija.net/article/vlastelin-hleba]
Anyway, the Monsanto corporation is hated by millions of people around the world, and first of all in the USA — but it doesn't excite its masters at all. For the simple reason: nobody reflected on its real masters. As owners of "Monsanto" the audience perceives natural persons: William U. Parfet, who has at the moment of article's writing on 26 August, 284642 stocks of company, Hugh Grant — 253715, Robert T. Fraley — 95212, Brett D. Begemann — 103523, и David F. Snively with 62072 stocks. Impresses, all of them — very rich and influential people. Total all natural persons — owners of Monsanto corporation possess 799164 stocks.
However the first in the list of institutional shares holders is (who could think?) Vanguard Group, Inc. with 31201773 stocks, i.e. more than 39 times more, than all leading "owners" of the company in total.

Let's look on another list of stocks' owners of «Monsanto» —funds of mutual investments. Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund — 8118741 stocks, Vanguard/Primecap Fund — 6663460, Vanguard Institutional Index Fund — 5226511, Vanguard 500 Index Fund — 517086.

At this place appears, no, not a new player, but new figure: Fidelity Grows Company Fund with 4072871 stocks. The trick in that in funds of mutual investments the Fidelity Investment Services tightly cooperates with Vanguard Group.

Go further through the list: Vanguard Specialized-Dividend Appreciation Index Fund — yet 3641513 stocks. Didn't start to malfunction in eyes from "Vanguard"? But the controlling organizations have no questions: stocks are distributed between different funds, and all of them — different legal entities.

As the principal figure of "Monsanto" the audience knows Mr. Hugh Grant, but not the actor, but the above-mentioned rich man with 253715 stocks of corporation. He holds positions of the president, chairman of the board and chief executive officer. I don't know how for general public, but nobody have to explain to Mr. Grant in whose hands there are reins of government actually.[/quote]

Banks:
[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/sprut-iv-banki-kontroliruyut-vsyo-kto-komanduet-bankami]
[...]Therefore it is important to learn who controls really the largest banks, and we will begin with the USA. On the first place —JP Morgan Chase with 2,39 trillion dollars of assets. Its largest institutional investor—Vanguard Group, Inc. itself own, so to speak, person. In the first ten of investors— investment funds — we find Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Vanguard Institutional Index Fund и Vanguard 500 Index Fund. Everything is all right, all under monitoring.

On the second place — Bank of America with 2,17 trillion dollars of assets. Its largest institutional investor —Vanguard Group, Inc. In the first ten of investors— investment funds — Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Vanguard Institutional Index Fund, Vanguard 500 Index Fund и Vanguard/Windsor II.

The third place— Citigroup. Assets: 1,88 trillion. Its largest institutional investor —Vanguard Group, Inc. In the first ten of investors— investment funds — Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Vanguard Institutional Index Fund, Vanguard 500 Index Fund, Vanguard/Windsor II, Vanguard/Wellington Fund, Inc. and Fidelity Contrafund, Inc.

And, at last, Warren Buffett's favourite Wells Fargo. Assets: 1,44 trillion, deposites: 1,01 trillion.In the list of the largest institutional investors - Vanguard Group, Inc. is only on the second place, but it is compensated by the first ten of investors — investment funds: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Fidelity Contrafund, Inc., Vanguard Institutional Index Fund, Vanguard 500 Index Fund и Vanguard/Wellington Fund, Inc. [/quote]

Vanguard-Monsanto-Academi(Blackwater):
[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/kot-nyusik-i-vse-vse-vse]
As a result of the confused transaction which is excellent carried out by former "seal" Hary Jackson, the largest of PMC (Private Military Company) "Academi" operating in Ukraine enters in "Constellis Holdings" since 2014 in its turn connected with "Monsanto". This transaction was resulted by global merge of industry leaders, including Triple Canopy, Constellis Ltd., Strategic Social, Tidewater Global Services, National Strategic Protective Services, Academi Training Center and International Development Solutions. Only in "Academi" there are about forty thousand people, eighteen thousand from which, mainly Russian-speaking, for the present act on Ukraine.[/quote]

[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/ukraina-esli-zavtra-voyna-est-mir]
The corporate structure of "Academi" includes US Training Center, Inc. (till February, 2009 Blackwater Training Center, Inc.), Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Security Consulting, Blackwater Canine, Blackwater Aviation Worldwide services, Raven Developement Group, Greystone Limited and Total Intelligence Solutions.
"Academi" is connected by contracts with a number of the governments, including such big customers as U.S. State Department and CIA, and also serves the direct owner Monsanto and a row connected with the Vanguard company (that controlls Monsanto) legal entities, such as Chevron Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribean Cruises Ltd., Deutsche Bank and Barklays. [/quote]

Ebola:
[quote author=pravosudija.net/article/sprut-ili-osinoe-gnezdo]
The facts on Ebola outbreak
The modified strain of a Zaire ebolavirus which is transferred in the contactless way was developed in a secret laboratory of CIA in Guinea by specialists of the American biotechnological company "Gilead Sciences".
[...]
It is indicative that the laboratory is controlled by the CIA , but not the Ministry of Defence or one of institutes of public health care.
The main perchaser of benefits of epidemic outbreak could become another company. About thr scheme - below and briefly.

Brief information: The headquarters of "Gilead Sciences" is located in Foster City, the State of California.
Nominal owners, natural persons. Dr. John C. Martin (president, chief executive officer). And also: Norbert W. Bischofberger, John F. Milligan, Etienne Davignon, James M. Denny.

Real control. Among the major institutional shares holders: 3.Vanguard Group, Inc.
The major shares holders — funds of mutual investments: 3.Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund... 9. Vanguard Institutional Index Fund.10. Vanguard 500 Index Fund.
[...]
[/quote]

[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/markitanty-i-udav]
For those who didn't read the previous publications on this subject, I will give a small example. Foreign scientists, including the leading participants of weapon programs of Saddam Hussein work at the object in Guinea operated in common by CIA and the Gilead Sciences company controlled by "Vanguard". There is a laboratory kontamination. As a result the virus of hemorrhagic fever which is artificially modified for transfer in the contactless way the Ebola extends on a number of neighboring countries, causing epidemic of this disease, unprecedented on scales.

Absolutely incidentally it becomes clear that other corporation controlled by "Vanguard", "Pfizer" just finishes development of means against this disease, but the international organizations don't have enough means for their purchase. Let now it will be a shame to the UN: Bill and Melinda Gates's Fund created from means of "Vanguard", controlling Microsoft corporation allocates the largest sum for flash knocking over Ebola: 50 million dollars.

So where earnings? Well not in Africa. It is impossible to stop a tourist and business exchange between Africa and Europe. People move, and now each European clinic respecting itself will be compelled to enter means against the Ebola in the list of purchases — and regularly to renew stocks after an expiration date.

And Bill and Melinda Gates's Fund will continue to finance charitable projects on the African continent. In particular, "Alliance for green revolution in Africa", depriving the African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them at first with seeds of controlled by "Vanguard" Monsanto corporation, and then with their genetically modified seeds. Modified in such a way that their crop doesn't give shoots. [/quote]

So, it was excerpts I counted the most clear and important. The author express thought in "slightly" puzzling manner, and as you can see there are many clues that are scattered through bunch of articles.

Bolding is mine.

 

[s-kur]

Also author mentioned in the end of her last post
[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/na-etot-raz-podstava-ne-sostoyalas]
Но успокаиваться рано. Тревожные сигналы поступают из Екатеринбурга."/ "But it is early to calm down. Disturbing signals arrive from Yekaterinburg."
[/quote]

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Document of Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian Army, on assymetrical warfare - the comments of the Blogger are included and taint the content. Parts of this doctrine are probably used in Ukraine.

The ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’ and Russian Non-Linear War

Call it non-linear war (which I prefer), or hybrid war, or special war, Russia’s operations first in Crimea and then eastern Ukraine have demonstrated that Moscow is increasingly focusing on new forms of politically-focused operations in the future. In many ways this is an extension of what elsewhere I’ve called Russia’s ‘guerrilla geopolitics,’ an appreciation of the fact that in a world shaped by an international order the Kremlin finds increasingly irksome and facing powers and alliances with greater raw military, political and economic power, new tactics are needed which focus on the enemy’s weaknesses and avoid direct and overt confrontations. To be blunt, these are tactics that NATO–still, in the final analysis, an alliance designed to deter and resist a mass, tank-led Soviet invasion–finds hard to know how to handle. (Indeed, a case could be made that it is not NATO’s job, but that’s something to consider elsewhere.)

Hindsight, as ever a sneakily snarky knowitall, eagerly points out that we could have expected this in light of an at-the-time unremarked article by Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov. In fairness, it was in Voenno-promyshlennyi kur’er, the Military-Industrial Courier, which is few people’s fun read of choice. Nonetheless, it represents the best and most authoritative statement yet of what we could, at least as a placeholder, call the ‘Gerasimov Doctrine’ (not that it necessarily was his confection). I and everyone interested in these developments are indebted to Rob Coalson of RFE/RL, who noted and circulated this article, and the following translation is his (thanks to Rob for his permission to use it), with my various comments and interpolations.

Military-Industrial Kurier, February 27, 2013

(My comments are indented and italicised and in red, and the bold emphases are also mine)
THE VALUE OF SCIENCE IN PREDICTION

General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation

In the 21st century we have seen a tendency toward blurring the lines between the states of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared and, having begun, proceed according to an unfamiliar template.

The experience of military conflicts — including those connected with the so-called coloured revolutions in north Africa and the Middle East — confirm that a perfectly thriving state can, in a matter of months and even days, be transformed into an arena of fierce armed conflict, become a victim of foreign intervention, and sink into a web of chaos, humanitarian catastrophe, and civil war.

There is an old Soviet-era rhetorical device that a ‘warning’ or a ‘lesson’ from some other situation is used to outline intent and plan. The way that what purports to be an after-action take on the Arab Spring so closely maps across to what was done in Ukraine is striking. Presenting the Arab Spring–wrongly–as the results of covert Western operations allows Gerasimov the freedom to talk about what he wants to talk about: how Russia can subvert and destroy states without direct, overt and large-scale military intervention.

The Lessons of the ‘Arab Spring’

Of course, it would be easiest of all to say that the events of the “Arab Spring” are not war and so there are no lessons for us — military men — to learn. But maybe the opposite is true — that precisely these events are typical of warfare in the 21st century.

In terms of the scale of the casualties and destruction, the catastrophic social, economic, and political consequences, such new-type conflicts are comparable with the consequences of any real war.

The very “rules of war” have changed. The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.

For me, this is probably the most important line in the whole piece, so allow me to repeat it: The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness. In other words, this is an explicit recognition not only that all conflicts are actually means to political ends–the actual forces used are irrelevant–but that in the modern realities, Russia must look to non-military instruments increasingly.

The focus of applied methods of conflict has altered in the direction of the broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other nonmilitary measures — applied in coordination with the protest potential of the population.

All this is supplemented by military means of a concealed character, including carrying out actions of informational conflict and the actions of special-operations forces. The open use of forces — often under the guise of peacekeeping and crisis regulation — is resorted to only at a certain stage, primarily for the achievement of final success in the conflict.

This is, after all, exactly what happened in Crimea, when the insignia-less “little green men” were duly unmasked as–surprise, surprise–Russian special forces and Naval Infantry only once the annexation was actually done.

From this proceed logical questions: What is modern war? What should the army be prepared for? How should it be armed? Only after answering these questions can we determine the directions of the construction and development of the armed forces over the long term. To do this, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the forms and methods of the use of the application of force.

What Gerasimov is signalling here, and it may prove an important point, is that the Russian military needs to be tooled appropriately. This may mean a re-opening of the traditional hostilities with the politically more powerful defence industries (that want to pump out more tanks and the other things they produce) over quite what kind of kit the military gets. When former defence minister Serdyukov announced a moratorium on buying new tanks, Putin slapped him down and restated the order. Shoigu and Gerasimov will have to be more savvy if they want to make progress on this one.

These days, together with traditional devices, nonstandard ones are being developed. The role of mobile, mixed-type groups of forces, acting in a single intelligence-information space because of the use of the new possibilities of command-and-control systems has been strengthened. Military actions are becoming more dynamic, active, and fruitful. Tactical and operational pauses that the enemy could exploit are disappearing. New information technologies have enabled significant reductions in the spatial, temporal, and informational gaps between forces and control organs. Frontal engagements of large formations of forces at the strategic and operational level are gradually becoming a thing of the past. Long-distance, contactless actions against the enemy are becoming the main means of achieving combat and operational goals. The defeat of the enemy’s objects is conducted throughout the entire depth of his territory. The differences between strategic, operational, and tactical levels, as well as between offensive and defensive operations, are being erased. The application of high-precision weaponry is taking on a mass character. Weapons based on new physical principals and automatized systems are being actively incorporated into military activity.

All worthy enough, but in fairness nothing we haven’t heard before.

Asymmetrical actions have come into widespread use, enabling the nullification of an enemy’s advantages in armed conflict. Among such actions are the use of special-operations forces and internal opposition to create a permanently operating front through the entire territory of the enemy state, as well as informational actions, devices, and means that are constantly being perfected.

This, on the other hand, does show something of a different nuance, with the renewed emphasis on “internal opposition”, something which harkens back to Soviet-era playbooks rather than post-Soviet military doctrine, which was largely cleared of such language except in some specific contexts such as counter-insurgency.

These ongoing changes are reflected in the doctrinal views of the world’s leading states and are being used in military conflicts.

Already in 1991, during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, the U.S. military realized the concept of “global sweep, global power” and “air-ground operations.” In 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom, military operations were conducted in accordance with the so-called Single Perspective 2020.

Now, the concepts of “global strike” and “global missile defense” have been worked out, which foresee the defeat of enemy objects and forces in a matter of hours from almost any point on the globe, while at the same time ensuring the prevention of unacceptable harm from an enemy counterstrike. The United States is also enacting the principles of the doctrine of global integration of operations aimed at creating in a very short time highly mobile, mixed-type groups of forces.

In recent conflicts, new means of conducting military operations have appeared that cannot be considered purely military. An example of this is the operation in Libya, where a no-fly zone was created, a sea blockade imposed, private military contractors were widely used in close interaction with armed formations of the opposition.

Yes, these were all used in Libya, but whether they were that new is open to question. The key point for Gerasimov, I believe, is that actions such as the no-fly zone that were presented as (and have traditionally been) the preserve of humanitarian interventions were really used to favour one side in the conflict, the rebels. Combined with the use of mercenaries to support them, this makes Libya a convenient synecdoche for the kinds of operations the Russians are really contemplating, in which the mask of humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping can shield aggressive actions.

We must acknowledge that, while we understand the essence of traditional military actions carried out by regular armed forces, we have only a superficial understanding of asymmetrical forms and means. In this connection, the importance of military science — which must create a comprehensive theory of such actions — is growing. The work and research of the Academy of Military Science can help with this.

The Tasks of Military Science

In the main, I will comment less on this section, because often it really doesn’t connect so clearly with the first half. However, taken together it is worth noting that it presents a pretty scathing picture of modern Russian military thinking. I can’t help but wonder whether Colonel General Sergei Makarov, head of the General Staff Academy since only last year, must be feeling a little anxious about his prospects.

In a discussion of the forms and means of military conflict, we must not forget about our own experience. I mean the use of partisan units during the Great Patriotic War and the fight against irregular formations in Afghanistan and the North Caucasus.

These are interesting examples, not least because they omit other, equally or even more appropriate examples, such as the Soviet experiences fighting the basmachi rebels in 1920s Central Asia and supporting anti-colonial insurgencies in Africa, Asia and Latin America during the Cold War. In the latter, for instance, the Soviets tended to use military assistance, handfuls of specialists and trainers, third-party agents and extensive propaganda, influence and subversion operations to achieve political goals, ideally with as little direct conflict as possible and without letting Moscow’s hand be too obvious. Sound familiar?

I would emphasize that during the Afghanistan War specific forms and means of conducting military operations were worked out. At their heart lay speed, quick movements, the smart use of tactical paratroops and encircling forces which all together enable the interruption of the enemy’s plans and brought him significant losses.

Another factor influencing the essence of modern means of armed conflict is the use of modern automated complexes of military equipment and research in the area of artificial intelligence. While today we have flying drones, tomorrow’s battlefields will be filled with walking, crawling, jumping, and flying robots. In the near future it is possible a fully robotized unit will be created, capable of independently conducting military operations.

How shall we fight under such conditions? What forms and means should be used against a robotized enemy? What sort of robots do we need and how can they be developed? Already today our military minds must be thinking about these questions.

The most important set of problems, requiring intense attention, is connected with perfecting the forms and means of applying groups of forces. It is necessary to rethink the content of the strategic activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Already now questions are arising: Is such a number of strategic operations necessary? Which ones and how many of them will we need in the future? So far, there are no answers.

There are also other problems that we are encountering in our daily activities.

We are currently in the final phase of the formation of a system of air-space defense (VKO). Because of this, the question of the development of forms and means of action using VKO forces and tools has become actual. The General Staff is already working on this. I propose that the Academy of Military Science also take active part.

The information space opens wide asymmetrical possibilities for reducing the fighting potential of the enemy. In north Africa, we witnessed the use of technologies for influencing state structures and the population with the help of information networks. It is necessary to perfect activities in the information space, including the defense of our own objects.

The operation to force Georgia to peace exposed the absence of unified approaches to the use of formations of the Armed Forces outside of the Russian Federation. The September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi , the activization of piracy activities, the recent hostage taking in Algeria all confirm the importance of creating a system of armed defense of the interests of the state outside the borders of its territory.

Although the additions to the federal law “On Defense” adopted in 2009 allow the operational use of the Armed Forces of Russia outside of its borders, the forms and means of their activity are not defined. In addition, matters of facilitating their operational use have not been settled on the interministerial level. This includes simplifying the procedure for crossing state borders, the use of the airspace and territorial waters of foreign states, the procedures for interacting with the authorities of the state of destination, and so on.

It is necessary to convene the joint work of the research organizations of the pertinent ministries and agencies on such matters.

One of the forms of the use of military force outside the country is peacekeeping. In addition to traditional tasks, their activity could include more specific tasks such as specialized, humanitarian, rescue, evacuation, sanitation, and other tasks. At present, their classification, essence, and content have not been defined.

Moreover, the complex and multifarious tasks of peacekeeping which, possibly, regular troops will have to carry out, presume the creation of a fundamentally new system for preparing them. After all, the task of a peacekeeping force is to disengage conflicting sides, protect and save the civilian population, cooperate in reducing potential violence and reestablish peaceful life. All this demands academic preparation.

Controlling Territory

It is becoming increasingly important in modern conflicts to be capable of defending one’s population, objects, and communications from the activity of special-operations forces, in view of their increasing use. Resolving this problem envisions the organization and introduction of territorial defense.

Before 2008, when the army at war time numbered more than 4.5 million men, these tasks were handled exclusively by the armed forces. But conditions have changed. Now, countering diversionary-reconnaissance and terroristic forces can only be organized by the complex involvement of all the security and law-enforcement forces of the country.

The General Staff has begun this work. It is based on defining the approaches to the organization of territorial defense that were reflected in the changes to the federal law “On Defense.” Since the adoption of that law, it is necessary to define the system of managing territorial defense and to legally enforce the role and location in it of other forces, military formations, and the organs of other state structures.

We need well-grounded recommendations on the use of interagency forces and means for the fulfillment of territorial defense, methods for combatting the terrorist and diversionary forces of the enemy under modern conditions.

Again, here defence is used in Aesopian terms to address issues of offence. I don’t dispute there is a genuine need for this kind of coordination, and it may reflect the confidence of a recently re-empowered General Staff in trying to reassert some kind of supreme authority over national defence after years in which the security agencies have been dominant. But primarily I read into this a recognition of the importance for the close coordination of military, intelligence and information operations in this new way of war. If we take Ukraine as the example, the GRU (military intelligence) took point over Crimea, supported by regular military units. In eastern Ukraine, the Federal Security Service (FSB), which had thoroughly penetrated the Ukrainian security apparatus, has encouraged defections and monitored Kyiv’s plans, the Interior Ministry (MVD) has used its contacts with its Ukrainian counterparts to identify potential agents and sources, the military has been used to rattle sabres loudly on the border–and may be used more aggressively yet–while the GRU not only handled the flow of volunteers and materiel into the east but probably marshalled the Vostok Battalion, arguably the toughest unit in the Donbas. Meanwhile, Russian media and diplomatic sources have kept up an incessant campaign to characterise the ‘Banderite’ government in Kyiv as illegitimate and brutal, while even cyberspace is not immune, as ‘patriotic hackers’ attack Ukrainian banks and government websites. The essence of this non-linear war is, as Gerasimov says, that the war is everywhere.

The experience of conducting military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq has shown the necessity of working out — together with the research bodies of other ministries and agencies of the Russian Federation — the role and extent of participation of the armed forces in postconflict regulation, working out the priority of tasks, the methods for activation of forces, and establishing the limits of the use of armed force.

[…]

You Can’t Generate Ideas On Command

The state of Russian military science today cannot be compared with the flowering of military-theoretical thought in our country on the eve of World War II.

Of course, there are objective and subjective reasons for this and it is not possible to blame anyone in particular for it. I am not the one who said it is not possible to generate ideas on command.

I agree with that, but I also must acknowledge something else: at that time, there were no people with higher degrees and there were no academic schools or departments. There were extraordinary personalities with brilliant ideas. I would call them fanatics in the best sense of the word. Maybe we just don’t have enough people like that today.

Ouch. Who is he slapping here?

People like, for instance, Georgy Isserson, who, despite the views he formed in the prewar years, published the book “New Forms Of Combat.” In it, this Soviet military theoretician predicted: “War in general is not declared. It simply begins with already developed military forces. Mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the onset of the state of war as was the case in 1914 but rather, unnoticed, proceeds long before that.” The fate of this “prophet of the Fatherland” unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.

What can we conclude from this? A scornful attitude toward new ideas, to nonstandard approaches, to other points of view is unacceptable in military science. And it is even more unacceptable for practitioners to have this attitude toward science.

In conclusion, I would like to say that no matter what forces the enemy has, no matter how well-developed his forces and means of armed conflict may be, forms and methods for overcoming them can be found. He will always have vulnerabilities and that means that adequate means of opposing him exist.

This is an obvious, if necessarily veiled allusion to Russia’s relative weakness compared with the West today and, probably, China tomorrow. The answer is not to not have conflicts, but rather to ensure they are fought in the ways that best suit your needs.

We must not copy foreign experience and chase after leading countries, but we must outstrip them and occupy leading positions ourselves. This is where military science takes on a crucial role.

The outstanding Soviet military scholar Aleksandr Svechin wrote: “It is extraordinarily hard to predict the conditions of war. For each war it is necessary to work out a particular line for its strategic conduct. Each war is a unique case, demanding the establishment of a particular logic and not the application of some template.”

This approach continues to be correct. Each war does present itself as a unique case, demanding the comprehension of its particular logic, its uniqueness. That is why the character of a war that Russia or its allies might be drawn into is very hard to predict. Nonetheless, we must. Any academic pronouncements in military science are worthless if military theory is not backed by the function of prediction.

 

[griffin]

Kazzura has published another documentary with english subtitles, War in Donbass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGLbWNldX-c (about 1hr).

 

[Niall]

Also author mentioned in the end of her last post
[quote author=http://pravosudija.net/article/na-etot-raz-podstava-ne-sostoyalas]
Но успокаиваться рано. Тревожные сигналы поступают из Екатеринбурга."/ "But it is early to calm down. Disturbing signals arrive from Yekaterinburg."

[/quote]

In other words, it's all coming from this 'Tatyana Volkova', who insinuates that she has FSB connections and 'inside sources'.

Warning: the way COINTELPRO ('counter-intelligence program)' works - we've seen it thousands of times in Western alternative media - is by pretending to be a helpful friend 'gifting' people like Kristina Rus with 'helpful information'. You can recognize this kind of thing because it has zero checkable sources, relies heavily on 'hearsay', and even if you suspended your critical judgment and tried to see if it has an 'internal logic', it is very often completely contradictory.

 

[Niall]

Insider report indicating that Strelkov would be implicated in the murder of Nemtsov. In one of my previous post I mentioned a article about the two pillars of a possible Maidan in Russia - the liberals and conservatives combined - where Strelkov was also mentioned as possibly involved in a revolt in Russia.

Insider update in Nemtsov's case - the foreign trace has been found

http://fortruss.blogspot.ru/2015/03/insider-update-in-nemtsovs-case-foreign.html

Same goes for this: it's from 'Tatyana Volkova', who appears to be a Russian 'Sorcha Faal'.

 

[herondancer]

It appears some deadly housecleaning is being done in Ukraine vis a vis the privatisation wave that went through it in the '00s. It's from Radio Free Europe, but there doesn't seem to be too much spin

http://www.rferl.org/content/suicide-homicide-ukraine-officials/26888375.html

Suicide Or Homicide? In Ukraine, Old-Guard Officials Dying Mysteriously

By Marichka Naboka

March 08, 2015

This year Ukraine has seen a bizarre string of deaths involving high-ranking officials, including a ex-city mayor, a former railway executive, and the former head of the state body in charge of privatization.

A total of five officials died in a single 34-day period between January 28 and February 28. In each case, the deaths have been ruled probable suicides. But the victims' political allegiances and job histories have led many in Ukraine to suspect that the men were in fact murdered:

January 26 -- Mykola Serhiyenko, the former first deputy chief of the state-run Ukrainian Railways, died in his Kyiv home after apparently shooting himself with a registered hunting rifle.

Investigators said Serhiyenko, 57, was alone at the time of the tragedy, and that all of the flat's doors and windows had been locked shut from the inside and showed no signs of tampering.

Serhiyenko, who worked with Ukrainian Railways from April 2010 to April 2014, had been appointed to the post by Mykola Azarov, the former prime minister under Viktor Yanukovych. Azarov and Yanukovych are both wanted by Interpol on charges including embezzlement and misappropriation.

January 29 -- Oleksiy Kolesnyk, the former head of the Kharkiv regional government, died after apparently hanging himself.

Kolesnyk, 64, did not leave a suicide note, but media and investigators have hinted he may have killed himself, noting that his death took place on the birthday of his friend and fellow politician, former Kharkiv Governor and Party of Regions ideologue Yevhen Kushnaryov, who died in 2007 after being shot on a hunting expedition.

Kolesnyk began serving as chair of the Kharkiv Regional Council in 2002, but resigned prematurely in 2004.

February 25 -- The former mayor of the southeastern city of Melitopol, 57-year-old Serhiy Walter, reportedly hanged himself. A member of the Party of Regions who had served as the head of Melitopol since 2010, Walter had been dismissed from his post in 2013 and put on trial for abuse of power and ties to organized crime.

Walter was forced to attend some 145 hearings during his trial, with prosecutors calling for 14 years' imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings, he insisted he was innocent. Walter was due to attend a new hearing on the day he died.

February 26 -- One day after Walter's death, the body of the 47-year-old deputy chief of the Melitopol police, Oleksandr Bordyuh, was found in a garage. According to news reports, Bordyuh's former boss was a lawyer involved in Walter's trial.

Media reported that the cause of Bordyuh's death was ruled a "hypertensive crisis," or stroke -- a term that police frequently use in instances of suicide. Additional details were not provided.


February 28 -- Mykhaylo Chechetov, the ex-deputy chairman of the Party of Regions faction in Ukraine's parliament, died after jumping or falling out of the window of his 17th-story apartment.

The death came just days after Chechetov was arrested for fraud and abuse of office stemming from his two years at the helm of the powerful State Property Fund. (Chechetov posted bond to avoid being held in pretrial detention.)

Chechetov's time at the property fund, from April 2003 to April 2005, marked one of the busiest periods of post-Soviet privatization, with the steel giant Kryvorizhstal among the cut-rate sales made during his tenure. The plant, notoriously, was sold to a group that included the son-in-law of former President Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Pinchuk, for just $850 million. (In October 2005, Viktor Yushchenko reversed the sale, reselling a 93-percent stake in the plant to Mittal Steel for $4.8 billion.)

Anton Herashchenko, a Popular Front lawmaker and adviser to the Interior Ministry, has speculated that Chechetov may have been driven to suicide by fellow old-guard members whose role in the deal stood to be exposed by his testimony. "It's a shame we'll never get to learn all of the interesting things we would have heard from Chechetov's evidence," he wrote on Facebook.

Chechetov isn't the first head of the State Property Fund to die an unnatural death.

On August 27, 2014 the body of Valentina Semenyuk-Samsonenko was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head, with a gun lying nearby. She led the agency from April 2005 to December 2008. Her family told reporters they dismissed the possibility of suicide, saying that she had spoken fearfully of someone taking out a contract on her life.

The third death of an official tied to Ukraine's privatization took place even earlier. In May 1997, the head of the Crimean branch of the State Property Fund, Oleksiy Holovizin, was killed in the entryway of his house.

Lawmaker Ihor Lutsenko, a member of the new government's anticorruption committee, wrote in Ukrainska Pravda that eliminating Property Fund chiefs makes it almost impossible to reverse corrupt privatization sales, like that of Kryvorizhstal.

"Semenyuk and Chechetov won't be saying anything," he wrote. "And that will cost us, the citizens of Ukraine, tens of billions of dollars."

The recent string of deaths comes 10 years after two more resonant cases that followed closely on the heels of the Orange Revolution. Heorhiy Kirpa, transport minister under Kuchma, was found dead in late December, 2004. His death came two days after the rerun of the second round of presidential elections that handed Yushchenko the win over Yanukovych.

The following March, Kuchma's former interior minister, Yuriy Kravchenko, died one day after being called as a witness in the resurrected case of slain journalist Heorhiy Gongadze.

Both deaths were officially ruled suicides -- even though, in Kravchenko's case, it had taken two gunshots to kill him.


Written in Prague by Daisy Sindelar based on reporting in Kyiv by Marichka Naboka

 

[Niall]

The author express thought in "slightly" puzzling manner

Indeed. There is always a certain 'flavor' to their writing.

and as you can see there are many clues that are scattered through bunch of articles.

Clues to what? That American corporations are interlinked? That some of them may be involved in Ukraine? Don't we already know that?!

This 'Tatyana' is weaving some fact (publicly available financial/corporate information, assuming even that is accurate) with 'inside information', ie fiction.

 

[s-kur]

The author express thought in "slightly" puzzling manner

Indeed. There is always a certain 'flavor' to their writing.

and as you can see there are many clues that are scattered through bunch of articles.

Clues to what? That American corporations are interlinked? That some of them may be involved in Ukraine? Don't we already know that?!

This 'Tatyana' is weaving some fact (publicly available financial/corporate information, assuming even that is accurate) with 'inside information', ie fiction.

I don't try to prove something regarding her conclusion or prove that her information is only right.

We have been starting with

[...]
I could find NOTHING on the Vanguard Corporation and Ukraine. [...]
With zero sources provided, I'd say this is all spurious BS.

and I've provided info about Vanguard and Ukraine connection. What's wrong? You wanted sources-you got sources.

Well, intertwining(interlinking) in hierarchy with a one center of power.

I could start retelling of her versions of MH17, Ukraine War, Nemtsov's killing and so on. But at first-I don't see the sense in that, and the second that there're enough persons who can see the things clearly even without the doubtful insides.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

two sensational sources on the alledged murderer of Nemtsov

BBC: he was forced to confess

Nemtsov murder: Zaur Dadayev confession 'forced' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31829723

Moskovskij komsomolets: Main Nemtsov Murder Case Suspect Retracts Confession

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/11/4346

Moskovskij Komsomolets (Russian: Московский комсомолец, "Moscow Komsomolets") is a Moscow-based daily newspaper with a circulation approaching one million, covering general news. Founded in 1919, it is now regarded as publishing sensational or provocative items on Russian politics and society

It seems the plot thickens

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

visual overview of 30 years of color revolutions - Infographic: The Anatomy of a Color Revolution

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/11/4319

 

[Siberia]

two sensational sources on the alledged murderer of Nemtsov

BBC: he was forced to confess

Nemtsov murder: Zaur Dadayev confession 'forced' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31829723

Possible, but it was claimed by Babushkin, member of the Russian liberal opposition, so the info may be questionable.

 

[Lumiere_du_Code]

IMF Board of Directors endorsed the program of expanded funding for Ukraine.

"I am pleased to report that IMF Board of Directors approved the program for increased funding for Ukraine in $ 17.5 billion based on reform program - a quote Christine Lagarde. - This new four-year program will help stabilize the economic situation in Ukraine and introduce a series of far-reaching reforms for further growth in the medium term and improve the living standards of Ukrainians."

namely:

"Under the new program happen to take other steps - a further increase in tariffs, bank restructuring, reform of state-owned enterprises, fighting corruption and strengthening the rule of law", - said Lagarde, adding that the key social reforms will be the most vulnerable segments of the population.

Thank you, madam Lagarde! Now I will live just as good as you!

 

[griffin]

It looks like I was wrong, and the Kiev junta is determined to resume hostilities in mid-April, despite the drawbacks of inadequate military strength and difficult weather conditions. Maybe April drop-dead it is.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/ukraine-planning-to-attack-novorossia.html

If that is indeed the case, then the Novorussians apparently will be glad to oblige the Kiev junta crooks and their neo-nazi freaks by slaughtering them.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/ilovaysk-debaltsevo-mariupol.html

I wouldn't put much stock in the emphasis on Mariupol, though. The NAF will of course choose where to concentrate its defensive and offensive resources, in response to UAF activity as that unfolds over time.