For the record: Obama’s lies on Ukraine

(Credit: DonkeyHotey, via flickr)

(Credit: DonkeyHotey, via flickr)

WE PRESENT THESE MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD, TO FACILITATE A COMPENDIUM OF WHAT THIS NATION DOES AND CLAIMS TO DO AT THE OFFICIAL LEVEL.
Meanwhile, the self-righteousness never lets up. These are just a few examples. There are literally scores of the same worthless declarations, if not hundreds, constantly emanating from the myriad propaganda pores of the Empire. 


Only superpower standing in the way of an expansionist Russia

Obama pours cash into “confronting [non-existent] Russian aggression”

Published on Feb 3, 2015

Obama unveils $4 trillion budget plan, which includes cash for “confronting Russian aggression”. Almost 800 million dollars will go to NATO’s expansion in Europe. 117 million will go “specifically towards countering Russian aggressive acts in Ukraine”. Kiev may also get a 1 billion dollar loan if it continues to eat out of Washington’s hand. It will also provide more than 50 million to Moldova and Georgia, and 16 million to other suffering (sic) states. All in all – almost 2 billion dollars.

“In the Now” with RT’s Senior Political correspondent Anissa Naouai is the first dedicated nightly Primetime show to air live out of our Moscow headquarters. Host Anissa Naouai has worked in the field for almost a decade and has reported from over 80 cities across the globe. Now from Monday to Thursday viewers can enjoy fresh, honest, and hard-hitting news coverage on some of the world’s most pressing issues with one of RT’s most experienced journalists . We’ll put the spotlight on stories you’ll never hear on mainstream networks or even in RT’s daily news bulletins. “In the Now” – 8pm Moscow, 5pm London, 12pm New York.


The nation’s representatives demand action, even if it leads to war.

Congress demands Obama send US weapons to Ukraine in anti-Russian resolution

Obama and Cameron Condemn Russian ‘aggression’: US and UK leaders pen joint article backing Ukraine


What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?






 




Ten Reasons Why We Should Celebrate the Inevitable Nuclear Holocaust

(Wikia)

(Wikia)

Our leaders are eager to escalate a conflict that could very easily spiral out of control. So why not embrace the inevitable?

 MODEST PROPOSALS
Sat, Feb 7 2015

So beautiful.

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] hundred years ago, the world “sleepwalked” into the First World War, the war that wiped out an entire generation of Europeans. Aren’t we repeating the same sleepwalking march again, this time with even deadlier consequences? The recent baiting and bullying of Russia and the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine; the proposals in Congress to supply lethal military aid to Ukraine coupled with the Defense Secretary nominee’s enthusiasm for such help, all indicate a major dysfunction of rationality.

Russia has been sending signals that it is not backing off from this conflict, that the situation in Ukraine is too important to its national security. Recent signals of Russia’s resolve include its reformulation of its military doctrinethat views NATO expansion into Russia’s neighborhood as the major threat; and the view of US policy in Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia.

First nuclear explosion undersea, 1946, Bikini Atoll. Such devices were primitive by today's standards of lethality. (Public domain)

First nuclear explosion undersea, 1946, Bikini Atoll. Such devices were primitive by today’s standards of lethality. (Public domain)

While some scholars and journalists point to the possibility, if not inevitability, of the all out war, major news outlets prefer to underreport the depth of the conflict, treating it as something farcical rather than tragic. Maybe the press and politicians have the point? After all, how can a possible war with a nuclear-armed rival be serious? So let’s learn from our political leaders and stop worrying. We might as well die laughing:

10. In regular wars, common people die in the trenches while those who send them there spend their time giving speeches at luncheons and making TV appearances. By contrast, a nuclear war will put everyone in the same boat. We, the people, should all rejoice in the fact that we’ll finally witness the examples of personal courage and leadership provided by our brave politicians. To see a politician putting his money where his mouth is, is one of the greatest joys of citizenry. For many true patriots, it is a joy worth dying for.

9. A nuclear war will provide great satisfaction for messianic nations that take offense at America’s self-proclaimed status of “exceptional” and “indispensable.” The US’s status as the only nation that had used nuclear bombs against civilians will no longer be exceptional.

8. Americans can celebrate the efficiency of their Congress that is frequently accused of not being efficient. The politicians who are voting for providing lethal military help to Ukraine are successfully killing two birds with one stone. (Maybe all the birds with one nuclear explosion, but that’s beside the point). These two significant birds are: 1) the end of Russian aggression and expansion, and 2) the problem of impending climate catastrophe. Drastic reduction of populations of US and Russia, whose [former’s ] carbon emission per capita are the highest in the world, will surely reverse global warming. Talking about inefficient congress? Sheer nonsense. They really take care of things. Please write to your congressman that you intend to celebrate their achievements … while you can.

7. George Soros, who at the ripe old age of eighty feels that he hasn’t accomplished enough, and thus decided to get engaged in geopolitics, should immediately establish a Soros War prize, modeled on Nobel Peace Prize. Among the candidates might be New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, known for his brave new slogan, “Give war a chance”; or the French intellectual Bernand-Henri Lévy, who travels around the world demanding its leaders to bomb various naughty countries; or the influential American political scientist and world-class hawk Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote in 1997 that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire, ” thus giving Russia one more reason to fight for its survival. Yet, strong as these candidates are, I think that the War Prize should go to President Obama, so that we all can celebrate another of his “first time in history achievements”; this time as the recipient of both War and Peace Prizes.

6. Americans are accustomed to having a choice in everything. That’s our fundamental value. So we should all welcome and rejoice in the plethora of choices that our politicians offer us. According to various climate scientists, in thirty years parts of Europe will be submerged underwater while other parts will be as dry and hot as the Sahara. Those who don’t want the slow and painful death of being roasted alive can find a demise of their liking. Some people will find the choice of a more immediate departure more desirable. Furthermore, it is clearly more democratic. While it is easy to imagine how the rich and famous will create artificial environments with AC, synthetically produced food and so on, nuclear destruction would be an equal opportunity thing. It will touch rich and poor, powerful and powerless.

5. This equality dimension of nuclear war will trigger a great joy for the French, who would recognize that the coming onslaught will finally bring forth the cherished dreams of the French Revolution: egalitefraternite, and liberte. As we embrace strangers and die in their arms, we’ll have a chance at least to die like brothers. The ideals of the French Revolution will be achieved. “But where is liberty?”– you might ask. But what about liberty from all the worries connected with our lives: mortgages, bills, shoveling the snow, buying a new car?

4. The millions of Ukrainians who scream “Glory to Ukraine” will finally have the reason to do so. Maybe Ukrainians did not start Western civilization (as many Ukrainian nationalist fanatics constantly claim), but they should feel comfortable and proud of themselves for ending it. And that’s something worthy of celebration. “Glory to Ukraine!”

3. I can imagine the great joy and celebration of various neocons, endlessly pushing for Russia’s weakening. With the destruction of Russia, which is always meddling in Middle East, Israel will be able to claim its status of the nuclear power house of the Middle East, no longer threatened by nasty regimes supported by Russia. Of course, there will be Pakistan, Iran, and other nuclear powers in the region, but without the neocon’s endless meddling in Middle East affairs, Israel will find the way to negotiate and achieve long lasting peace. And if not, neocons would still rejoice knowing that Israel died following faithfully their overseas master. Millions of Israelis already want to live like Americans. At least they will have a chance to die like Americans.

2. The coming destruction will be the realization of the dreams of millions of people. Russians who hate the West can die peacefully, knowing that their enemy is destroyed. Numerous Russophobes from London to British Columbia will have a similar reason to celebrate, bringing to reality a well-known joke about one anti-Semite who on the verge of dying, decides to convert to Judaism. “Why are you doing it?” asked his relatives.  “What’s happened?” “I want to die knowing that there is one less Jew in the world,” he answered. So rejoice my fellow Russians, my fellow Americans, my fellow Poles, and Ukrainians. There will be a drastic reduction of your enemies. You don’t even need to convert or emigrate to realize this dream. Just stay put and watch your sworn enemy disappear. Most likely you’ll disappear soon after, but what a glorious moment that would be: worthy of Faust’s famous claim: “Ah, stay a while! You are so lovely!”

1. World equilibrium will be restored. Ancient civilizations like China and India will finally resume their old roles of leaders and innovators and will surely rejoice at the prospect. Of course, as these countries owe their recent prosperity to their ability to sell useless products to USA and EU, they might find themselves at a loss. They might even turn against each other in frustration. But one hopes that Ancient Civilizations became ancient precisely because of their wisdom, their ability to compromise and negotiate. So people of the world will have plenty of reasons to celebrate: life will go on, wisdom will prevail, while the fate of Western civilization will find continuation in the place where it truly belongs: the morality tales of narcissistic, militaristic self-righteous cultures that follow the way of ancient Athens and Rome.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Vladimir Golstein holds his M.S. in Computers from Moscow Institute of Management, his B.A. in Philosophy from Columbia University, and his Ph.D. in Slavic Languages and Literatures from Yale University.



 


What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?






 




March to Folly in Ukraine

TWO TAKES ON AN ISSUE OF EXTREME URGENCY.
We suggest you at least call or write your nominal representative in Congress, and let them have it. Don’t sit this one out. Let them know you KNOW what they are up to. Short-term opportunists that they are, it might have some salutary effect. The greatest threat to life and liberty in today’s world is the US government, in the hands of a shamelessly corrupt ruling class. 


 

The arrival of more sophisticated weapons in larger quantities, and US "advisers", promises to expand the Ukraine war into a global conflict. (USArmy)

The arrival of more sophisticated weapons in larger quantities, and US “advisers”, promises to expand the Ukraine war into a global conflict. This is all being done literally as the American public continues to sleepwalk. (USArmy)

BY ERIC MARGOLIS
THE UNZ REVIEW
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he United States has just made an exceptionally dangerous, even reckless decision over Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader who ended the Cold War, warns it may lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia.

Rule number one of geopolitics: nuclear-armed powers must never, ever fight.

Yet Washington just announced that by spring, it will deploy unspecified numbers of military “trainers” to Ukraine to help build Kiev’s ramshackle national guard. Also being sent are significant numbers of US special heavy, mine resistant armored vehicles that have been widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US and Poland are currently covertly supplying Ukraine with some weapons.

The US soldiers will just be for training, and the number of GI’s will be modest, claim US military sources. Of course. Just like those small numbers of American “advisors” and “trainers” in Vietnam that eventually grew to 550,000. Just as there are now US special forces in over 100 countries. We call it “mission creep.”

The war-craving neocons in Washington and their allies in Congress and the Pentagon have long wanted to pick a fight with Russia and put it in its place for daring to oppose US policies against Iran, Syria and Palestine. What neocons really care about is the Mideast.

Some neocon fantasies call for breaking up the Russian Federation into small, impotent parts. Many Russians believe this is indeed Washington’s grand strategy, mixing military pressure on one hand and social media subversion on the other, aided by Ukrainian oligarchs and rightists. A massive propaganda campaign is underway, vilifying Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin as “the new Hitler.”

Back to eastern Ukraine. You don’t have to be a second Napoleon to see how a big war could erupt.


The unindicted war criminal Z. Brzezinski (light suit) bloviating at one of America's many respectable war incubators, the CSIS. (CSIS, flickr)

The unindicted war criminal Z. Brzezinski (right) bloviating at one of America’s many “respectable” war incubating institutions, the CSIS policy tank. (CSIS, flickr)

Ukrainian National Guard forces, stiffened by American “volunteers” and “private contractors,” and led by US special forces, get in a heavy fire fight with pro-Russian separatist forces. Washington, whose military forces are active in the Mideast, Central America, the Philippines, Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Korea, has been blasting Moscow for allegedly sending some 9,000 soldiers into neighboring Ukraine.

The Americans, who have never been without total air superiority since the 1950’s Korean War, call in US and NATO air support. Pro-Russian units, backed by Russian military forces just across the border, will reply with heavy rocket fire and salvos of anti-aircraft missiles. Both sides will take heavy casualties and rush in reinforcements.

Does anyone think the Russians, who lost close to 40 million soldiers and civilians in World War II, won’t fight to defend their Motherland?

Heavy conventional fighting could quickly lead to commanders calling for tactical nuclear strikes delivered by aircraft and missiles. This was a constant fear in nearly all NATO v Warsaw Pact Cold War scenarios – and the very good reason that both sides avoided direct confrontation and confined themselves to using proxy forces.

Tactical nuclear strikes can lead to strategic strikes, then intercontinental attacks. In a nuclear confrontation, as in naval battles, he who fires first has a huge advantage.

“We can’t allow Russia to keep Crimea,” goes another favorite neocon mantra. Why not? Hardly any Americans could even find Crimea on a map.

Crimea belonged to Russia for over 200 years. I’ve been all over the great Russian naval base at Sevastopol. It became part of Ukraine when Kiev declared independence in 1991, but the vital base was always occupied and guarded by Russia’s military. Ukrainians were a minority in the Crimea – whose original Tatar inhabitants were mostly ethnically cleansed by Stalin. Most of those Russian troops who supposedly “invaded” Ukraine actually came from the giant Sevastopol base, which was under joint Russian and Ukrainian sovereignty.

Only fools and the ignorant can have believed that tough Vlad Putin would allow Ukraine’s new rightist regime to join NATO and hand one of Russia’s most vital bases and major exit south to the western alliance.

Two of Crimea’s cities, Sevastopol and Kerch, were honored as “Hero Cities” of the Soviet Union for their gallant defense in World War II. Over 170,000 Soviet soldiers died in 1942 defending Sevastopol in a brutal, 170-day siege. Another 100,000 died retaking the peninsula in 1944.

In total, well over 16 million Soviet soldiers died in the war, destroying in the process 70% of the German Wehrmacht and 80% of the Luftwaffe. By contrast, US losses in that war, including the Pacific, were 400,000.

One might as well ask Texas to give up the Alamo or Houston as to order Russia to get out of Crimea, a giant graveyard for the Red Army and the German 11th army.

In 2013, President Putin proposed a sensible negotiated settlement to the Ukraine dispute: autonomy for eastern Ukraine and its right to speak Russians as well as Ukrainian. If war or economic collapse is to be avoided, this is the solution. Eastern Ukraine was a key part of the Soviet economy. Its rusty heavy industry would be wiped out if Ukraine joined the EU – just as was East Germany’s obsolete industries when Germany reunified.

So now it appears that Washington’s economic warfare over Ukraine is going to turn military, even though the US has no strategic or economic interests in Ukraine. Getting involved in military operations there when the US is still bogged down in the Mideast and Afghanistan is daft. Even more so, when President Barack Obama’s “pivot toward Asia” is gathering momentum.

Didn’t two world wars at least teach the folly of waging wars on two fronts?


(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)


The US arming of Ukraine and the danger of World War III

ALEX LANTIER

The World Socialist Web Site unequivocally condemns plans being worked out by the Obama administration to arm the right-wing regime in Ukraine with billions of dollars in advanced weaponry. These moves threaten to spark a direct conflict between the US and Russia, two nuclear-armed powers, and ignite a Third World War.

Discussions over arming the Western-backed government in Kiev come amidst setbacks to the offensive against eastern Ukraine launched by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko last month. According to Monday’s New York Times, “after a series of striking reversals that Ukraine’s forces have suffered in recent weeks, the Obama administration is taking a fresh look at the question of military aid.”

Washington has already sent military trainers to Ukraine and pledged $350 million in “nonlethal” military aid to Kiev. Now, the Times writes, top Obama administration officials are increasingly unified around “an independent report…by eight former senior American officials, who urge the United States to send $3 billion in defense arms and equipment to Ukraine.” These funds would provide the Kiev regime with “anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees, and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.”

This reckless escalation is being plotted by a criminal cabal of government officials, military and intelligence operatives and their associated think tanks, including the Brookings Institution. It is dictated by the interests of a corporate and financial oligarchy that, in its pursuit of global hegemony, threatens the very future of human civilization.

The implications of the plans being put in place have been concealed from the people of the United States and the world. One of the few sober appraisals came from Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which warned in an article published Monday: “US arms supplies to Ukraine would be—and that can be taken almost literally—a declaration of war against Moscow.”

The newspaper cited a Russian military expert, Yevgeny Buchinsky, who warned that in response to an offensive against the Donbass by Kiev, “Russia will have to intervene and then, bluntly speaking, to take Kiev. Then NATO would be in a difficult situation. Then you would have to start World War III, which no one wants.”

These statements follow warnings from Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, who said recently that a European war over Ukraine would “inevitably lead to a nuclear war.”

As always, the war plans of the US and its imperialist allies are couched in the language of defense—in this case, of “resisting Russian aggression.” In fact, the escalating conflict over Ukraine is the product of a campaign by the US, Germany and the European Union to seize Kiev and turn Ukraine into a military outpost of the NATO alliance, pointed at the heart of European Russia.

A year ago this month, a putsch led by the fascistic Right Sector militia and backed by Washington and Berlin ousted pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. He was replaced by an unstable, unpopular coalition of right-wing parties that made no secret of their violent hostility to Russia.

The actions of the new government, including the mass killing of pro-Russian protesters, as in the May 2014 Odessa massacre, provoked armed resistance in areas of eastern Ukraine with large ethnic Russian populations. The regime responded with bloody offensives by fascist militias against cities such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Mariupol and Slavyansk. Thousands died last year in attacks carried out in coordination with the CIA, whose director John Brennan visited Ukraine undercover.

Lacking any social base outside of a narrow layer of oligarchs and fascist thugs, the Kiev regime has failed to defeat the eastern Ukraine separatists, whom Moscow has armed and supported. Washington is responding by preparing an even greater bloodbath against the population of eastern Ukraine, directly posing the risk of full-scale war with Russia.

The ultimate aim of the US and its allies is to reduce Russia to an impoverished and semi-colonial status. Such a strategy, historically associated with Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, is again being openly promoted.

In a speech last year at the Wilson Center, Brzezinski called on Washington to provide Kiev with “weapons designed particularly to permit the Ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare of resistance.” In line with the policies now recommended in the report by the Brookings Institution and other think tanks calling for US arms to the Kiev regime, Brzezinski called for providing “anti-tank weapons…weapons capable for use in urban short-range fighting.”

While the strategy outlined by Brzezinski is politically criminal—trapping Russia in an ethnic urban war in Ukraine that would threaten the deaths of millions, if not billions of people—it is fully aligned with the policies he has promoted against Russia for decades.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Washington pursued this strategy by organizing “color revolutions” to install pro-US and anti-Russian regimes in ex-Soviet republics, including Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus.

A decade later, amid a far deeper economic and geostrategic crisis of global capitalism, Washington is proceeding even more ruthlessly. The crisis in Ukraine has been utilized to massively expand US and NATO forces throughout Eastern Europe, combined with new threats and ultimatums.

The only alternative to disaster is the mobilization of the international working class in struggle against imperialism, on a socialist platform.

Last July, the WSWS wrote of the intensifying aggression against Russia: “Whatever the short-term outcome, the long-term implication of the agenda being pursued by the United States and the European imperialist powers leads inexorably in the direction of war with cataclysmic consequences. The greatest danger facing the working class is that decisions are being taken behind the scenes, with masses of people largely unaware of the risks facing the world’s population…

“Anyone who believes that a nuclear war is impossible because modern governments, unlike those that were in power in 1914, would not risk catastrophe, is deluding himself. If anything, the regimes that exist today are even more reckless. Beset by mounting economic and social problems for which they have no progressive solution, they are ever more inclined to see war as a risk worth taking.”

This warning is being confirmed as imperialism drives the world toward a nuclear conflagration.


What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?









Nikishino: Novorossia’s “Extraordinary Force” in Action?

(Screen grab)

(Screen grab)

FORT RUSS

By J.Hawk

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he two bloggers who write most extensively about the conduct of military operations on the Donbass are YuraSumy and Colonel Cassad, who cover the same topic in strikingly different ways.


 

Russian poster from 1921 — "Donbass is the heart of Russia". (Public domain)

Russian poster from 1921 — “Donbass is the heart of Russia”.  The region’s importance, symbolic and otherwise has not diminished. (Public domain)

Whereas YuraSumy tends to cover the “big picture” in a breezily optimistic tone, Cassad is highly detailed, and at the same time guarded in his judgments, to the point of being pessimistic. Yet it’s YuraSumy who seems to have a better grasp on the dynamic of the events or, as an alternative explanation, Cassad simply knows (much) more than he is willing to say. Consider, for example, Cassad’s oft-used characterization of engagements fought by Novorossia’s forces as being mainly won by artillery fire, with the militia largely occupying abandoned positions. Well, this description does not square with the aftermath of the battle for Nikishino, as shown on Komsomolskaya Pravda’s video report from the liberated village:

Visible evidence suggests that Ukrainian forces did not merely leave Nikishino after an artillery bombardment. The sheer number of destroyed and abandoned vehicles, ammunition scattered everywhere and, especially, personal belongings left behind as if it were some land-based Mary Rose, indicate this was no pull-back to a position less exposed to artillery fire. No, this heavily defended and well fortified town (as Cassad noted on his blog, the two sides have been butting heads over Nikishino for a long time, with no success) was clearly overrun by a conventional ground assault, and overrun so quickly its defenders in effect had to flee for their lives. This is far from the only engagement that seems to have unfolded in this manner. The Donetsk Airport, strongpoint 31 on the Bakhmutka, possibly the initial assault on Peski that led to the capture of the city, the initial assault on Popasnaya, definitely Uglegorsk, all are strikingly similar in their execution. A short but violent artillery preparation, followed by an overwhelming assault that overruns a well fortified position (and they all were) with apparent ease and minimal own casualties. However, the initial assault completed, the “extraordinary force” withdraws, and the “ordinary force” takes its place, digs in, and repels Ukrainian counter-attacks which are moreover attrited by artillery fire. Rinse, lather, repeat, until the Ukrainian forces collapse from demoralization and attrition, or the internal contradiction within the junta result in a split within the Ukrainian armed forces, with a resultant civil war.

This bifurcation is consistent with Sun Tzu’s concepts of “ordinary force” (which actually does most of the fighting, especially of protracted positional nature, but also creates preconditions of the “extraordinary force”) and the “extraordinary force”, which is small, elite, and used to achieve decisive results once suitable conditions are met. The militia seems to be the “ordinary force.” They are the ones holding the front lines and defeating Ukrainian counter-attacks. The “extraordinary force”, on the other hand, is a hit-and-run force, and therefore largely invisible to the cameras.There are precedents for this. The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War used the Guards and Shock Armies to spearhead breakthrough operations (which in turn would be exploited by Tank Armies), while the mass of ordinary infantry armies bore the brunt of defensive operations and positional fighting in general. Since Novorossia forces are steeped in that tradition, it’s not surprising they resorted to a similar organization, particularly under conditions resembling that of the Great Patriotic War, namely a continuous front line.

The events of the past several weeks indicate Novorossia’s forces are not a merely “artillery destroys, infantry occupies” army. They can do much more than that. They can take out a well fortified Ukrainian position in a matter of hours. Their effectiveness is such that one is starting to see absolutely fantastic reports from the Ukrainian side, including the sightings of the brand-new Armata main battle tanks (which as of right now exist only as prototypes and pre-production models). Ukrainian forces, it should be noted, lack a similar capability. Nowhere have we seen them demonstrate an ability to seize a defended position with a rapid ground assault. For example, the battle for Uglegorsk, specifically the Ukrainian counter-attack, featured some pretty elite formations, namely the Kulchytsky Battalion of the National Guard reinforced by the Svityaz MVD special operations unit. These were clearly the rapid reaction force of the Debaltsevo grouping, intended to counter-attack on endangered sectors of the front. And? They failed to eject the “ordinary force” Novorossia militia out of Uglegorsk, even though the resulting battle was costly for the militia. About the only success the Kulchytsky Battalion was able to score was…shooting up Semenchenko’s Donbass Battalion as it blundered onto the battlefield.

So, why aren’t Novorossia’s “extraordinary forces” used more? Because one gets the impression the Novorossia army is toying with its enemy.

Aleksandr Zakharchenko (Andrew Butko, CC BY-SA 4.0)

The man of destiny: Aleksandr Zakharchenko. George Washington and Jefferson in one, for Novorussia.  (Andrew Butko, CC BY-SA 4.0)

One is reminded of the recent announcement made on the Russian Spring website which, although not made by Zakharchenko, was issued in such a way as to suggest he endorsed the ideas expressed within it. The statement, in essence, stated that time is not right for an outright offensive against Kiev forces. Novorossia’s army will have to stand pat for a while and fight a positional war, even if it means immense hardship for the people of the Donbass in the short term. However, Zakharchenko was also emphatic that there is a plan for further action, which for obvious reasons cannot be revealed.

So, what is the plan? Why are Novorossia’s forces being kept on a short leash? There are two possibilities. One is that Zakharchenko (and, by extension, Putin) are hoping that the internal contradictions within the junta will bubble up to the surface as Ukrainian forces are being ground to bits by a combination of lightning assaults by Novorossia’s “extraordinary force”, futile counter-attacks against positions firmly consolidated by the “ordinary force” militia, and of course the ever-present artillery fire. There are already indications that the many components of the ramshackle Ukrainian military (regular army, National Guard, volunteer battalions, MVD, the Right Sector battalions which don’t seem to recognize any authority, etc., etc., etc.) are starting to look askance at one another, suspecting each other of, if not treason, then at least not pulling their weight. So you have Samopomoga deputies accusing the National Guard of fleeing the battlefield in panic while the National Guard is accusing one of Samopomoga’s “stars”, the Donbass battalion commander “Semenchenko” of gross incompetence and cowardice. Which is not surprising. Each of these formations is somebody’s private army. The more it gets thrashed on the Donbass, the less weight it will have in the inevitable battle for Kiev against other private armies.

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?









Russian officer outlines new Russian army tactics in case of war in Ukraine

XYZ: What would happen if the Russian army really invaded Ukraine

Russian units in maneuvers. (RT.com)

Russian units in maneuvers. (RT.com)

Anti-Maidan Kharkov – Facebook page
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus
FORT RUSS

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?