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

[Michael B-C]

An excellent and thorough overview of the current situation across a number of issues: Brian Berletic of the New Atlas interviews Moscow based commentator Mark Sleboda.

- Prigozhin’s plane crash (excellent and comprehensive background on Wagner and a run down on the multiple suspects - with all having strong reasons and means - but he doesn't come down on a particular party being the obvious culprit - and as he says, we are unlikely to ever know for sure)
- Sabotage units reaching Crimea
- The complexity and difficult for Russia in maintaining control over the Black Sea
- The current state of Ukrainian offensive as it reaches the 3 month mark
- What happens after Ukraine’s offensive exhausts itself…
- Implications of the expansion of BRICS

I think Marks assessment that the war is likely to go on for years is important. All the current online chatter concerning the Russians now moving to large scale offensive capabilities, sweeping the remnants of the Ukrainian army before them, is to his mind wildly out of line with the harsh realities of fighting such large scale operations in densely urbanized and heavily fortified terrain. As he points out the Russians have fought this war to date primarily on a defensive model, especially since the SMO moved to a war footing, and there are few signs of the army being able or willing to take on the risks and massive causalities that full frontal warfare would likely unleash. Attrition and slow incremental advances will therefore likely remain the modus operandi for the foreseeable future.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking; the Russians are likely to maintain a style of war that does not lead to dramatic dashes west or actions that forces the West to directly intervene. Russia is still in the early days of transitioning the industrial and state apparatus on to a large militarized war footing and direct war with NATO is something it will want to delay for as long as is possible - if it ever comes - and so will continue to fight the war in such a manner that allows it to buy the time to build up that capacity into an insurmountable threat - and that's not there yet and may take many years. NATO must be faced with the either go nuclear from day one option or not get directly involved at all because if you do you will very quickly suffer immense damage and defeat on the battlefield. He rightly points out that Ukraine is but one aspect of a much larger process and war - including the Middle East (e.g. Syria), Africa and elsewhere, and the entire process is complex and politically multifaceted. In other words this is not going to suddenly change character and run along the lines of a Hollywood film script.

 

[Ben]

An excellent and thorough overview of the current situation across a number of issues: Brian Berletic of the New Atlas interviews Moscow based commentator Mark Sleboda.

- Prigozhin’s plane crash (excellent and comprehensive background on Wagner and a run down on the multiple suspects - with all having strong reasons and means - but he doesn't come down on a particular party being the obvious culprit - and as he says, we are unlikely to ever know for sure)
- Sabotage units reaching Crimea
- The complexity and difficult for Russia in maintaining control over the Black Sea
- The current state of Ukrainian offensive as it reaches the 3 month mark
- What happens after Ukraine’s offensive exhausts itself…
- Implications of the expansion of BRICS

I think Marks assessment that the war is likely to go on for years is important. All the current online chatter concerning the Russians now moving to large scale offensive capabilities, sweeping the remnants of the Ukrainian army before them, is to his mind wildly out of line with the harsh realities of fighting such large scale operations in densely urbanized and heavily fortified terrain. As he points out the Russians have fought this war to date primarily on a defensive model, especially since the SMO moved to a war footing, and there are few signs of the army being able or willing to take on the risks and massive causalities that full frontal warfare would likely unleash. Attrition and slow incremental advances will therefore likely remain the modus operandi for the foreseeable future.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking; the Russians are likely to maintain a style of war that does not lead to dramatic dashes west or actions that forces the West to directly intervene. Russia is still in the early days of transitioning the industrial and state apparatus on to a large militarized war footing and direct war with NATO is something it will want to delay for as long as is possible - if it ever comes - and so will continue to fight the war in such a manner that allows it to buy the time to build up that capacity into an insurmountable threat - and that's not there yet and may take many years. NATO must be faced with the either go nuclear from day one option or not get directly involved at all because if you do you will very quickly suffer immense damage and defeat on the battlefield. He rightly points out that Ukraine is but one aspect of a much larger process and war - including the Middle East (e.g. Syria), Africa and elsewhere, and the entire process is complex and politically multifaceted. In other words this is not going to suddenly change character and run along the lines of a Hollywood film script.

I think it's well worth watching, Brian allows Mark to do almost all the talking (the standard New Atlas updates are great, but unapologetically repetitious in their content). He pointed out that even just taking Kharkov would require hundreds of thousands of troops and a year or more of time. I think it's reasonable to expect Russia to continue their methodical and cautious approach, short of some dire emergency they're not going to start throwing lives away at a higher rate in order to increase the pace of advance. There is no need. I still think that circumstances could change drastically in Ukraine outside of the direct military contact, leading to places like Kharkov and Odessa changing hands out of necessity. The country is arguably already propped up by the Western economic system and corporations. If they walk away leaving only their high value assets defended and financed then someone is going to have to pick up the pieces. It could only be Russia, and they must know that.

 

[Joe]

I don’t believe Putin is capable of murder.

How about Caesar? And how do you define "murder"?

 

[Joe]

The loss of the Tupolyev bomber was significant, and that these trickling losses continue should indeed be upsetting and in need of someone or a few taking personal responsibility, but is there realistically anything that the 1960s Tu-22 was able to do which a brand new replacement Tu-160 would not be able to and do better? I mean, that Tu-22 was likely far closer to the end of its useful airframe life than to its beginning, especially given the sky high usage rate of the last year or two.

Exactly. It seems that some people won't accept that, in a war, Russia should suffer any losses. Armchair generals are the worst.

 

[Joe]

That Putin would say this, at this time, speaks volumes IMO, and speaks directly to Prigozhin's fate. The point being, IMO, Prig and others in Wagner, were not loyal to Russia.

Wagner mercenaries must swear allegiance to Russia - Putin

The presidential decree is aimed at employees of Wagner and other private military contractors.

www.bbc.com

President Vladimir Putin has called on all employees of Wagner and other Russian private military contractors to take an oath of allegiance to the Russian state.

The decree applies to anyone participating in military activities in Ukraine, assisting the army and serving in territorial defence units.

He signed the decree on Friday, with immediate effect.

So what the facts here. There obviously has been a long-standing dispute between the Kremlin and Wagner, essentially concerning who is the leader of Wagner, and to whom do they ultimately answer and pay allegiance to? That's what the 'argument' over the official incorporation of Wagner into the Russian military was about. Prig and Co. were NOT inclined to give up their 'free lance' status: too much freedom, too much personal enrichment to be had. But that obviously cannot be allowed to continue by any serious govt. and it's military; to have an entire regiment, nominally working for the Russian military and following military and govt. orders, but in effect doing whatever it wants when it do chooses.

So back in March and April, Prig goes on camera calling Shoigu a pedophile (and other names) and accusing the MOD of being responsible for the deaths of Wagner members (that Prig was standing in front of in his video). This is followed by his abortive "mutiny", during which he (Wagner heads) thought it was fine to shoot down Russian planes, killing military personnel. Clearly the guy is, at least partly, deranged.

The "mutiny" situation was resolved quickly however, and Prig and co were "allowed" to go to Belarus "into exile". But clearly that didn't last long. Since then, it seems it's been "business as usual", with Prig and Wagner heads spotted at official diplomatic events in Africa and also, most recently, on the ground in an African country. In addition, it appears there has been no restriction on their flight to and from and within Russia.

So the situation seems pretty clear: Wagner under Prig and co. were not going to accept any "demands" by the Kremlin that they give up their freelance status, and demonstrated a willingness to 'double down' and directly challenge Putin's authority. It's not difficult to imagine that the Kremlin was left with little choice but to deal with Prig and co. in the only way that Prig and co. themselves left open...

 

[youlik]

too much personal enrichment

The same song, but on the other side. How Ukrainians get weapons. A small stroke, which in my opinion could logically end with the fact that some of those Cobras would eventually end up somewhere in Africa. But these are my fantasies.

The joker of the DPR: My spies from the military counterintelligence of the SBU sent interesting materials. In the autumn of 2022, the Czech Republic was supposed to sell 17 units of Cobra attack helicopters to Ukraine and organize paid pilot training courses. At the final stage of the transaction, the Ukrainian side demanded to increase the value of the contract by 100% in order to get a rollback of 70% of the cheat. Realizing that Ukraine pays with American taxpayers' money, the Czechs refused such a scheme. Proud Ukrainians, in turn, refused to buy at their price without a rollback. And that's right! Ukraine has no problems with aviation to buy some more junk without a rollback.

The SBU brought materials on the culprits, but the management of the service did not give them a move. So their employees handed them over to me for publication, in the hope that the truth will prevail. Ukraine is a country of opportunities and freedom!

26.08.2023 Новости с утра. Жесткие кадры боев с Украины: Российская армия удерживает южную окраину РАБОТИНО. Карта боевых действий (18 видео) смотреть онлайн в хорошем качестве

Spoiler: Russian spelling

Та же песня, но с другой стороны. Как добывают оружие украинцы. Небольшой штришок, который на мой взгляд можно было бы логически закончить тем, что часть тех самых Кобр в итоге оказалась бы где-нибудь в Африке. Но это мои фантазии.

 

[Vulcan59]

FWIW, Scott Ritter makes a strong case why he doesn't think that Putin ordered the killing.

 

[youlik]

Two short videos about the entire Ukrainian "counteroffensive" on the two most active sectors of the front. It is very clearly visible how they beat against a blank wall.
Chronicles of access to the Sea of Azov for "three days", as a result, 3 months have passed. Orekhovsky plot.
Chronicles of access to the Sea of Azov for "three days", as a result, 3 months have passed. Vremyevsky ledge.

Spoiler: Russian spelling

Два коротеньких видео про весь украинский "контрнаступ" на двух, наиболее активных участках фронта. Очень хорошо видно как они бьются в глухую стену.

 

[thorbiorn]

Some of the people in high position within the EU and NATO can not hide their arrogance

26 Aug, 2023 19:00
NATO cheerleader advocates breaking up Brazil
The largest country in South America would be broken up into five statelets under a plan floated on social media
Austrian economist Gunther Fehlinger has called for Brazil to be divided up into five different states over its partnership with Russia in the BRICS group, according to a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday.

Fehlinger, whose profile describes him as “Chair of European Committee for NATO Enlargement for Kosovo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Austria, Moldova, Ireland, Georgia,” couched his demands in an appeal to “the people of Brazil,” insisting they could only be free by “dismantling the Socialist Genocidal BRICS Ally of Russia” – and that they had been misled by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Brazil should be broken up “into 5 new better free states who can join NATO, OECD, [and] Mercosur,” the economist declared, appending the hashtags “#ExBrazil” and “#FehlingerDoctrine.”

The Austrian’s proposed rump states are to be called “People’s Republic of the Amazonia,” “Nordeste,” “São Paulo,” “Sul,” and “Last Seven Brazilian States.” It is not clear what rationale Fehlinger used to draw the lines, or why the seven states are lumped into one uncreatively-titled mass under the old Brazilian flag.

The “Fehlinger doctrine” appears to mandate balkanization as punishment for transgression against NATO’s oft-cited rules-based international order, as the economist also posted an image of Russia broken up into over a dozen mini-states, each with their own made-up flag, alongside text proclaiming “Freedom to captive nations in Russia.”

“Dismantling the just punishment for Genocide,” he wrote above the colorful fantasy map.

[...]

While the following may be diplomatic enough, the Danish PM and her group have gone to such an extreme, that they have revealed themselves to more people, which is basically a healthy development in a sad situation.

Recently, last weekend, Zelensky came for a visit to Denmark, he was presented with a promise of 19 F-16 planes and had the good luck to sit in the cockpit together with the PM Mette Frederiksen. The day after on Sunday, he appeared in front of the Danish Parliament to a spontanous celebration event. While the fever and pro Ukraine sentiments was reaching the ecstasy levels, more cool heads felt it was off. And several opinion makers joined the criticism, including the satirists:

Below the image: The statements about freedom sometime sound a bit hollow.
Left:
PM: Bombs those sh*tty guy back to the Stone Age.
Right:
PM Secretary: Iran has complained about another burning of the Quran. PM: Call them and excuse us, we will do all they are asking for.

Another FB comment:

The opinion turns!? Ekstrabladet can see the grotesqueness in Mette Frederiksen's performance, and Ekstrabladet can see the sense in Lars Von Trier's quiet reference to the fact that Russian human lives are also lives.
Here is a small excerpt from Ekstrabladet's editorial.

Regarding Lars Von Trier, The Independent reported:

Ukrainian official eviscerates Lars von Trier for ‘Russian lives matter’ post: ‘Siding with the executioner’
‘War is not a movie where actors play life and death. Behind every living Russian terrorist, there is a dead Ukrainian,’ secretary of the National Security and Defense Council wrote[...]

Filmmaker Lars von Trier has come under fire from the Ukrainian government after saying that “Russian lives matter also” on social media.

The Danish auteur is known for directing controversial films such as Antichrist, Dogville, and The Idiots, many of which are known for their violent and sexually explicit content.

On Instagram on Tuesday (22 August), von Trier shared a post about Russia’s ongoing invasion in Ukraine, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 9,000 civilians and 200,000 military personnel.

He wrote: “By the way: To Mr Zelenskyy and Mr Putin and, last but not least, Ms Frederiksen [Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen] (who yesterday posed, beaming, inside of one of today’s most horrifying killing machines, as if she was head over heels in love).

“Russian lives matter also! Best regards, Lars.”

Now, von Trier has been out to excuse his statement and proclaim that of course he supports Ukraine, but he tried, and the message went around.

Another who showed up was the Lars Hedegaard, who since years has been a strong critic of Islam, but whether one agrees or not, here he talks mostly argues against the Danish support for Ukraine.

Mette Frederiksen's last sigh
At a time when the Danish nation is in decline and is being overpowered by the Muslim nation, we need something to rally around. No, not about Denmark, but about Ukraine. And yesterday, the Danes had the opportunity to rally around the new rallying point.

None other than the former comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, was in Copenhagen to receive the cheering tribute of the Danish Parliament and the crowds. The applause at Christiansborg was so persistent that the Speaker of the Danish Parliament had to intervene and point out that the parliament also had other things on the agenda. However, this did not apply to Her Majesty and her son, who received the Ukrainian freedom hero, who was wearing a green t-shirt and desert boots for the occasion.

Mette Frederiksen took the opportunity to write herself into history as a fearless champion of all that is good in the world - in the specific case of some F-16 aircraft.

Danish support for Ukraine is "truly a people's cause, and we have reason to be proud that Denmark, together with the Netherlands, has taken the lead in donating F-16 fighter jets to the Ukrainian freedom struggle", says Berlingske's ever obliging editorial writer.

After that salvo, it's hard to say anything more bellicose, but Danish politicians are doing their best. According to Mette Frederiksen, Zelensky is "an extraordinarily brave man. A man I am happy to call my friend". Minister for Immigration and Integration Kåre Dybvad Bek says that Zelensky's triumphal procession in Copenhagen is reminiscent of Kennedy's famous speech in Berlin and of when Montgomery drove around Copenhagen after Denmark's liberation.

Perhaps he should have added that Montgomery came as a victor and Zelensky comes as the leader in a hopeless war that can only lead to more death and destruction.

The fact is that Ukraine is losing and can look forward to nothing but total destruction if the war does not stop.
According to US military analyst Douglas Macgregor, Ukraine has lost 400,000 soldiers on the battlefield against 40,000 Russians. Somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians have had limbs amputated. 14 million Ukrainians have left the country.

Here in Denmark, we hardly have the opportunity to verify these figures, but what is the authorities' assessment? What do the defense experts say? Do Mette Frederiksen and her journalists even know what they are talking about?

Let's forget about moral considerations, because big politics and war are not driven by morality. The fact is, as Colonel Macgregor points out in an interview with Tucker Carlson, "everything we [in the West] tried to accomplish has failed".

The Western politicians' and media's optimistic stories about the mighty Ukrainian army that would soon finish off the demoralized Russians have proven to be false.

So what will Mette Frederiksen accomplish with her planes? Nothing that will change the course of the war. On the other hand, she has positioned Denmark as Russia's enemy - and in a situation where more people are beginning to ask what the point of this war is.

Yes, Ukraine must be defended, but should it be done by destroying the country, or would all parties be better served by a peace settlement?

Unfortunately, Mrs. Frederiksen is not talking about peace, but about more war. God knows how long that will sell tickets.

Of course many more guns and money, even people may get involved, but some people have begun to ask themselves questions, and that is progress.

 

[Adobe]

@T.C. said: "I don’t believe Putin is capable of murder."

@Joe said: "How about Caesar? And how do you define "murder"?"

Does Putin have the ability to kill? God, I hope so!

If he doesn’t, then he has no place leading any country or people. A leader should have the ability to kill and lead the people in killing: whether it be animals for food, trees for warmth, or enemies who are destroying them. Even a loose-cannon elements within their own people, that if let go, could destroy the community.

Kill-not-murder. Those are different concepts, and easily defined. I would imagine that most people on this forum can easily define them. I’ll leave it there. Only to add, that the C’s complicated the whole issue by saying. Paraphrased: All war is murder and suicide. (?)

Kill and murder is also something I have been discussing with a friend in reference to the upcoming conflicts. What will you do…if? What "can" you do…if? And is it moral? Best think about it now, rather than later.

 

[thorbiorn]

From Inessa S: TG Channel Inessa S ️️

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695591020635795806

The first Prime Minister of Ukraine (1991-1992), Vitold Fokin, recalls meeting Zbegniew Brzezinski, former US national security advisor, who said Ukraine needs no more than 20 million people (at the time, 50+ million) to be controlled by the US.

[...]

Interview is dated before the Special Operation, 13.01.2022 - if anyone has a longer outtake, send my way.

Depopulation long planned, and since Ukraine has such good soils, what numbers the likes of Zbegniew Brzezinski have for other regions is anyone's guess.

 

[thorbiorn]

In the last post, I mentioned Zbegniew Brzezinski, now I found a lecture or talk he gave in 2011, and 57 minutes long.
There is one moment where he speaks about the role of the Ukrainian diaspora, and how the influence was from Western Ukraine.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Ukraine's Future​

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Advisor, delivered the keynote address at the Peterson Institute on July 7, 2011, at the conference "Ukraine's Future: The Challenges and Impact of Governance in Ukraine," cohosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings, and the Atlantic Council.

The part about the Ukrainian diaspora

there is
52.51
something else which is peculiar here which i think is worth mentioning
52.56
in some respects there is a parallel here
53.01
between ukraine and israel that is to say
53.08
israel has a certain inherent strategic orientation
53.13
but if the american jewish community were to disassociate itself in some
53.19
significant fashion with a prevailing israeli government right now for example a very
53.25
conservative one the right wing one it would have a significant impact
53.30
on israel's own policy i suspect that the ukrainian diaspora
53.37
in canada and in the united states is not insignificant
53.42
in that respect it's not maybe as decisive as the jewish community would be vis-a-vis
53.49
israel but it's not insignificant because for one thing the whole notion
53.56
of ukrainian independent statehood was nurtured for decades outside of ukraine
54.03
in the diaspora and that is where the spirit was preserved and that was in turn nurtured
54.09
particularly the ukrainians in western ukraine then increasingly in central ukraine and so
54.15
forth and that is an additional factor which plays a role here so i think since
54.23
that diaspora is located in the western hemisphere
54.29
in the united states in the atlantic community it enhances to some degree
54.35
the american role i don't want to overplay this it's not quite on the same level as
54.40
let's say the importance of the jewish community to the internal outlook of israel but it is of some importance more
54.47
so than in case of many other countries and i think all of that in my judgment progressively reinforces
54.55
the durability of what has existed for 20 years 20 years is a long time in the
55.00
psychology of a lot of people because 20 years shapes basically the outlook of anyone
55.07
in ukraine who was at least
55.13
10 to 15 years old when the country became independent so that's in this increasingly significant
55.19
number and then of course all the other factors we talked about come into play
55.24
but all of them cumulatively my judgment i can allow one some
55.29
kind of responsible controlled optimism regarding the prospects with clarity about
55.37
our own attitude towards this positive and negative and no hesitation in being
55.42
explicit about it in talking to those that we value in ukraine given the fact
55.48
that we think a ukraine that is genuinely self-defined
55.54
and independent can help europe be a much healthier place in that larger dimension
56.00
to which i made reference in my earlier comments

This whole project is leveraged from outside Ukraine. Elite capital interests working through the diaspora for decades using Western Ukraine as a foothold.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Kill-not-murder. Those are different concepts, and easily defined. I would imagine that most people on this forum can easily define them. I’ll leave it there. Only to add, that the C’s complicated the whole issue by saying. Paraphrased: All war is murder and suicide. (?)

Kill and murder is also something I have been discussing with a friend in reference to the upcoming conflicts. What will you do…if? What "can" you do…if? And is it moral? Best think about it now, rather than later.

In countries with laws, murder is primarily a legal category. Morally, one could argue that certain murders (while technically murder, in the legal sense) are morally justified. Or, that certain legal killings are in fact murder.

But here is the relevant legal definition:

Murder in Russian law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to the modern Russian Criminal Code, only intentional killing of another human is considered as a murder (Russian убийство transliteration ubiystvo). The following types of murder are defined:

• Murder per se (article 105 of Criminal Code):
  • common corpus delicti (with no aggravating circumstances listed below). Punished with a sentence between 6 and 15 years
  • qualified corpus delicti. Punished with a sentence between 8 and 20 years, life sentence, or death penalty. Aggravating circumstances:

a) against two or more people;
b) against person on public duty or their relatives;
c) killing of hostage, kidnapped or helpless person;
d) killing of pregnant;
e) committed in a cruel way;
f) committed in a socially dangerous way;
g) motivated by a blood feud (vendetta);
h) committed by a group of persons, a group of persons under a preliminary conspiracy, or an organized group;
i) for a profit, including contract killing, or connected with a robbery, extort or banditry;
j) with a rowdy motive;
k) to cover or secure another crime,
l) connected with a rape or sexual assault;
m) hate crime;
n) with the aim to use organs or tissues of victim.

• Privileged types of murder:
  • Of newborn child by mother (article 106 of Criminal Code), punished with a sentence up to 5 years.
  • In affect state (art. 107), up to 3 years (up to 5 years for multiple killing).
  • Exceeding reasonable level of self-defense (art. 108), up to 2 years.

There are some other articles of criminal code, that provide special punishment for crimes connected with intentional kills:

• seizure of hostages;
• terrorism;
• sabotage;

- punished with a sentence between 15 and 20 years, or life.

• genocide;
• encroachment on person on public or government duty;
• encroachment on law officer or soldier;
• encroachment on person administering justice or engaged in a preliminary investigation.

- punished with a sentence between 12 and 20 years or life sentence.

War is a case when killing is legalized. There are others, of course, like when the U.S. justified the assassination of a U.S. citizen without trial (Awlaki) as legal. Prigozhin, presumably, would also count as a "targeted killing," most famously employed by the U.S. and Israel (though usually against foreign citizens). And of course, there's "collateral damage", which was present in the Awlaki case:

But its suppression challenge took various forms and arguments over the years, despite repeated official confirmations about the drone strikes, including from the president; despite the confirmed killing of four Americans, three of whom are claimed to have been killed accidentally, including Awlaki's 16-year-old son; and despite the 2013 leak of a memo summarizing the Justice Department's arguments about so-called "targeted killing" for Congress.

In general, governments kill people they consider threats to national security, however that is defined. In that sense, Machiavelli was right - "all politicians are like that." They either try to come up with a legal justification, or they do so covertly and hope to avoid legal repercussions through a strategy of public denial. Whether it bothers their consciences is another matter. That will vary depending on the individual, but I would guess it doesn't bother many of them. Most are either psychopaths, or convinced they're doing the right thing (and sometimes they are). Politics is also a near-perfect environment conducive to utilitarian (i.e. left-brain) thinking, where one could even argue that it couldn't work without it. Politicians need to think in the aggregate when most in ordinary life don't. (I'd guess that's why shizoidal political philosophies are so successful.)

I was curious to see if the Cs had anything to say. Only two references to murder in the answers that I could find. Coincidentally, the first one is about a deliberate plane crash, also involving "collateral damage":

1/30/10

(PoB) What happened to the Ethiopian plane? What was the cause of the crash?

A: Sabotage. CIA and pals.

Q: (Joe) Did they intend to kill someone? What was the purpose? Was there someone on the plane they wanted to take out?

A: Distraction, warning, and murder of agents on board.

10/22/22

Q: (Joe) What did the Mithraic tauroctony symbolize?

A: Murder of the primal bull that then gave itself for humanity.

And a couple references to murderers, including the one you paraphrased:

11/7/94

Q: (L) In a general sense, is there some negative karma involved in committing suicide?

A: There can be negative karma involved with many things.

Q: (L) What about the death penalty?

A: Specify.

Q: (L) Is putting a criminal to death the equivalent of reducing society to the level of the criminal?

A: You are all put to death.

Q: (L) What do you mean?

A: In one way or another.

Q: (L) Well, is there any negative karma on society, the judge, the jury, the executioner, if a criminal is brought to trial, found guilty of a heinous crime and then put to death?

A: What about war? What is better? This is open because all are murderers and suicides. It is the supreme lesson you all must learn before you can graduate to ethereal existence. Your thinking is too simplified.

Q: (L) Is there ever a situation where execution helps relieve the criminal of some of his karma that may be caused by the commission of the crime for which he is being executed?

A: No.

Q: (L) Is it better to take a criminal, such as Dahmer, and have all of society support and take care of him?

A: These are all past issues. Will be resolved soon.

 

[thorbiorn]

I was curious to see if the Cs had anything to say. Only two references to murder in the answers that I could find. Coincidentally, the first one is about a deliberate plane crash, also involving "collateral damage":

1/30/10

(PoB) What happened to the Ethiopian plane? What was the cause of the crash?

A: Sabotage. CIA and pals.

Q: (Joe) Did they intend to kill someone? What was the purpose? Was there someone on the plane they wanted to take out?

A: Distraction, warning, and murder of agents on board.

The following appeared on TG on August 25 with a video: Xoaquin FIores - New Resistance

There may be a new twist in the Prigozhin plane crash case

It has become known that shortly before the plane with Prigozhin took off, strangers were on board, who allegedly introduced themselves as buyers of the plane.

The video is allegedly the visit of two potential buyers who inspect the cabin of Prigozhin's plane. The video was taken on the morning of August 23 before the crash.

These people were led on board by the co-pilot who died in the crash.

As pointed out earlier, not much would be needed:

To my mind, this all points to an explosion on board of the aircraft, maybe several, which destabilized/ incapacitated the plane enough for it to go down. The amount of explosives needed might be relatively small - enough to explosively decompress the cabin and destabilise normal flight.

One has to bear in mind that an airwing stalls not only at low airspeeds, but also at very high airspeeds - and the higher the plane flies, the closer together these two stall speeds move (which effectively determines service ceiling). Which again means that at high flight levels, where high-speed and low-speed stall are relatively close together, the plane becomes unstable (stalled) much more easily.

Note, not being a pilot, I had to look up videos like
What is a Stall? What is Angle of Attack? | King Schools
Why aircraft fly so high? A simple mathematical explanation.
Service ceiling vs absolute ceiling. which had this image:

While it could be the Russian Government or someone related, it could be many others. From the amount of press given in the West to this case, they certainly also "benefit".

 

[fifty_five]

FWIW, Scott Ritter makes a strong case why he doesn't think that Putin ordered the killing.

Normally I am bored with American analyses pontificating about the rest of the world (which for American analysts normally does not exist except as their own projection ). In this case I think ritter is partly right, as I said in my opinion this matter exceeds by far the Ukrainian topic (and maybe it is true therefore that we are OT here). I am a bit doubtful about the incident due to weapons on board but really anything is possible even in political terms. It will be interesting in this regard to see the outcome of the official investigation. The international chessboard in any case doesn't give a damn of that. It is a kind of minor happening somehow foreseen in the general repositioning. The Russian federation can no longer indulge in the "wild west" of people like PRIG both domestically (done) and internationally (ongoing). This is not to say that they did not consciously use them earlier and successfully for exactly what they were. Any hypocrisy in this regard I think is to be avoided even though it is part of the game .