Putin Recognizes Donbass Republics, Sends Russian Military to 'Denazify' Ukraine

On Zelensky wanting ‘air defence systems from the West’, the problem there is, there aren’t any. At least not the kind the he’s asking for, which are known as ‘integrated’, and are what the soviets and the Russians and by that token, Ukraine, are used to using.

The reason being, those types of air defence systems are actually ‘defensive’, but through the 20th century, the US instead focused on the ‘offensive’ option by putting their money into fighter jets for air defence.
 
Rail movements bring needed military hardware to the front lines as Ukraine tries to keep up the pace with guerilla tactics.


1665959321648.png


1665958243211.png



Claims made by the UN special representative on sexual violence, Pramila Patten, go “beyond the reach of reason,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement on Sunday. Earlier this week, Patten accused Russia of employing a “deliberate” rape “strategy” as part of its military campaign in Ukraine.

“One cannot even comment on P. Patten’s … words in a serious way,” Zakharova said, adding that the UN official’s conclusions were based on data that is difficult to verify, according to Patten herself.

“Once again, what we are seeing is a classic ‘highly likely’ [story], which has this time reached the level of twisted imagination,” Zakharova said. According to her, the UN official made her conclusions based on fragmentary data provided by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine – a group created in spring 2022 on the basis of a resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. Russia has not recognized its mandate, Zakharova added.

Patten’s claims resemble those made by the former Ukrainian human rights commissioner, Lyudmila Denisova, Zakharova said. Denisova was fired from her position in late May after a no-confidence vote over her failure to perform duties such as organizing humanitarian corridors and prisoner exchanges amid the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Later, Ukrainian media reported that most of Denisova’s allegations regarding “sexual atrocities” committed by Russian soldiers in the country had not been confirmed by Ukrainian prosecutors.

The Foreign Ministry spokeswoman’s reaction was sparked by an interview Patten gave to AFP this week, in which she claimed that sexual violence is a “deliberate tactic” and “military strategy” of Russia, aimed at dehumanizing its “victims.” She also claimed that Russian soldiers are “equipped with Viagra.”

Zakharova pointed out that similar claims have been made by Western officials in the past. In 2011, the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, reportedly accused then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi of supplying his troops with Viagra to supposedly encourage mass rape during a conflict that broke out following a NATO-backed coup attempt which ended with the brutal murder of Gaddafi.

US military and intelligence officials subsequently told NBC that there was no evidence that the Libyan military was being supplied with Viagra or engaging in systematic rape in “rebel areas.”

“The West is using the same patterns in its hybrid war,”
Zakharova said on Sunday, commenting on Patten’s statements.

 

Attachments

  • 1665958926001.png
    1665958926001.png
    555.1 KB · Views: 22
Spain generously gives Ukraine forces an outdated MIM-23 Hawk system developed in the 50s LOL!

"this is different"?


Boris Rozhin (ColonelCassad):
Colonelcassad
A large batch of C-60 anti-aircraft guns.
IMG_20221017_141245_769.jpg IMG_20221017_141248_551.jpg
Despite the fact that the gun itself is morally and physically obsolete (the gun was developed by the famous Grabin design bureau back in 1944 and was in service with the Soviet army until the mid-1980s), it proved quite in demand in the local wars of the 2010s, in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen. It is also quite effective when mounted on different trucks (pictured are Syrian variants), which are used to support infantry and fight against enemy wheelbarrows. An important advantage of this gun is that these guns and their ammunition are plentiful in long-term storage facilities. The kill rate of such a gun is usually higher than that of a conventional wheelbarrow with ZU-23-2.

Also can laugh at the fact that Russia has not produced enough drones of its own, while having all the means and factories to produce them. But before the SMO began, the General Staff decided that modern means were not needed for the Russian army in modern military conflicts, and airborne with machine guns and ATGMs would suffice. And this mistake in the first months of the war had to be addressed very urgently and tried to patch up somehow, with buying huge batches from Iran and possibly from China. Why was little Iran under constant sanctions able to do this, but Russia could not? Even after many years of the military campaign in Syria (which is still going on), where they could see repeatedly that modern warfare is different from those of 20-30 years ago.
And drones, thermal imagers, and other equipment for the troops are purchased by volunteers from the people, and delivered to the front by them.
Even now, after the mobilization has been announced, conscripts must provide for themselves with tactical shoes, clothing, bulletproof vests, etc.
There is no difference with Ukraine, except for one thing: Russia has money, Ukraine does not. But the result is the same.

We should not look at this war one-sidedly and exult with every glossy advertisement (and vice versa, rusty anti-advertisement). Reality is far from trivial, and misconceptions are very costly and painful.
The AFU is superior to the Russian troops in some things, above all in intelligence, satellite information, communications, and the interaction of all structures, groups, and types of troops at all levels of the hierarchy. I think you know why this is the case for them. The AFU receives updated information every hour from all sections of the fronts and deep rear of Russia and allied territories.
At the same time Russia, possessing its own satellites and means of communication, uses them much less effectively and promptly. In the confrontation of headquarters on the battlefield, the AFU-NATO nexus is now in the lead.
It is silly to deny this, and I certainly would not "throw caps in the air" and underestimate the enemy. What you see on Twitter or in the Western press is just the tip of the iceberg. You don't see how difficult it is for the troops and how hard the battles for even one small village or wooded area are, even at the local level. For both sides.
 
Last edited:
Also can laugh at the fact that Russia has not produced enough drones of its own, while having all the means and factories to produce them. But before the SMO began, the General Staff decided that modern means were not needed for the Russian army in modern military conflicts, and airborne with machine guns and ATGMs would suffice. And this mistake in the first months of the war had to be addressed very urgently and tried to patch up somehow, with buying huge batches from Iran and possibly from China. Why was little Iran under constant sanctions able to do this, but Russia could not?

What do you mean. Russia has the highly effective lancet kamikaze drone.

Video:

Also, these weapons are being tested to send a signal to Isreal and the US that Iran has an effective arsenal of drone missiles. They will think twice before trying anything.

It's just geopolitics. OSIT.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean. Russia has the highly effective lancet kamikaze drone.

Video:

Also, these weapons are being tested to send a signal to Isreal and the US that Iran has an effective arsenal of drone missiles. They will think twice before trying anything.

It's just geopolitics. OSIT.

Well, everyone free to think as he want.

How much use this Lancet on the battlefield you know?
Did you hear anything about this drone at the beginning of the operation? I haven't heard of it.
At the beginning of the operation Russia was only using old Soviet drones and the Orlan. And that was in very insufficient quantities. This is a reconnaissance drone, not a strike drone. There were almost no reconnaissance drones in the army. Not even the tiny, cheap copters from any electronics store. It was all purchased by volunteers and sent to the front lines. And it's still happening today. Each unit supplies itself with aerial eyes on its own, asking the population through popular donations. These are not militias, these are regular troops, contract troops. Which, logically, should have the best supplies.
Now, how long have Iranian strike drones been used in this operation? For the last month. Previously there were no reports on them.
All the military correspondents of the Russian Defense Ministry and just bloggers and authors of popular, patriotic channels from the very beginning of the conflict and many months later acknowledged the problem of the lack of drones in the troops.

I wrote that what you read in the Western press is only 1/10th of what is published in Russian. If you have the desire, you can just read all these summaries and news in Russian through a translator, I can make a list of the most popular TG-channels (because since the beginning of the Russian operation the whole body of data has moved to this social network).
 
@Lumiere_du_Code

I sympathize with your situation but I don't think you are making it easier on yourself to delve into everything negative and amplify it a thousand times. Others tried to tell you the same.

Russia has already been using these drones during the Syrian campaign.

As for the Iranian ones, it's also saves Russia from using expensive missiles. It is the cheaper solution for the same problem.
 

Kiev Pummeled By 'Kamikaze Drone' Strikes​


"On Monday Kiev was pummeled by Iranian 'Kamikaze' drones, reportedly killing at least three people, according to Ukrainian officials. The drones have been controversially deployed by Russian forces in Ukraine over the past few months, amid outcry in the West over alleged arms transfers between Tehran and Moscow."

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Monday that kamikaze drones and missiles were "attacking all of Ukraine". In addition to the attacks on the capital, three more were reported killed in the eastern Sumy region, bringing the total of deceased to six."

 

Gazprom CEO Says All Nord Stream NatGas Could Be Redirected To Turkey​

"We're talking about those volumes which we have lost thanks to the acts of international terrorism against the Nord Stream pipelines, so these can be significant volumes," Miller told Russian television, quoted by Russian state-owned news agency Sputnik."

"I'd like to remind you that we have the experience of preparing for the implementation of the South Stream project, which was originally planned to have a capacity of 63 billion cubic meters [per year]. Therefore, if we're talking even about the technical documentation for the development of the route, for South Stream - all this was already done at one time," Miller continued."

 

Israel's intention to supply arms to Ukraine will destroy relations with Russia — Medvedev​

"Dmitry Medvedev said that Israel might as well recognize Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich, as its heroes"

"MOSCOW, October 17. /TASS/. Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev warned on Monday that it would be a mistake for Israel to supply weapons to Ukraine."

"Israel seems to have decided to supply weapons to the Kiev regime. That would be a very rash decision, for it would damage all the interstate relations between our countries," Medvedev wrote on his Telegram channel."

 
Some quotes regarding US,Ukraine and Russia from The Grand Chessboard by ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

21/109
Harold Mackinder concept: Central-East European "heartland" central for continental domination
Until recently, the leading analysts of geopolitics have debated whether land power was more significant than sea power and what specific region of Eurasia is vital to gain control over the entire continent. One of the most prominent, Harold Mackinder, pioneered the discussion early in this century with his successive concepts of the Eurasian "pivot area" (which was said to include all of Siberia and much of Central Asia) and, later, of the Central-East European "heartland" as the vital springboards for the attainment of continental domination. He popularized his heartland concept by the famous dictum:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the world.
The heartland concept and US foreign strategy
Today, the geopolitical issue is no longer what geographic part of Eurasia is the point of departure for continental domination, nor whether land power is more significant than sea power. Geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy. The United States, a non-Eurasian power, now enjoys international primacy, with its power directly deployed on three peripheries of the Eurasian continent, from which it exercises a powerful influence on the states occupying the Eurasian hinterland. But it is on the globe's most important playing field—Eurasia—that a potential rival to America might at some point arise. Thus, focusing on the key players and properly assessing the terrain has to be the point of departure for the formulation of American geostrategy for the long-term management of America's Eurasian geopolitical interests.

Two basic steps are thus required:

first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; and to pinpoint the geopolitically critical Eurasian states whose location and/or existence have catalytic effects either on the more active geostrategic players or on regional conditions;

• second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above, so as to preserve and promote vital U.S. interests, and to conceptualize a more comprehensive geostrategy that establishes on a global scale the interconnection between the more specific U.S. policies.

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.
22/109
Ukraine is a geopolitical pivot
GEOSTRATEGIC PLAYERS AND GEOPOLITICAL PIVOTS
Active geostrategic players
are the states that have the capacity and the national will to exercise power or influence beyond their borders in order to alter—to a degree that affects America's interests—the existing geopolitical state of affairs. They have the potential and/or the predisposition to be geopolitically volatile. For whatever reason—the quest for national grandeur, ideological fulfillment, religious messianism, or economic aggrandizement—some states do seek to attain regional domination or global standing. They are driven by deeply rooted and complex motivations, best explained by Robert Browning's phrase: "... a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" They thus take careful stock of America's power, determine the extent to which their interests overlap or collide with America, and shape their own more limited Eurasian objectives, sometimes in collusion but sometimes in conflict with America's policies. To the Eurasian states so driven, the United States must pay special attention.

Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location and from the consequences of their potentially vulnerable condition for the behavior of geostrategic players. Most often, geopolitical pivots are determined by their geography, which in some cases gives them a special role either in defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player. In some cases, a geopolitical pivot may act as a defensive shield for a vital state or even a region. Sometimes, the very existence of a geopolitical pivot can be said to have very significant political and cultural consequences for a more active neighboring geostrategic player. The identification of the post-Cold War key Eurasian geopolitical pivots, and protecting them, is thus also a crucial aspect of America's global geostrategy.

It should also be noted at the outset that although all geostrategic players tend to be important and powerful countries, not all important and powerful countries are automatically geostrategic players. Thus, while the identification of the geostrategic players is thus relatively easy, the omission from the list that follows of some obviously important countries may require more justification.

In the current global circumstances, at least five key geostrategic players and five geopolitical pivots (with two of the latter perhaps also partially qualifying as players) can be identified on Eurasia's new political map. France, Germany, Russia, China, and India are major and active players, whereas Great Britain, Japan, and Indonesia, while admittedly very important countries, do not so qualify. Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots, though both Turkey and Iran are to some extent—within their more limited capabilities—also geostrategically active. More will be said about each in subsequent chapters.
24-25/109 in pdf
The role of Ukraine for the US
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly independent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine's loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe.
The United States has always professed its fidelity to the cause of a united Europe. Ever since the days of the Kennedy administration, the standard invocation has been that of "equal partnership." Official Washington has consistently proclaimed its desire to see Europe emerge as a single entity, powerful enough to share with America both the responsibilities and the burdens of global leadership.

That has been the established rhetoric on the subject. But in practice, the United States has been less clear and less consistent. Does Washington truly desire a Europe that is a genuinely equal partner in world affairs, or does it prefer an unequal alliance? For example, is the United States prepared to share leadership with Europe in the Middle East, a region not only much closer geographically to Europe than to America but also one in which several European states have long-standing interests? The issue of Israel instantly comes to mind. U.S.- European differences over Iran and Iraq have also been treated by the United States not as an issue between equals but as a matter of insubordination.

Ambiguity regarding the degree of American support for European unity also extends to the issue of how European unity is to be defined, especially concerning which country, if any, should lead a united Europe. Washington has not discouraged London's divisive posture regarding Europe's integration, though Washington has also shown a clear preference for German—rather than French— leadership in Europe. That is understandable, given the traditional thrust of French policy, but the preference has also had the effect of encouraging the occasional appearance of a lactical Franco-British entente in order to thwart Germany, as well as periodic French flirtation with Moscow in order to offset the American-German coalition.
The role of NATO for the US
The emergence of a truly united Europe—especially if that should occur with constructive American support—will require significant changes in the structure and processes of the NATO alliance, the principal link between America and Europe. NATO provides not only the main mechanism for the exercise of U.S. influence regarding European matters but the basis for the politically critical American military presence in Western Europe. However, European unity will require that structure to adjust to the new reality of an alliance based on two more or less equal partners, instead of an alliance that, to use traditional terminology, involves essentially a hegemon and its vassals. That issue has so far been largely skirted, despite the modest steps taken in 1996 to enhance within NATO the role of the Western European Union (WEU), the military coalition of the Western European states. A real choice in favor of a united Europe will thus compel a far-reaching reordering of NATO, inevitably reducing the American primacy within the alliance.
It should be clear by now that the US is not interested in European unity or an independent Europe, they want an obedient vassal, that goes to war when told, sanctions when told to, pays mafia prices for energy when required to, sucks up any offensive action like the NS 2 sabotage as if it was of no consequence.
In brief, a long-range American geostrategy for Europe will have to address explicitly the issues of European unity and real partnership with Europe. An America that truly desires a united and hence also a more independent Europe will have to throw its weight behind those European forces that are genuinely committed to Europe's political and economic integration. Such a strategy will also mean junking the last vestiges of the once-hallowed U.S.-U.K. special relationship.
A policy for a united Europe will also have to address—though jointly with the Europeans—the highly sensitive issue of Europe's geographic scope. How far eastward, should the European Union extend? And should the eastern limits of the EU be synonymous with the eastern front line of NATO? The former is more a matter for a European decision, but a European decision on that issue will have direct implications for a NATO decision. The latter, however, engages the United States, and the U.S. voice in NATO is still decisive. Given the growing consensus regarding the desirability of ad-milling the nations of Central Europe into both the EU and NATO, the practical meaning of this question focuses attention on the future status of the Baltic republics and perhaps also that of Ukraine.
There is more, but it comes in the next post:
 

Gazprom CEO Says All Nord Stream NatGas Could Be Redirected To Turkey​

"We're talking about those volumes which we have lost thanks to the acts of international terrorism against the Nord Stream pipelines, so these can be significant volumes," Miller told Russian television, quoted by Russian state-owned news agency Sputnik."

"I'd like to remind you that we have the experience of preparing for the implementation of the South Stream project, which was originally planned to have a capacity of 63 billion cubic meters [per year]. Therefore, if we're talking even about the technical documentation for the development of the route, for South Stream - all this was already done at one time," Miller continued."


Yes, Putin suggested as much in his recent speech. So what has been lost through the North Stream pipelines could still be delivered through the Turkish route in pretty large quantities IF Europe/Germany would want to do that. So far the opposite seems to be the case: The glories politicians in Europe want to seemingly wreck the European countries on purpose, on someone else's command.
 
Last edited:

Belarus reveals details of Russian forces in the country

Minsk will host up to 9,000 troops as part of the build-up of a joint defense force with Moscow, a senior defense official said

Thousands of Russian troops will be arriving in Belarus with some 170 tanks, up to 200 armored vehicles, and up to 100 artillery pieces, Valery Revenko, an aide to the Belarussian defense minister, said on Twitter on Monday. The troops will be hosted as part of the recently created joint military force.
Earlier in the day, the Defense Ministry reported that Revenko had briefed 19 military diplomats on how the new joint force would operate. The official, who heads the foreign affairs department in the ministry, stated on Twitter that he had given the same details about the Russian forces to the foreign representatives.
Minsk decided to bolster its security by hosting Russian troops after its attempts to de-escalate border tensions were rejected, Revenko claimed to have told the military attaches.
Russia and Belarus perceive as threats the “deployment of NATO forces near [their] borders amid a lack of dialogue, increased NATO training with a focus on offensive action, [and] the encouragement of Belarussian radical elements to topple the legitimate government of Belarus,” he said.
Belarus is a long-time ally of Russia, with the two together forming what is called the Union State. The new defense force, the creation of which Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko announced last week, will operate under its auspices. Minsk cited increased aggression from Kiev and Western nations as the reason for agreeing to have more Russian troops on its soil.

La Biélorussie en alerte terroristeREAD MORE: Belarus on high terrorist alert
The first trains with Russian soldiers and military vehicles started arriving in Belarus on Saturday, according to the latter nation’s Defense Ministry. On Sunday, Russian warplanes started redeploying to the country, the ministry told local media.

Minsk has allowed Russia to use its territory to launch offensives against Ukraine, but said it did not contribute its own troops to the operation. Hostilities in the neighboring nation escalated as Western nations poured arms and resources to prop up the Ukrainian military. Belarus claims that the threat posed to its safety by both Kiev and NATO members such as Poland has grown.

Last Friday, Belarussian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei reported that his nation had put its troops and special services on high alert due to what he described as a terrorist threat. Earlier in the week, Lukashenko ordered a full-scale check of the readiness of the national armed forces.

2022.10.16 The Turning Point Is About To Happen

 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom