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

[Jones]

4. So now it's time for negotiations to be prioritized so as to find a possible off ramp - but negotiations on US terms and without Ukrainian involvement...

I don't think aid was given for free but is now debt owed by Ukraine to those countries that sent aid and debt means putting up security. So it's very possible that US owns Ukraine by now and until the debt can be repaid.

 

[Alejo]

I'm not sure I understand what you have meant by that?

Oh it was a tinfoil hat moment for me, trying to connect some dots.

What I meant was that, if there's a plan to use biological weapons against russia, and if Prigozhin was involved in such plans, then a harsh reaction by russia would've been understandable, (that is, them being behind the downing of his plane) considering how grave the offense. But it's purely speculative and I've nothing to back it up, so just some musings.

 

[heinrich]

russian and west's mentalities:

i read

Boiling frogs towards nuclear Armageddon? -- Sott.net

Russia overcame the existential assault by Nazi Germany. It will do so again against the despicable NATO axis. This week saw widespread air strikes on the Russian Federation involving mass aerial drone attacks. Six regions were attacked including...

www.sott.net

in the comments, i found the one by KRNABRNY to be of great value, and i reproduce it below:

quote
And one more thing. Something I've wanted to write for a long time.
Watch out! You make a lot of mistakes. Small mistakes, but the ones that result in big problems! Example:
You think that you work to EARN, HAVE PROFIT ... and consequently live more comfortably. Seemingly, this is a good logic, but it has been brought to absurdity with you, because you think that you work and act ONLY FOR THIS!
However, this is not the whole truth. Most people in the world want to work to FEEL THAT HIS JOB MEANS, IS IN SOME WAY IMPORTANT AND RESPONSIBLE. If you take that feeling away from people, they're left with nothing but a few dollars in their hand after they get paid. with which he will no longer know what to do. If this situation continues for a long time, it will lead to everyone feeling WORTHLESS. It's as if they don't matter... and they'll fall into decadence or depression. What's going on with you! You can't take production out of your own country just counting profits! Americans used to be proud to produce solid FORD cars, in American factories, on American soil... and now???
Now people in America get money for "doing nothing", with which they can buy a car made in Japan, Germany or China. It's supposed to be better, more comfortable..... but DO YOU SENSE HOW YOU'VE BEEN ROBBED ALREADY???
THEY STOLE YOU THE MEANING OF LIFE!
unquote

this comment precisely describes what is wrong with the usa, and which contaminates the whole world, and which will bring the downfall of the NEW ATLANTIS, the usa...

 

[sToRmR1dR]

'Another military aid package for a long term conflict.'

Pentagon announces another military aid package for Ukraine

The US is set to provide another $600 million worth of military aid to Ukraine for use in its conflict with Russia, the Pentagon has said

www.rt.com

8 Sep, 2023

'Ukraine is risking to lose all of its territory.'

 

[Antony]

Would like to share an opinion of Maxim Shevchenko on Europe/Russia geopolitical confrontation which is now known aka Rus/Ukr war.

In the chat, I was asked why I consider the conflict between Russia and united Europe objective and inevitable?
United Europe is the concentrated power of the oldest political nations of the West, the heirs of the empire of Carl the Great, the Germans and the French.
Once there were Spaniards, but they have long since left the race.
Separately, the leading nations of continental Europe compete with each other, including by fighting for external sources of resources and markets for their national capital.
On this competition, the leading European nations grew up fighting with each other for vassals on the European continent, for access to colonies in Africa and America, for the "legacy" of the collapsing Islamic Caliphate, and so on.
When they conflict, there is inevitably a war within Europe that goes beyond its borders.
When continental Europe unites (as it was under Napoleon under the leadership of the French, Hitler under the leadership of the Germans, or nowadays under the Franco-German alliance and the leadership of the "Great East"), it does not matter whether under the slogans of imperial expansion or the protection of "European liberal values", it begins expansion.
It cannot be otherwise, because in this case the financial and economic power of a united Europe increases by a multiple and the needs for feeding this power also increase in geometric proportions.
If a united continental Europe does not solve the problem of control over resource regions, then it becomes dependent on the stronger and more independent centers of the West - the United States and Britain, and, as a result, again breaks up into competing nation-states.
The resource-rich regions adjacent to Europe (Africa, the Middle East) have long been divided among the big "players" of the Western world - Britain, the USA, France.
The task is to take control of the energy and other resources necessary for the development of technologies and maintaining leadership (uranium, rare earth metals, for example), which are in the zone of "non-obvious influence of the West", are not divided at the level of state control.
Such is the space to the east of Europe, filled with states with an unstable concept of sovereignty and unstable nations, with elites looking for external senior partners and patrons.
This space (Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, the Caucasus, as the main transport corridor from Asia to Europe) is always a temptation for this expansion, because it looks weak: corruption, underdevelopment of social and political structures, the willingness of local elites to collaborate with the elites of the West, and more.
When it is reinforced by external alliances with continental Europe's competitors from Britain or the United States, or by the concentration of social and national resources, as in Stalin's time, continental Europe feels this as a threat to its interests and is preparing for war.
It cannot allow a large strong and sovereign state of the imperial type to the east of itself.
The expansion of Europe can be soft and rough.
Soft is the planting or cultivation of the ruling elite (like the Gottorp-Holsteins, known under the pseudonym "Romanovs" or the Brezhnev-Gorbachev-Yeltsin nobility).
Rough is a direct invasion, when the fascinating brilliant imperial power of the united Europe seems decidedly superior in all respects to the "Hunnish-Scythian hordes of the East".
But the US and Britain cannot allow continental Europe to seize the wealth of Eurasia.
They, even verbally supporting "Western unity", provoke Europe to confrontation with Russia, indirectly or directly (as in the years of the Napoleonic Wars and World War II) supporting Russia.
This confrontation cannot end in victory for Europe. At some point, she has to wage a war for resources and resources for this war begins to be sorely lacking.
There are no other scenarios of Russia's relations with Europe.
Therefore, a united Europe is always a threat to Russia.
Russia is interested in the collapse of the European Union.
This is the strategic goal of the war.

Макс атакует!

В чате меня спросили, почему я считаю конфликт России и единой Европы объективным и неизбежным? Объединенная Европа это концентрированная мощь старейших политических наций Запада, наследников империи Карла Великого, немцев и французов. Некогда еще были испанцы, но они давно сошли с дистанции...

t.me

@Chu, forgot to add him in the list.

 

[Antony]

It's still going off-topic, but just one more thing, Antony. On one of OCCRP pages related to the Laundromat scheme, they have this sentence:



Under the above link, the first two paragraphs read:



Can you count lies they managed to pack in those seven lines?

PoB,
Yep, nor do i want to make it wide off-topic. Just a sideview remark.

I did not follow Magnitsky case in ‘great’ details
Imo, he was supposed by westerners to ‘highlight’/make that fraud widely known to the russian public (which indeed happened), but as soon as top position figures were revealed- was made a ‘dead scapegoat’ for the sake of ‘confidentiality’...Motive for westerners? Yes.
He could be executed by western special services in order to amplify the effect. The same way as useless already then Nemtsov (as it was confirmed by Cs). Just a ‘useful’ decoy...

 

[PERLOU]

Wagner, c'est fini!

Moscou ayant complètement refusé le financement du déploiement de Wagner en Biélorussie, le Président Loukachenko a ordonné au KGB de la République de Bi

rusreinfo.ru

Wagner, it's over!​

September 8, 2023 Editor Editor 2

With Moscow completely refusing funding for Wagner's deployment to Belarus, President Lukashenko ordered the KGB of the Republic of Belarus to completely withdraw all Wagner PMC formations from the country by October 16. Syria is also preparing for the withdrawal of all Wagner PMC units by November 1.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation closes the project on the territory of the Russian Federation; all sorts of obstacles will be put in Wagner's path, conditions will be created for the impossibility of full-fledged work. The Prigozhin family seems to have understood well since they are already negotiating the sale of 85% of the company, leaving only real estate and land.

Subscribe to Boris Karpov's Telegram channel for real-time information on developments in the situation in Russia and Ukraine. Click on the banner!

Today and this weekend a council of Wagner commanders will be held, where issues relating to the future existence of the PMC and the place of permanent deployment will be decided. Only the African project seems possible with big doubts, however, unless Wagner transforms into a private militia ensuring the security of a few African countries...
In Russian political circles some people wonder if in fact Prigozhine would not have been “turned around” by the Western Services who would have incited him to his madness, knowing how it would end. Prigozhine was also considered by some to be part of the “6th column” since the beginning of the year.
Prigozhine's madness with his challenge to the Russian State will therefore have cost Wagner and those who physically invested in it dearly. Valuable fighters will become available, looking for a new employer. Let us hope that the Russian forces will welcome them generously.
Boris Gennadevich Karpov
https://boriskarpov.tvs24.ru

 

[Michael B-C]

It takes an ex spook and experienced diplomat to fully grasp the mess that now faces the delusional state of US Ukrainian policy. Using the analogy of Hotel California, Alastair Crooke expertly summarizes the Gordian Knot that is tightening around in particular the US administration and the Zelensky government:

Hotel Ukraine: ‘Sure, Check-Out Any Time, but You Can Never Leave’

06.09.2023

Alastair Crooke

In the case of Ukraine, the U.S., it seems, is tilting towards a more permanent (yet less intense) war. The so-called ‘Israeli formula’.

(Lyrics from The Eagles’ Hotel California song)​

​

“Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place …
They livin’ it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise
Bring your alibis”
And she said, “We are all just prisoners here
Of our own device”
And in the master’s chambers
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can’t kill the beast
… Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door.
“Relax”, said the night man
“We are programmed to receive
You can check-out any time you like
But you can never leave!”​

Well, the West is running for the door. But leaving the Ukraine consequence is not possible – ‘Relax’ Team Biden, the night man says; we are programmed only ‘to receive’. You can’t just ‘go’.

Mark Feygin, who daily hosts former Ukrainian Presidential adviser, Oleksiy Arestovich, on his show, sums up a general consensus:

“Biden and his administration want to end the war by the end of 2023. This is their settlement plan. I mean [the end to] the active military phase … [and] calmly to hold elections, even in January [2024], in February, but to finish it before the U.S. elections, so that Biden would have something to sell, so that he could say: ‘we saved Ukraine, Ukraine has been preserved as a state. A sovereign state. It is there. Yes, 18.6% of the territory is occupied, but more might [have been] occupied’: That’s what Biden needs, it’s very simple, there is no ‘mysterious casket here’.​

This, however, represents but one of two ‘camps’ in the U.S.: the first proposes to freeze the conflict in place, and shout ‘Mission Accomplished’; and the second, to fight on, until Russia cracks, and flies the battle space.

It may seem so simple, but it isn’t. Neither U.S. hypothesis is soundly-based. One lesson from ‘conflict’ that I learned, early was that the ‘rationality’ that seems so plausible; – so logical to those coming from stable, ordered, prosperous states, and which was generally expressed as ‘why don’t they understand that continued violence is not their interest’; ‘Can’t they just ‘split the difference’ and move on’ – becomes incrementally more and more a minority position.

The distress, the pain of human loss, the angst of extended conflict, shapes a different mode of psyche: war psyche. It is one that does not readily accept the humanistic calculus. It wants the ‘other’ to suffer, as ‘they’ have suffered. The rationale of ceasefire, of acquiescing to ‘realism’, can seem inadequate psychologically, even if rational politically.

This aspect is well understood in other cultures, but less so in the West, where a more rigid logic holds sway. It is notable in the Ukraine case, that whilst the West engages in Byzantine rounds of talks amongst its allies, and allied think-tanks, to find consensus on some ‘off-ramp’ to the failing Ukraine project – the discussion remains tight within the western ‘bubble’.

There is little or no attempt to find out what the Russian government or people think; or more importantly what Moscow envisions, as Russia’s next steps (of course Russia keeps that close to the chest).

There is a silent assumption that when the West ultimately decides its ‘off ramp’, that the latter will be ‘grabbed with both hands’ by President Putin. Underlying this is the ‘article of faith’ that Russia is stuck in the conflict, and has few options beyond continued positional defence. Again, this is completely one-dimensional vision.

And this also is not the psyche of war, and the analysis thus is flawed: What may have been possible once (say in March 2023 in Istanbul), may not be possible again. War metamorphoses psychology in a direct relationship to the adversity of war, and to the extent of malevolence emanating from the oppositional side.

Simply put, prolonged conflict works as a ratchet – one that eats away at the room for compromise (for both parties).

In the case of Ukraine, the U.S., it seems, is tilting towards a more permanent (yet less intense) war. The so-called ‘Israeli formula’. New weapons and plenty of cash for Rump Ukraine – locked-in until the 2024 elections, and beyond, to avoid an evident retreat. By contrast, however, the need for an early political check-out, ahead of an ever polarising electorate, now seems more urgent than ever.

About two weeks ago, there was a face-off between three western top generals and the Ukrainian High Command. Unusually it was live (held somewhere in the vicinity of Lvov, reportedly). There is no public account of what was said, but reportedly the Ukrainians were instructed immediately to cease splitting their forces between Rabotino, Bakhmut (Artymovsk) and Kupiansk (in the north). They were urged instead to concentrate all their forces on the offensive directed south, toward Melitopol and the Azov Sea.

General Zaluzhny, the Ukrainian commander, reportedly repeated his opposition to betting all on a southern ‘push’ because of the heavy losses of men and armour that it would incur. However, the West’s Generals apparently brooked no delays. The Ukrainians, it seems, drew the conclusion that they are being readied to be ‘thrown under the bus’ (blamed for the ultimate offensive ‘fail’): ‘Your last chance’: Achieve a break-through towards the Sea of Azov was the message, or we, the West, will wash our hands of your military efforts, and you then will be forced to negotiate with the Russians. Is this bluff or real?

The ultimatum places Zelensky between Scylla and Charybdis monsters: On the Scylla side of the Strait is a patently failing offensive, and an army decimated by heavy losses. On the other side, Zelensky’s ultra-nationalist and neo-fascist colleagues are becoming angrier, and more radicalised; prohibiting any negotiation whatsoever with Russia.

Zelensky is beholden to these forces, which are both Russophobic and anti-western. The latter will insist to continue the war vs Putin – if not by conventional means, then through any false flag action which might try to force NATO into the war.

Zelensky therefore now has almost no space in which to manoeuvre. Team Biden may demand an early off-ramp negotiation with Russia, but this risks Zelensky being viewed as a traitor by his hard-right; or alternatively, being overthrown by a military that has had enough of ‘half-baked’ NATO plans that eviscerate Ukrainian armed forces, as well as Zelensky facing criticism as a western dupe by moderates such as Oleksei Arestovich.

These unbearable dichotomies might see the complete collapse of the regime and an unbreak of civil conflict within Ukraine.

Were these dynamics to accentuate, the U.S. might opt rather for negotiation with Russia: But what would they say? How will they respond, were Russia flatly to decline a ceasefire, and decline a frozen conflict along the present Contact Line?

Will Washington admit to Moscow that with a ceasefire, they would still hope to implant Rump Ukraine into NATO? And intend to rearm and fund Ukraine under the guise of ‘security guarantees’?

This is ‘bubble-think’, and the western bubble still does not ‘get it’: Russia will not, under any circumstance, allow the Ukrainian military to continue to exist, or NATO to enter the arena, whilst the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists wield predominant influence in Kiev. Full Stop.

Moscow has other options to bring this conflict to a conclusion. Russia has been waiting to mount its own offensive (when Kiev’s is exhausted). And it possesses the technical means to bring Ukraine to a standstill. What happens then? Likely, a new government, ready to endorse Ukrainian neutrality. It will not be a simple process.

And, just as tensions in Kiev are set to escalate, so too they are escalating in Washington. Who is to be blamed for the failed offensive? Will it be the Ukrainians, or the Pentagon for slow weapons delivery; or the British for their exaggerated propaganda peddling inevitable and early victory?

But there is an internal U.S. dynamic here, set to shuffle the Ukraine ‘cards’: As the multiple criminal Indictments of former President Trump mount – and partisan efforts to knock him out from the 2024 election accelerate (albeit resulting in his mounting popularity) – the notion that Congress has no alternative to mounting a long-discussed impeachment Inquiry of President Biden are gaining traction.

Given the investigative impediments launched by the Department of Justice into the Hunter Biden investigation and the Department’s “refusal to expressly extend the special counsel’s mandate to the allegations of Biden family influence-peddling, there is little choice but to commence an impeachment Inquiry. The authority of the House is at its apex when carrying out its duties under the impeachment clause”, Professor Jonathan Turley writes.

Should this happen, Ukraine and the testimony of witnesses such as former Ukrainian Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin and the Burisma ‘whistleblowers’ testimony will be sure to feature prominently. Whatever the outcome to such a fraught process, the interest of the Democrat campaign managers likely will be to distance as far as possible the Ukraine offensive failure, and claims of corruption or money-laundering, from swaying the election outcome. They will want to ‘move on’.

The lyrics to Hotel California were supposed to be an allegory centred around the use of heroin – hence the refrain that ‘you may run, and try to check-out’, but you can never really leave.

When Victoria Nuland et al promoted the Maidan ‘revolution’, it was ‘as if’ they put the Ukrainian Far Right on ‘crack’. No doubt, she and her colleagues hoped that Ukraine would disembogue into Russia’s total demise. It didn’t happen. Instead, it has turned the world inside-out. ‘They may run’, but what they inadvertently sparked – the re-shaping of a new world order – ‘they can never leave’.

Alastair Cook discusses the context of this spot on article with Prof. Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris:

 

[Aeneas]

An interesting article by Piotr Panasiuk about Poland which shows that some Poles are seeing what is in their best interests.

Now that the Poles are starting to say otherwise

Don't be surprised. We have periodically touched on the issue of Poland. Today we will translate an article from the Polish media. The opinion is interesting and deserves attention. Let's go The conflict in Ukraine, which has been going on for a year and a half now, forces Polish society to...

telegra.ph

Now that the Poles are starting to say otherwise​

Sergey SlessarenkoSeptember 08, 2023

Don't be surprised. We have periodically touched on the issue of Poland.
Today we will translate an article from the Polish media. The opinion is interesting and deserves attention.
Let's go

The conflict in Ukraine, which has been going on for a year and a half now, forces Polish society to think about Poland's place in Europe and in the world, bearing in mind the military threat to our state. It also forces us to check the correctness of our attitude towards it and to think about the geostrategic choice that Poland could make in the current circumstances. Many Poles wonder whether the attitude that has been imposed on Poles by the Western media and Polish authorities since the beginning of the conflict really coincides with the interests of Poland and its citizens. Or, should we abandon the current policy of "supporting Ukraine" and consider other geopolitical options and alternative strategies? To answer this question, I propose to consider several key issues.
Geopolitical realities
As we all know, Poland, by virtue of its geographical position, is a bridge between two large organisms - the Western European world dominated by Germany, and the Russian world, which in turn is itself a major civilizational link, as well as a bridge in relations with the Chinese civilization dominating the Asian continent. Both these worlds have an interest in the security of the Polish bridge, as well as its political and military neutrality. Otherwise, the mutual interests of both these blocs will seek to stabilize the Polish "bridge" in such a way that it can ensure the previously mentioned goals. It is clear that Poland, small in terms of population and economy, with a small army, cannot afford a policy that would contradict the common interests of the Western European and Russian worlds. Any action aimed at the prosperity and development of one's state must be linked in the long term to the goals of the key players on the continent, or at least one of them. Usually it was a choice between the German and Russian worlds or some kind of compromise with these dominant centers of power.

Modern history teaches us that any attempt to "stand alone" against the interests of Europe is doomed to failure in advance. Usually it ended in partitions or national tragedy, as in September 1939. Poland (it must be constantly repeated) is too small and weak a subject without "deep" resources to be able to impose its will on neighboring states. Therefore, any dreams about the position of a hegemon and a "key" role in Europe is an illusion. Now Poland, as in the 18th century, is struggling for its survival. And without any firm confidence that it will succeed.
Realizing that we are weaker than our neighbors, we need to devote all our efforts and resources to maintaining our statehood. We cannot do this in any other way than through a sensible foreign policy. We cannot threaten anyone militarily because our army is relatively weak, we also do not have much financial or demographic resources, our language and culture do not represent any significant assets in the European arena. Weighing all this, we must avoid any disputes and confrontations that could negatively affect relations with our neighbors, which in turn could be used by countries unfriendly to Poland. At the same time, we must do everything to strengthen friendship and maximize good-neighbourly relations with neighbouring countries.

The role of Russia in Polish history
From the very beginning of the history of our statehood, Germany, the Teutonic state and then Prussia have always regarded the Polish lands as an object of expansion. Already in the XIV century, our ancestors came to the conclusion that only in cooperation with the Russian peoples, and then with Russia, the Poles have a chance for survival. The so-called alliance with Lithuania was, in fact, an alliance with the Ruthenians inhabiting the territories of modern Belarus and Ukraine. The Poles themselves were already too weak back then to be able to stand up to the modern and increasingly "absolutist" German states. That is why the last 700 years of Polish history are so closely linked to the history of the Russian peoples and then to Russia. By and large, this geopolitical choice made by our ancestors is still relevant today, since the vector and type of threats to our state as a whole have not changed.
Since the time of Peter the Great, Russia has already represented a powerful, modern center of power, which some call the Heartland, which cannot be conquered by any states of the "sea" or continental Europe. This center possessed immeasurable human and raw material resources.
Because of its power, Russia has influenced all of its neighbors, including Poland. The Poles, however, made Russia their arbiter because of the anarchy and lack of a modern government. Russia possessed what Poland lacked - a strong and effective system of executive power and an army. Therefore, the nobility itself invited the tsars to help it in its struggle against the Swedes, and then against the German states and even against its own king. At the beginning of the 18th century Poland actually became a Russian protectorate, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the conditions of weak Polish statehood, only fear of Russia's might restrained the appetites of Prussia, Austria and Saxony towards our ethnic lands for almost 100 years. Seeking to restore the state, the Czartoryski family, taking advantage of Russian protection, gradually strengthened and modernized the state, trying to maintain the territorial status quo and looking forward to the advent of a favorable international conjuncture. Unfortunately, in 1772 and 1793 the prevailing forces were centrifugal and cynical policy of Prussia, which sought to prove to Russia that it was unable to rule over all Polish lands. Under the pressure of the political situation - war with Turkey and another war with Poland - Catherine II eventually agreed to Friedrich II's proposals. In exchange for the Polish lands, Prussia gave up the so-called "alliance with Poland", which Prussia had previously offered itself, e.g. during the Four Year Sejm. Catherine tried to throw the Poles a lifeline in the form of the so-called Targowitz Confederation, which was a chance to rally the Poles around the empress and avoid partition. Unfortunately, the Polish elites, led by the king, realized this too late. Our patriots lacked a few years - soon the Napoleonic era arrived and the political conjuncture in Europe finally changed. The quibbling and ignorance of the Jesuit nobility, who understood nothing of the subtleties of the modern diplomatic game, buried the Polish state for 123 yesrs.
Russia's role in the history of the Polish people was again strengthened after its victory over France and the Congress of Vienna. In the then established Kingdom of Poland, the Russian Czar was the king, but everything else - administration, education and language - was Polish. This was great progress after the period of Prussian, Austrian rule and the wave of Germanization.
And then, alas, another wave of nobility unrest broke out - the November Uprising broke out. A group of sub-chieftains, members of various secret organizations, under the influence of their emotional outbursts and intrigues of external initiators of the process, raised a reckless revolt. After killing their commanders, they forced the Poles into a war with Russia, the outcome of which was easily predictable. The relatively large autonomy which the Polish state had gained during the Napoleonic period in 1815 - 1831 crumbled into dust.
Another attempt to extend the boundaries of Polish autonomy was made in the 1960s. The sensible Polish patriot Aleksander Wielopolski tried to modernize the country with bold reforms concerning local self-government, education and the status of peasants. Unfortunately, he could not cope with the emotional excitement of his compatriots, who, actively encouraged by Germany, had been rushing towards a new "national" uprising since 1860, and no one could stop them. The Polish Catholic clergy played its fatal role at that time; instead of subduing the waves of unhealthy "national" populism, they themselves took an active part in the demonstrations and turned the churches into premises for political agitation. Despite the efforts of the administration and the tsar himself, in January 1863 the "national" powder keg exploded and buried all hopes of raising the status of the Polish lands.
The terrible and unnecessary fiasco of the January Uprising rid Poles of their rosy illusions. The majority of Poles realized that any uprising leads to the fact that on the road to independence we are not moving forward, but backward. They realized that our main enemy is not Russia, but Germany, which has always been developing at the expense of Polish ethnic lands. This question was finally clarified for Poles by the great Kraków Historical School led by Bobrzyński, Szujski and Kalinka, and then by the national-oriented political camp of Roman Dmowski and his associates. Most reasonable people realized the essence of Poland's difficult geopolitical position. Uprisings ceased, attention was focused on organizing the educational system and strengthening pro-Polish forces. This was to bear fruit. It was after the longest period without uprisings that Poland regained independence with relative ease in 1918.

However, Poland was still too weak to be maintained for long. The weakened Germany and the U.S.S.R. were dynamically regaining their strength and again becoming powers to be reckoned with and whose goodwill had to be actively sought. The unwise policy of the government of the "sanation" period, which saw Russia and then the USSR as the main antagonist, clearly contradicted the geopolitical conclusions drawn by R. Dmowski before the war. Poland de facto had no political support from anyone but the USSR (despite all its shortcomings), and in this situation it would have been reasonable, despite all prejudices and historical enmity, to pursue the path of establishing cooperation with it. Whenever Poland rejected Russia, Prussia or Germany gave her a hand. So it was in 1772, 1793 and 1830 and 1831. The September catastrophe of 1939 was a natural consequence of the aberration of the geopolitical thinking of the Polish elites, who once again failed to realize where they stood. Despite the fact that R. Dmowski had explained everything clearly many times, and it seemed that the Poles had already learned the lesson of geopolitics. The coryphees of sanitation, who promised not to give their enemies even a button from their uniforms, committed the greatest geopolitical crime - they allowed the joint actions of Germany and the USSR against Poland. Once again the Polish people paid for the prejudices and mistakes of the nobility. This time at a terrible price. Hitler's Germany destroyed 20% of Poles and destroyed the country in five years.
When it seemed that the Polish people were lost forever, that they would be physically destroyed, ground up by the ruthless millstones of the totalitarian Third Reich, the great victory of the USSR over the whole of Nazi Europe completely changed the political conjuncture. Poland was reborn again, and in borders that Dmowski could only dream of: with Pomerania, all of Silesia, and without the multi-ethnic heritage of the so-called Kresy. A long maritime border and large industrial centers completely changed the image of the state: a peasant country became an industrial one, aimed at commodity exchange with the whole world. Prussia and the German threat disappeared, and friendship with the USSR guaranteed complete border security. With the disappearance of the nobility and landlords, a deep democratization of society took place, and social elevators began to work for the rural population. The main culprit of the Polish defeats - the nobility and magnates - fell off the historical stage.
Under the wing of Big Brother from the East, for the first time in centuries Poland did not have to struggle for physical survival. There was a dramatic economic and cultural growth never seen before. It was stopped only in 1981 with the help of the externally controlled Solidarity color revolution and American sanctions

The year 1989 was again marked by a huge and unfavorable geopolitical metamorphosis. Instead of two counterbalancing political blocs on the world stage, there remained one world hegemon, the USA, which took over the guardianship of Poland. After 50 years of calm and concentration on its own affairs, Poland again had to struggle for biological, cultural and spiritual survival, and, as in the 19th century, without any guarantee of success. Ruthlessly exploited economically, Poland was the so-called "strategic buffer" of an overseas empire without any political subjectivity. Russia, which itself was struggling for its own existence in the 1990s, could not really influence the course of affairs in Poland.

The twenties of the twenty-first century once again mark another major geopolitical shift. The United States is economically and culturally weakened. The Atlantic unipolar world is a thing of the past. Many equal centers of power have emerged in the world. It is obvious that in order to survive, Poland needs to reorient its policy to take into account the international order that is emerging today.
Unfortunately, lately, for reasons of economy, the Americans have decided to make Poland their outpost in Europe - another Alamo (the Battle of Fort Alamo - the most famous battle for Texas independence. - Editor's note), opposing Germany on the one hand and the Union State of Russia and Belarus on the other. The concept of the so-called "Inter-Sea" as a strategic buffer for the United States is ultimately contrary to Polish geostrategic interests, as already mentioned above. We will never become any so-called "junior partner" of the United States with adequate means to actually change the policy of our neighbors and influence it in any way. According to the newest, lightened American concept, Poland is assigned the role of a so-called. hyena. This role is to destroy the unity of the continent, to torpedo various common European initiatives, to obstruct everything that cements the continent - naturally, in coordination with the curators from the State Department. Unfortunately, Polish servility has made us a leader in the implementation of American ideas and a laughingstock for most European elites.

The media also indoctrinate us that Poland can be the leader of the Central European countries, but this is also not true. Both Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria have completely different geopolitical goals, mostly contradicting Polish ones, and they will never recognize any "primacy" of Poland in the region.
It should be emphasized that the role of the American strategic buffer for Poland is extremely dangerous. In case of a change in the political conjuncture and the U.S. withdrawal from Central Europe, we will be left completely alone with conflicting neighbors without any chance for help from outside. This was the situation in 2009 under President Obama. What, I wonder, "punishment" will the neighboring "offended" powers assign to the Poles? Will they demand complete neutrality and demilitarization or will they be satisfied only with federalization of voivodships?
The current Polish policy resembles dancing on a tightrope over a precipice without any reasonable alternative. As modern history has proved to us, Poland cannot oppose the interests of Germany and Russia at the same time. It must maintain allied relations with at least one neighbor, without allowing neighboring countries to negotiate "over its head". As a weak state, it must always give its partner more than its neighbor offers. This is the only way for the country to survive as a political entity.
Our historical experience, the analytics of the Krakow school, the works of R. Dmowski and other Polish political figures show that the best geopolitical choice for Poland is always Russia. It is close to us, but it does not claim our lands, it is not going to change our culture, language and customs. It does not want to seize our market, take away our enterprises, steal our natural resources, change the sex of our children, etc. These goals towards Poles were pursued by the collective West, which has always treated us as European Indians who should be ruthlessly exploited and their lands plundered. Suffice it to recall the pre-war times, when almost all industry in Poland belonged to foreigners.

Look how few Polish factories we have left, how the Polish trade sector looks like after 30 years of so-called "transformation". The West has openly announced its intention to close all Polish coal mines and power plants. Naturally, for our own good. Under the pretext of introducing liberalism, democracy and climatism, people and our resources are being robbed. This is good old Western imperialism, well known throughout the world.
As mentioned above, we are a weak state that exists under American domination, and in order to break free and try to fight for our subjectivity, we need Russia as a partner, whether we want it or not. Without oil, gas and coal we will never be economically competitive. Without a "friendly" eastern border, our firms will never be participants in the great trade between East and West, and yet we will always be threatened with war. Without access to cheap and good Russian military hardware, we will never be able to properly arm our military. Don't be under any illusions that all those planes and tanks for billions of dollars will strengthen our defense. They are all fantasies.
Therefore, the European-Russian conflict artificially inflated by the States is completely contrary to our interests. Moreover, it threatens the whole of Europe with war and a large-scale economic crisis. This is well understood by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who does not care about the fanfare of the West and effectively defends Hungary's interests, relying in large part on partnership with Russia. Orban is well aware that without this partner he would be only the smallest cog in the political chariot of the U.S. and EU. The Hungarian leader is already benefiting from the emerging multipolar world, in which the role of small states is increasing. If we want to take our country to a new, higher level, we need to follow Orbán's example: there is only one serious, alternative partner in Europe - Russia. Let's hurry up with a kind word and a gesture of friendship, so that someone does not beat us to it again.
Author: Piotr Panasiuk

 

[Ben]

Ukraine – live: British man found dead in water with hands tied

Ukraine president claims Russian leader was behind death of Yevgeny Prigozhin

www.independent.co.uk

A British national who went to fight in Ukraine was found dead in water with his hands tied behind his back.

Jordan Chadwick, a 31-year-old from Burnley in Lancashire, was repatriated by the Ukrainian International Army in August. He had served in the British armed forces from 2011 to 2015.

A similar story appeared on the BBC this morning and has already been relegated to the local news section. Not a good look.

British man fighting in Ukraine found dead in water

Jordan Chadwick, 31, from Burnley, was found with his hands bound behind his back.

www.bbc.com

 

[youlik]

The poor guy got emotional, almost shed tears.

Chief of the General Staff of the British Army: When I found out about the damaged Challenger tank, it was as if I was in that tank myself

British journalists asked the Chief of the General Staff of the United Kingdom, General Patrick Sanders, to comment on the situation with the loss of the first Challenger tanks during the Ukrainian conflict. Recall that the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost at least two British "Challengers" - in the Zaporozhye direction, where the NATO generals "strongly recommended" the Kiev regime to throw everything at its disposal for a "breakthrough of the Russian defense."

According to Patrick Sanders, the Challenger is the "advanced tank of our time":

Of course, he is the most protected, in terms of ensuring the protection of the crew. And now you see everything – the Challenger tank was hit, but the crew managed to get out.

Further, the British general stated that when he learned about the destruction of the Challenger tank, he had an "emotional shock".

Sanders:

It was like I was in that tank myself. You understand, we have a deep attachment to the technology that we have in our arsenal. Of course, this causes an emotional response, but you need to understand that everything happens in war.

Recall that Ukraine initially did not recognize the loss of Challenger tanks at all, then was forced to admit the loss of one – and after the official London did it.

By the way, the new British Defense Minister said that the kingdom is not going to make up for the losses of the APU in Challenger tanks, making it clear that tanks can be useful themselves.

Начальник Генштаба армии Британии: Когда я узнал о подбитом танке Challenger, я как будто сам находился в том танке

On the one hand, on the well-known side, the stakes continue to be raised . We are all slowly approaching the nuclear edge.

The US will send long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine for the first time
For the first time in the history of bilateral relations between the United States and Ukraine, Washington can send ATACMS long-range missiles to Kiev. This is reported by the authoritative American publication ABC, citing sources in the US government.

ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles are long—range tactical missiles designed to defeat large area and point targets at long distances. These missiles can become a serious reinforcement for the Ukrainian Armed Forces in conditions of constant tension in the east of the country.

According to ABC sources, the decision on the supply of missiles has already been made at the level of the Pentagon and the US Department of Foreign Affairs and is currently being sent for signing to President Joe Biden. If the head of state approves this decision, Ukraine will receive the first batch of missiles in the coming months.

This step on the part of the United States may be perceived by Russia as another strengthening of support for Ukraine from the West, as well as as hostile actions directed against Russia.

США впервые отправят на Украину ракеты большой дальности ATACMS

A British national who went to fight in Ukraine was found dead in water with his hands tied behind his back.

Of course, Putin did it. Personally. He gnawed his neck with his teeth.
It is I who logically supplement this news.

Spoiler: Russian spelling

Бедняга расчувствовался, прямо чуть не прослезился.
С одной, всем известной стороны ставки продолжают поднимать. Все мы потихонечку приближаемся к ядерному краю.
Конечно же это сделал Путин. Лично. Зубами перегрыз шею.
Это я логически дополняю данную новость.

 

[sToRmR1dR]

Black Sea Fleet ships operating in the southern part of the Kerch Strait, detected and sunk three Ukrainian unmanned semi-submersible boats, attempting to attack the Crimean Bridge, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

Russian Navy Destroys 3 Ukrainian Boats Trying to Attack Crimean Bridge - MoD

Vessels of Russia's Black Sea Fleet over the past week destroyed three Ukrainian unmanned boats that were going to attack the Crimean Bridge, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday.

sputnikglobe.com

6 hours ago

 

[Possibility of Being]

Oh it was a tinfoil hat moment for me, trying to connect some dots.

What I meant was that, if there's a plan to use biological weapons against russia, and if Prigozhin was involved in such plans, then a harsh reaction by russia would've been understandable, (that is, them being behind the downing of his plane) considering how grave the offense. But it's purely speculative and I've nothing to back it up, so just some musings.

You seem to have a strange idea about the Russians if you allow for the possibility that they could go to the extent of biological terrorism, and on a massive scale at that...

 

[Alejo]

You seem to have a strange idea about the Russians if you allow for the possibility that they could go to the extent of biological terrorism, and on a massive scale at that...

oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean the Russians would engage in bio terrorism, I meant Prigozhin could have aided the West's efforts in bio terrorism. (purely speculative of course)

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my description.

 

[Possibility of Being]

I did not follow Magnitsky case in ‘great’ details
Imo, he was supposed by westerners to ‘highlight’/make that fraud widely known to the russian public (which indeed happened), but as soon as top position figures were revealed- was made a ‘dead scapegoat’ for the sake of ‘confidentiality’...Motive for westerners? Yes.
He could be executed by western special services in order to amplify the effect.

I'm afraid that's not true. Have a look at this article:

Must-Watch Russian Documentary, Banned in The West: 'The Magnitsky Act - Behind the Scenes'

Who was Sergei Magnitsky, and why are we supposed to believe he was a hero? The official story: Bill Browder was an American businessman who ran a hedgefund in Russia. Corrupt Russian cops, with the help of the Russian mafia, stole his business...

www.sott.net

The link to Nekrasov's documentary you will see does not work anymore, but miraculously it can be watched on YT, most likely not for long. Coincidentally, or not, OCCRP appears toward the end, too. Highly recommended!

oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean the Russians would engage in bio terrorism, I meant Prigozhin could have aided the West's efforts in bio terrorism. (purely speculative of course)

But Prigozhin was Russian. :)