The global cabal urgently needs the perception in the West that the Ukrainians are winning the war, because there is strengthening popular anti-NATO and anti-Ukraine war and sanctions sentiment in various European countries, with people very sensibly asking why their countries' economies and living standards should be sabotaged for the utterly corrupt pretend-democratic failed State dictatorship which is Ukraine.
In addition, in Washington DC, with the GOP being allowed by the uniparty to marginally win the House via the massively rigged US midterm elections, there is going to be increased resistance to the US sending endless more billions to the crooks running Ukraine.
Thus, the globalist puppet Putin has been ordered to retreat from Kherson, so that the mass media can pump out the message that 'Ukraine in winning', and thereby keep the billions flowing into Ukraine - and out again into the offshore secret bank accounts of Ukrainian and Western politicians and oligarchs.
The very fact that the gang of globalist puppets running Russia would, after saying that the newly-absorbed territories are 'irreversibly' incorporated into Russia, then say that everything is for negotiation with no preconditions - thereby presumably indicating a willingness to reverse the incorporation of the new territories into Russia, says everything you need to know about Putin & Co., and who they really work for.
If the global cabal and their puppets in Washington DC are already arranging a peace deal behind the scenes, with the retreat from Kherson being a required first step towards that, the thing that puzzles me is: could Putin survive reversing the acquisition of those new territories into Russia as part of a peace deal?
But if that was not part of the deal, then any peace deal 'surrendering' those territories permanently to Russia would be very hard to sell in the West.
The US has already achieved one of its key objectives with the long-planned 'Ukraine War' - which was to force Europe to switch to buying US gas at three times the price of Russian gas. There is no way that the US / global cabal is going to allow that to be reversed. Thus, there is no way that the US will allow its puppet governments in Europe to end the sanctions against Russian gas.
So - if Putin cannot reverse the 'irreversible and permanent' incorporation of the new territories in Ukraine into Russia, and the US / global cabal will not surrender their very lucrative switching of Europe to be dependent on ludicrously expensive US gas, then I can't see that there's much left on the table for negotiations, anyway.
And what is more, the global cabal absolutely needs the Ukraine war to continue: like the fake 'Covid crisis' and fake 'Covid vaccines', it is obscenely profitable for the oligarch billionaires and their bought and paid for politicians - and is also essential as the supposed reason why energy prices will continue to be very high for ever, so as to trash the Western economies and install the Great Reset.
I still agree with this, but his legacy will be weakened unless he pulls off an overall victory in Ukraine. Even so, the blunders of the past 9 months are going to be one of those ... well nobody is perfect excuses.
Just a bit too tendentious, too speculative in parts?
_________
On the other hand . . .
Expressed further under the Decline of The West, vectored via that failed, longest of the long LongShots, this engineered US-NATO-UK Ukrainian Proxy War over the lives of the poor Ukrainian people to weaken Russia, tip out its government and possess its considerable resources.
Judgment shall be by outcomes. Thus far, it is the EU and NATO that will disintegrate. Paradoxically, the present winners are simultaneously the United States and Russia. Those in the way of superpower aspirations invariably are ground up in the geo-political machinery.
Discussed here in lengthy, abstruse and eclectic prose across several essays that will leave the reader visibly aged, yet possibly far wiser although admittedly that is entirely speculative . . . https://les7eb.substack.com
Everything that Russia has done with the Ukraine invasion, and everything that it is doing now, makes perfect sense, once you realize that Putin and his entire government are slavishly globalist, openly endlessly praising the nascent World Government represented by the WHO, slavishly doing the 'Covid crisis' and 'Covid vaccines' scams exactly in the same way, and saying exactly the same things at each different stage, as all Western governments did.
That is the litmus test: forget about what governments say: look at what they actually do. Putin & Co. are no different in their loyalties than the globalist puppet governments of Germany, the UK , Grance, Italy etc.
The Russian people are totally betrayed - as are the peoples of the West, and far beyond: the Ukraine war was planned years ago, to provide the excuse to drive energy prices through the roof - an absolutely essential operation for the global cabal, in preparation for the Great Reset.
If Putin and the Russian government were the patriots that they pretend to be, they would be savagely and endlessly attacking the WHO, denouncing them as a nascent World Government, and exposing the ever increasing number of deaths and injuries caused by the Covid 'vaccines', as well as denouncing the EU, US and their puppet governments for wholly deliberately trashing their own economies, and switching to US gas at three times the price of Russian gas - thereby guaranteeing that European industries will be totally uncompetitve in the world.
Instead, Putin and his entire government have fallen over themselves to endlessly praise the WH0 and the clot shots, and are going all-out on mRNA 'vaccines', despite their appalling record - exactly as all Western governments are doing.
So - if you push aside everything that the governments and mass media tell you, and instead work with the evidence of what Putin & Co. have actually done, there is only one possible conclusion to be drawn: they are globalist puppets.
>If Putin and the Russian government were the patriots that they pretend to be,
they're literally disaffected NWO liberals. do you read my blog?
>what Putin & Co. have actually done
they've challenged the west to win better terms for Russia. the west refuses to negotiate and instead seeks to de-sovereignize Russia entirely. now Russia is in a fight for national survival despite wanting to be integrated in the NWO.
My thesis is coherent and well-sourced. Why not engage with it?
Your thesis matches observable phenomenon. Putin (and Xi) wanted to work out an equitable concert of great powers with the NWO, the power that be said no, provoking the escalation tree that has lead us here, to Russia as Katechon; tragic human nature or providential will?
I am not attacking your thesis, or suggesting that it is not coherent.
In truth, I only sometimes read your blog, and do not claim to know your central thesis, even though I agree with many things that I you have written, when I have read your articles from time to time.
I think that Putin & Co. are desperately wanting to have a seat at the top table of the globalist cabal, when all is said and done. They don't oppose the globallist criminals and their plans for humanity - but they massively resent not being accepted by the globalist criminals as equals.
> In truth, I only sometimes read your blog, and do not claim to know your central thesis,
It shows. You show up everywhere and say the exact same lines over and over again. You do not engage. You are completely set in your worldview. Go away.
I'll have to emphatically leap forward and interpose my body in defense of Bezuhov,facing an attacking Rolo.
When Russian elite's decisions don't make sense in terms of pursuing its military best interests, even the most milquetoast conspiracy theories gain ground towards the search of truth, and have to be weighted in carefully and with impartiality.
Besides, Bezuhov steady and tireless commitment to proselytizing his views in the end bore its fruits, and are starting to win me over, and I'm just one of many.
I am new to Bezuhov - so I can't comment - but give yourself some credit - you have elicited - today particularly - a set of comments equally well worth reading closely as is the post itself. Serious stuff. We are all taking it very seriously - Kherson is a bad surprise - I thought things were stable.
This is what I have been saying (probably less well) for a while. Putin speaks very eloquently about Russian interests and of the near-sacred value of national sovereignty and the challenge of "The West" by which of course he means whatever violent cabal rules the USA. But he almost totally refuses to engage with the Globalism/NWO issues - a vague reference or two in the last (eloquent) speech discussed on this blog. It's like he's still living in a Westphalian world that broke down a century or more ago.
Slavsquat is reporting today: "Maternal mortality in Russia tripled in 2021" - that is the Covid (vax) operation in action! - it is a NWO attack on Russia - the Russian people are in mortal danger. Putin has got to speak to that! And maybe even Dugin could speak more plainly; he surely seems better aware of the truly epic forces in play: "... fate of Russia, humanity and the world..." - it's almost like Kherson is a not so subtle way of evading the real configuration of threats.
Initially, the pressures that were brought to bear on world leaders seemed to be overwhelming - anyone who stood up against the draconian measures in the beginning would have had severe political problems.
Nevertheless, once the truth about the scam became obvious, those who continued with the scam certainly deserve heaps of blame.
Yes, perhaps Putin and Co. are in bed with the WEF, the World Government and the Great Reset.
It's possible, but I don't think so.
And yes, Putin's nodding to the UN as presenting a more or less globally accepted source for legal rules that all nations can abide by [rather than the slap-dash, mysterious "rules-based system" the USA refers to that no one knows the source of or who voted for it] may indicate his willingness to subjugate the Russian people to the New World Order.
But I don't think so.
His reference to the UN as a source for legal rules is not perfect, but it seems to be a very practical stop-gap solution that most of the world can get on board with.
Putin and Co. seem to have rebuilt Russia and made it much stronger and resilient than when they took power.
They seem to be doing a much better job of taking care of their people than the countries you have listed.
Regarding the Ukraine war, yes, it was probably part of a contingency plan on Russia's side.
But I think the case can be made that the West forced Russia [an unwilling participant] into this in order to destroy Western economies for the Great Reset.
It checks a lot of the boxes and it certainly has worked out that way.
Good comment. I wish I could agree with your conclusions, but I'm afraid I suspect that what I wrote is closer to the truth.
I suspect that Putin is far more concerned for his own country's people and economy than the totally corrupt globalist puppets running the West - but that he is nevertheless perfectly on-board for the unspeakably evil plans of the global cabal for humanity, but that he wants to be treated as a key player, with Russia treated as an equal to the Western countries.
I am trusting that - if he ever was deceived by the Western satanists - he has learned his lessons, and is no longer pursuing that chimera of Western acceptance.
That is how it appears to me, as well. From the very beginning I thought the war was engineered for this precise effect; I just wasn’t sure of the level of complicity of Russian leadership. I still don’t know but it increasingly appears there was some collaboration from high levels of Russian government.
Abandoning Kherson makes military sense but the hysterical reaction from much of the patriotic social media sphere is totally understandable and they have legitimate questions.
When the USSR was forced to retreat all the way to Moscow due to a mixture of incompetence and being genuinely outmatched by NS Germany in terms of military leadership nobody doubted that at least Stalin really, really wanted to win. Stalin made some huge mistakes but he was at least trying to do something to correct the awful situation at the front. He wasn't always making the correct calls but nobody was wondering if he was in fact in a secret alliance with Hitler to destroy the USSR.
The Soviet leaderships incompetence cost millions of lives, but spamming poorly trained conscripts to the front in a timely manner was in retrospect the correct decision. Stalin never told Zhukov or Rosskovskey to try and encircle German Army groups at 4or5 to 1 numerical disadvantage. Stalin didn't continue supplying NS Germany with resources after the start of hostilities.
On the other hand how can you blame Russian patriots for suspecting treason right now? If Zhukov and Rosskovskey had had the means to rain hell on NS Germanys critical infastructure would Stalin have said no? Would he have said no even after being forced to abandon Soviet cities? Im not trying to present an apologetic for Stalin but there can be absolutely no doubt something isnt right at all with Russia's current political/military leadership and that is what is terrifying the Russian Patriots.
"Putin is literally Charles Schwab in disguise" is retarded but we need to see Putin seriously start beating his ex wife instead of constantly swinging back and forth between saying truthful mean things about her during speeches and than simping for her. Get over the crush and just kill the bitch, millions of people all over the world are depending on him.
So sure from the strictly military PoV the shameful retreat is justified, but if it isnt accompanied by a corresponding escalation its all for nothing and the retreat will be permanent. Thats what is scary about this and I don't blame Russian patriots who are losing sleep over it.
>Stalin didn't continue supplying NS Germany with resources after the start of hostilities.
He did, actually. USSR was sending shipments of oil to Germany right up and past the start of hostilities. Probably just confusion on their part though. They certainly didn't continue to sell gas to Ukraine months into the conflict and beg Europe, who is supplying Ukraine, to buy more like they do now. Simpler times.
“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Scott Ritter gives his view.
"General Surovokin took command of the SMO on October 16.
Two days later, he gave a press conference in which he described the situation on the ground in the Kherson region as “tense.”
On his orders, civilian authorities began evacuating non-combatant persons from the territory held by Russian forces on the west bank of the Dnieper River, including the city of Kherson proper.
One of the reasons cited to justify this action was a growing concern on the part of Russian officials that Ukraine was preparing to destroy a major dam on the Dnieper, north of Kherson, at the Nova Kakhovka hydroelectric power station.
If this dam were destroyed, a wall of water between 5 to 15 meters high would sweep down the river, washing away critical infrastructure, killing thousands, and trapping survivors—military and civilian alike—on the west bank.
An estimated 200,000 civilians and 30,000 Russian troops would be put at risk.
The evacuation of civilians from the west bank of the Dnieper River, when seen in this light, was a prudent humanitarian move in total compliance with the responsibilities assumed by a military commander under the law of war."
...
"Russian forces may very well have been able to sustain a presence on the west bank of the Dnieper, but at what cost?
The highly favorable casualty ratio that was produced in the October fighting would have evened out, or even been adjusted to favor the Ukrainians.
The fundamental question facing Russian leadership was this: what price was Russia willing to pay to hold on to the west bank of the Dnieper River?
No Russian leader was willing to sacrifice up to 3,000 troops to sustain a frontline which gave Ukraine all the advantages.
General Surovokin recommended the adjustment, and General Sergei Shoigu, the Russian Minister of Defense, agreed.
Russian mothers, wives, and children should applaud this decision, as should anyone who holds the life of a Russian soldier in high regard.
Moreover, on can never forget the threat posed by the potential destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam.
How could any responsible commander risk the lives of his troops under such a threat?
Imagine the outrage that would be expressed by these very same keyboard heroes when trying to square the deaths of thousands of Russian troops, and the potential capture of thousands more, in the aftermath of such a catastrophe?
Why didn’t the Russian commanders do something to prevent this, they would cry.
> The highly favorable casualty ratio that was produced in the October fighting would have evened out, or even been adjusted to favor the Ukrainians.
I think Ritter should provide reasoning for the statement above.
If the Kherson retreat was due to difficult resupplying of the bridgehead, then why the problem didn't surface sooner. Consider also that now the situation is even better, because there are no civilians left, so trucks with food and ammo can cross each day. Can use helicopters as well to airlift supplies, without any artillery threat.
Before, the excuse was 'the danger of the dam breaking', now it is the shelling of Antonov bridge, which yes it's more convincing, but still feels like a pretext to me.
Positions right now have proven after two months of having been besieged to be sound; there is enough manpower to man them, contrary to what happened with the Balakliya debacle; remains to calculate how many tons of food and shells are required to sustain the effort of 20 - 30k troops? You need just 4 trucks \per hour to get a flow of 100 \per day and half of that is more than enough not only for direct consumption, but to build stockpiles as well.
Plus if Ukrainian attacks keep getting stifled, the US could become tired of sending equipment into what may be perceived to have become a black hole. And a stop to NATO aid would mean certain military defeat to Ukraine.
So the decision to retreat here is a bad one - if it is genuine, and not instead due to what Bezuhov implies in his musings.
I thought the real killer reason for withdrawing was the issue of the dam breaking.
Anyone have a retort to that?
A 5 to 15 meter wall of water coming down the river, wiping out everything in its path?
We need to remember that the only ones who care about casualties and death [for Russian troops and Ukrainian civilians] are the Russians.
The Ukrainian leaders care nothing for them; neither do the European leaders, and certainly not the UK or the USA leaders.
I just can't understand the self-assuredness of those condemning the withdrawal - what do they know? or think they know?
Not being fond of egg all over my face, I tend to be careful about any conclusory statements, preferring to work in hypotheticals, always couched with a healthy amount of "assuming this fact scenario" or "apparently this may be the case, given the following" backstops.
Ritter has a vast background, and he is the closest thing I know of in this situation to being an expert.
He also is very fair to Russia.
The article he wrote - if one wished to try and rebut it - should be taken as a whole.
If one had the time, I would suggest taking his points one by one, and attempt a fair-minded refutation.
> I just can't understand the self-assuredness of those condemning the withdrawal - what do they know? or think they know? Not being fond of egg all over my face, I tend to be careful about any conclusory statements, preferring to work in hypotheticals, always couched with a healthy amount of "assuming this fact scenario" or "apparently this may be the case, given the following" backstops.
It seems to me I offered sufficient reasoning for all the points I raised.
I don't really care who voices an opinion, credentialed expert or anonymous internet troll, on a subject I find interesting I'll offer my rumination, if I happen to have labored one in the meanwhile.
Straightforward or hypothetical the delivery might be, the substance of contents remains the same. Obviously facts will follow their own path, independent from what I say or predict but I do not need to state the obvious everytime I comment, do I?
By the way, you basically came here parroting something someone else said, and then felt challenged after getting an informed reply, which wasn't even a retort as I put a like under your comment.
It's as if you are not actually that interested in the topic at hand, but just in spamming comments to signal your presence...? for the sake of it? I really don't know, but I get the impression that logic offends you.
Next time I'll post my comment as a stand-alone, it's even more visible that way.
Rather than presenting opinions as fact [e.g., "it's clear the handing over of Kherson was a political request from the West in order to start talks, there was no military reason to pull back"], I try to recognize my lack of expertise and factual knowledge.
So, I "parrot" the opinions of people I consider as having a much greater understanding of the current situation than I do.
My depth of knowledge or understanding [not much, really, although I've been actively following this situation since the very beginning, daily following the Duran, Military Summary Channel, New Atlas, and others] and my respect for my own ignorance does not allow me to make definitive claims about factual situations.
A missile from HIMARS will only make a dent on a gargantuan structure like a dam. That dam can be seen from space. Something huge like that is different from a building, which is an empty shell with only a few load-bearing walls of concrete, if well-made at all. HIMARS are effective against a target like that. To destroy the dam you'll need entire volleys of missiles, and hope the water pressure from the basin will do the rest. But air defenses are in place so these volleys will mostly be deflected. Plus there is the fact that the left bank is 50 m below the forfeited right bank, hence a flood will still affect the Russian troops more, even right now.
About the shelling of the bridge making resupplying difficult, I covered it at length in my previous posting.
This was a political decision: it is sufficiently clear that the bridgehead could be effectively defended, as it has been in the last 2 months against continuous attacks.
Now that Turkey and the USA have publicly praised the Russian decision as wise and conductive to negotiations (https://southfront.org/russian-withdrawal-from-kherson/), it's clear the handing over of Kherson was a political request from the West in order to start talks, there was no military reason to pull back.
Maybe NATO is throwing Zelensky over the side and they just made a deal with Russia. Russia just put this badass guy in charge of the military and they’re not acting out of desperation.
So the retreat is a military necessity? A military choice forced onto politicians?
How is this a good thing?
All it says is that the military is facing an overwhelming force in places they’re not even able to repel. There is literally no other conclusion to be made.
I guess you’re trying to make the point the army was not fighting hard enough. It appears they’re pretty much saying they’re not able to without a endless stream of body bags. No military dominance to speak of. That’s the nail in the coffin of an already tragic awakening of a Russia that sees the consequences of the europization or more accurately jewification of the whole system post Soviet Union.
I’m not against the decision to retreat but it basically makes the political class look like absolute morons and saboteurs, although that has been made crystal clear with the various cuck moves we get at least once a month.
You insult Russians in the first paragraph on the premise that this is a sound military decision. It's only a sound military decision if Russia is losing the war. That's what upsets people. You may not feel like you have skin in the game but there are many people who feel like their country is an extension of themselves and take stuff like this personally.
It doesn't matter if they're outnumbered. Russians believed, the rhetoric from the Kremlin assured, and global perception was operating on the notion that Russia is so superior to Ukraine that they literally have to watch that they don't play ball too hard. This is ignoring the fact that defense always has the edge.
This theory of the military suddenly calling the shots doesn't make sense. If anything they were given free reign on the promise they wouldn't wage total war which might have led to slight sabatage. Slowing down the offensive to stand still was their choice. Their desire not to embarrass themselves overrules any political ambitions where we literally see Kremlin scramble to throw some bullshit together to try give the military what's on their shopping list, where as the business owners this all relies on are either useless or handicapped from the way the whole system works.
You give off a notion of optimism. That since army is not handicapped anymore they will start to fight for real. What exactly is fighting for real? Because this whole attrition warfare is clearly not killing Ukraine fast enough, what else can they do but dust off the old military handbooks and pull something out of a hat? Hopefully I'm proven wrong once all the mobilized are ready to go.
Lastly the theory that this is all staged theater is looking stronger everyday. The west is evil according to Putin, but we need to urgently get back to international business as usual, according to Putin. Why? Because Africans needs food. Am I suppose to fucking retarded?
From what I've read, war is NOT a science, it is not an algorithm.
Necessary tactical adjustments based on changing circumstances are what separate the winners from the defeated.
Those on the outside, with nothing to lose but their bets based on their ideological standpoints, carp and criticize.
Let's face it: the highly experienced, highly knowledgeable, highly honorable general, with an extensive track record of success, made a tactical call, and even provided hard, logical reasons for the call.
Other highly experienced, highly knowledgeable, highly honorable military leaders agreed with this call.
Of course, it is not necessary for any of us to agree with this call.
But who is the person with the experience and responsibility, openly carrying the can for his decision?
This is not your best post I'm afraid. All your criticisms of the Russian critics could be also directed at what you argue - e.g., you repeatedly say what is their "evidence". Well what is your evidence? This is not a question of "evidence", it's simply a matter of observing events and trying to draw reasonable inferences that can explain what is and has been happening. It seems to me their inferences are no less reasonable than yours. And I would add if the withdrawal from Kherson was necessitated by difficulty of supply due to Ukie attacks on the bridges making supply difficult, how would you explain the Russian failure (with hugely more powerful missiles) to attack the Ukie controlled bridges (and there are not that many - I understand about six that are really critical) across the Dnieper that are crucial to Ukraine keeping its hugely greater army in the East supplied. Why, after nearly nine months have they not been destroyed - it would be easily done with the missiles Russia has - and would make the Ukrainians military position in the east completely unsustainable? This is just one example among many I could cite - and it is also part of a long sequence of bizarrely strange decisions and events dating back to 2014. It is the totality of all these actions by the Russian political leadership that is leading many to conclude that it may not simply be incompetence, but something more than that.
To me personally, Putin's actions more and more remind me of Gorbachev. Like Putin, Gorbachev also was a highly intelligent and competent man, and he was not a deliberate traitor to his country (although that's what his actions resulted in). His problem seems to have been a massive blind spot. An admiration for the west, a desire to emulate and be part of it, and a deep and powerful desire to believe and accept everything western leaders were telling him (completely against the advice of everyone else in the Russian administration). Hence his disastrous decisions and policies that destroyed the USSR. Putin seems the same, and the only difference I can see from Gorbachev is that Putin has over the years managed to surround himself with others who share his blindness. And that makes it much worse.
I'll never go against a popular man like Putin. It goes against my whole worldview. Even JC the champion of Rome made mistakes and was too lenient with his enemies. That doesn't mean I'd root for the optimates or call for Mark Anthony to replace him.
MYSTERY: To either supply or retreat from west Kherson, the Russians should have many hundreds of small boats. This could easily be bought from China. I see no evidence of this. Why?
Boats are a pain in the ass. You need masses of docks on both sides of the river, cranes to unload trucks and load boats on one side, unload boats and load trucks on the other side, roads linking the docks on both sides, traffic control, double the number of trucks and drivers, etc., as opposed to driving across a bridge and unloading right where it's needed., turning around and heading back for another load.
"This is quite an allegation to even hint at. It was only fringe nationalists who were alleging that the FSB was knocking off militia commanders in the Donbass who didn’t agree with Minsk I and II and who resisted connected mafia dons from Moscow coming in to squabble over Donbass’ resources back in the day."
Knocking off people like that is something an opposition secret service might do in order to stir up trouble among the loyal. The timing - on the very day of pullout - makes that conclusion especially alluring. Only way the frisbees did this is if they are penetrated by Ukrainians, British etc. In which case it isn't the FSB doing it anyway.
The global cabal urgently needs the perception in the West that the Ukrainians are winning the war, because there is strengthening popular anti-NATO and anti-Ukraine war and sanctions sentiment in various European countries, with people very sensibly asking why their countries' economies and living standards should be sabotaged for the utterly corrupt pretend-democratic failed State dictatorship which is Ukraine.
In addition, in Washington DC, with the GOP being allowed by the uniparty to marginally win the House via the massively rigged US midterm elections, there is going to be increased resistance to the US sending endless more billions to the crooks running Ukraine.
Thus, the globalist puppet Putin has been ordered to retreat from Kherson, so that the mass media can pump out the message that 'Ukraine in winning', and thereby keep the billions flowing into Ukraine - and out again into the offshore secret bank accounts of Ukrainian and Western politicians and oligarchs.
The very fact that the gang of globalist puppets running Russia would, after saying that the newly-absorbed territories are 'irreversibly' incorporated into Russia, then say that everything is for negotiation with no preconditions - thereby presumably indicating a willingness to reverse the incorporation of the new territories into Russia, says everything you need to know about Putin & Co., and who they really work for.
If the global cabal and their puppets in Washington DC are already arranging a peace deal behind the scenes, with the retreat from Kherson being a required first step towards that, the thing that puzzles me is: could Putin survive reversing the acquisition of those new territories into Russia as part of a peace deal?
But if that was not part of the deal, then any peace deal 'surrendering' those territories permanently to Russia would be very hard to sell in the West.
The US has already achieved one of its key objectives with the long-planned 'Ukraine War' - which was to force Europe to switch to buying US gas at three times the price of Russian gas. There is no way that the US / global cabal is going to allow that to be reversed. Thus, there is no way that the US will allow its puppet governments in Europe to end the sanctions against Russian gas.
So - if Putin cannot reverse the 'irreversible and permanent' incorporation of the new territories in Ukraine into Russia, and the US / global cabal will not surrender their very lucrative switching of Europe to be dependent on ludicrously expensive US gas, then I can't see that there's much left on the table for negotiations, anyway.
And what is more, the global cabal absolutely needs the Ukraine war to continue: like the fake 'Covid crisis' and fake 'Covid vaccines', it is obscenely profitable for the oligarch billionaires and their bought and paid for politicians - and is also essential as the supposed reason why energy prices will continue to be very high for ever, so as to trash the Western economies and install the Great Reset.
Enjoyed this and agree with 95% of it.
I disagree that Putin is a globalist puppet - but life can get complicated when one is walking on a razor's edge.
I think he is a very practical, savvy, and intelligent Russian patriot who has accomplished much for his country.
I can't think of a global leader who can match him.
I still agree with this, but his legacy will be weakened unless he pulls off an overall victory in Ukraine. Even so, the blunders of the past 9 months are going to be one of those ... well nobody is perfect excuses.
By the way, I cannot edit a comment once posted now.
Interesting analysis Bezuhov.
Just a bit too tendentious, too speculative in parts?
_________
On the other hand . . .
Expressed further under the Decline of The West, vectored via that failed, longest of the long LongShots, this engineered US-NATO-UK Ukrainian Proxy War over the lives of the poor Ukrainian people to weaken Russia, tip out its government and possess its considerable resources.
Judgment shall be by outcomes. Thus far, it is the EU and NATO that will disintegrate. Paradoxically, the present winners are simultaneously the United States and Russia. Those in the way of superpower aspirations invariably are ground up in the geo-political machinery.
Discussed here in lengthy, abstruse and eclectic prose across several essays that will leave the reader visibly aged, yet possibly far wiser although admittedly that is entirely speculative . . . https://les7eb.substack.com
Everything that Russia has done with the Ukraine invasion, and everything that it is doing now, makes perfect sense, once you realize that Putin and his entire government are slavishly globalist, openly endlessly praising the nascent World Government represented by the WHO, slavishly doing the 'Covid crisis' and 'Covid vaccines' scams exactly in the same way, and saying exactly the same things at each different stage, as all Western governments did.
That is the litmus test: forget about what governments say: look at what they actually do. Putin & Co. are no different in their loyalties than the globalist puppet governments of Germany, the UK , Grance, Italy etc.
The Russian people are totally betrayed - as are the peoples of the West, and far beyond: the Ukraine war was planned years ago, to provide the excuse to drive energy prices through the roof - an absolutely essential operation for the global cabal, in preparation for the Great Reset.
Your "everything is kabuki theater" thesis is unfalsifiable.
If Putin and the Russian government were the patriots that they pretend to be, they would be savagely and endlessly attacking the WHO, denouncing them as a nascent World Government, and exposing the ever increasing number of deaths and injuries caused by the Covid 'vaccines', as well as denouncing the EU, US and their puppet governments for wholly deliberately trashing their own economies, and switching to US gas at three times the price of Russian gas - thereby guaranteeing that European industries will be totally uncompetitve in the world.
Instead, Putin and his entire government have fallen over themselves to endlessly praise the WH0 and the clot shots, and are going all-out on mRNA 'vaccines', despite their appalling record - exactly as all Western governments are doing.
So - if you push aside everything that the governments and mass media tell you, and instead work with the evidence of what Putin & Co. have actually done, there is only one possible conclusion to be drawn: they are globalist puppets.
>If Putin and the Russian government were the patriots that they pretend to be,
they're literally disaffected NWO liberals. do you read my blog?
>what Putin & Co. have actually done
they've challenged the west to win better terms for Russia. the west refuses to negotiate and instead seeks to de-sovereignize Russia entirely. now Russia is in a fight for national survival despite wanting to be integrated in the NWO.
My thesis is coherent and well-sourced. Why not engage with it?
Your thesis matches observable phenomenon. Putin (and Xi) wanted to work out an equitable concert of great powers with the NWO, the power that be said no, provoking the escalation tree that has lead us here, to Russia as Katechon; tragic human nature or providential will?
I am not attacking your thesis, or suggesting that it is not coherent.
In truth, I only sometimes read your blog, and do not claim to know your central thesis, even though I agree with many things that I you have written, when I have read your articles from time to time.
I think that Putin & Co. are desperately wanting to have a seat at the top table of the globalist cabal, when all is said and done. They don't oppose the globallist criminals and their plans for humanity - but they massively resent not being accepted by the globalist criminals as equals.
> In truth, I only sometimes read your blog, and do not claim to know your central thesis,
It shows. You show up everywhere and say the exact same lines over and over again. You do not engage. You are completely set in your worldview. Go away.
I'll have to emphatically leap forward and interpose my body in defense of Bezuhov,facing an attacking Rolo.
When Russian elite's decisions don't make sense in terms of pursuing its military best interests, even the most milquetoast conspiracy theories gain ground towards the search of truth, and have to be weighted in carefully and with impartiality.
Besides, Bezuhov steady and tireless commitment to proselytizing his views in the end bore its fruits, and are starting to win me over, and I'm just one of many.
I am new to Bezuhov - so I can't comment - but give yourself some credit - you have elicited - today particularly - a set of comments equally well worth reading closely as is the post itself. Serious stuff. We are all taking it very seriously - Kherson is a bad surprise - I thought things were stable.
This is what I have been saying (probably less well) for a while. Putin speaks very eloquently about Russian interests and of the near-sacred value of national sovereignty and the challenge of "The West" by which of course he means whatever violent cabal rules the USA. But he almost totally refuses to engage with the Globalism/NWO issues - a vague reference or two in the last (eloquent) speech discussed on this blog. It's like he's still living in a Westphalian world that broke down a century or more ago.
Slavsquat is reporting today: "Maternal mortality in Russia tripled in 2021" - that is the Covid (vax) operation in action! - it is a NWO attack on Russia - the Russian people are in mortal danger. Putin has got to speak to that! And maybe even Dugin could speak more plainly; he surely seems better aware of the truly epic forces in play: "... fate of Russia, humanity and the world..." - it's almost like Kherson is a not so subtle way of evading the real configuration of threats.
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/maternal-mortality-in-russia-tripled
I agree with you on the Covid scam.
Initially, the pressures that were brought to bear on world leaders seemed to be overwhelming - anyone who stood up against the draconian measures in the beginning would have had severe political problems.
Nevertheless, once the truth about the scam became obvious, those who continued with the scam certainly deserve heaps of blame.
Yes, perhaps Putin and Co. are in bed with the WEF, the World Government and the Great Reset.
It's possible, but I don't think so.
And yes, Putin's nodding to the UN as presenting a more or less globally accepted source for legal rules that all nations can abide by [rather than the slap-dash, mysterious "rules-based system" the USA refers to that no one knows the source of or who voted for it] may indicate his willingness to subjugate the Russian people to the New World Order.
But I don't think so.
His reference to the UN as a source for legal rules is not perfect, but it seems to be a very practical stop-gap solution that most of the world can get on board with.
Putin and Co. seem to have rebuilt Russia and made it much stronger and resilient than when they took power.
They seem to be doing a much better job of taking care of their people than the countries you have listed.
Regarding the Ukraine war, yes, it was probably part of a contingency plan on Russia's side.
But I think the case can be made that the West forced Russia [an unwilling participant] into this in order to destroy Western economies for the Great Reset.
It checks a lot of the boxes and it certainly has worked out that way.
Good comment. I wish I could agree with your conclusions, but I'm afraid I suspect that what I wrote is closer to the truth.
I suspect that Putin is far more concerned for his own country's people and economy than the totally corrupt globalist puppets running the West - but that he is nevertheless perfectly on-board for the unspeakably evil plans of the global cabal for humanity, but that he wants to be treated as a key player, with Russia treated as an equal to the Western countries.
I hope you are wrong about Putin, my friend.
I am trusting that - if he ever was deceived by the Western satanists - he has learned his lessons, and is no longer pursuing that chimera of Western acceptance.
That is how it appears to me, as well. From the very beginning I thought the war was engineered for this precise effect; I just wasn’t sure of the level of complicity of Russian leadership. I still don’t know but it increasingly appears there was some collaboration from high levels of Russian government.
Abandoning Kherson makes military sense but the hysterical reaction from much of the patriotic social media sphere is totally understandable and they have legitimate questions.
When the USSR was forced to retreat all the way to Moscow due to a mixture of incompetence and being genuinely outmatched by NS Germany in terms of military leadership nobody doubted that at least Stalin really, really wanted to win. Stalin made some huge mistakes but he was at least trying to do something to correct the awful situation at the front. He wasn't always making the correct calls but nobody was wondering if he was in fact in a secret alliance with Hitler to destroy the USSR.
The Soviet leaderships incompetence cost millions of lives, but spamming poorly trained conscripts to the front in a timely manner was in retrospect the correct decision. Stalin never told Zhukov or Rosskovskey to try and encircle German Army groups at 4or5 to 1 numerical disadvantage. Stalin didn't continue supplying NS Germany with resources after the start of hostilities.
On the other hand how can you blame Russian patriots for suspecting treason right now? If Zhukov and Rosskovskey had had the means to rain hell on NS Germanys critical infastructure would Stalin have said no? Would he have said no even after being forced to abandon Soviet cities? Im not trying to present an apologetic for Stalin but there can be absolutely no doubt something isnt right at all with Russia's current political/military leadership and that is what is terrifying the Russian Patriots.
"Putin is literally Charles Schwab in disguise" is retarded but we need to see Putin seriously start beating his ex wife instead of constantly swinging back and forth between saying truthful mean things about her during speeches and than simping for her. Get over the crush and just kill the bitch, millions of people all over the world are depending on him.
So sure from the strictly military PoV the shameful retreat is justified, but if it isnt accompanied by a corresponding escalation its all for nothing and the retreat will be permanent. Thats what is scary about this and I don't blame Russian patriots who are losing sleep over it.
>Stalin didn't continue supplying NS Germany with resources after the start of hostilities.
He did, actually. USSR was sending shipments of oil to Germany right up and past the start of hostilities. Probably just confusion on their part though. They certainly didn't continue to sell gas to Ukraine months into the conflict and beg Europe, who is supplying Ukraine, to buy more like they do now. Simpler times.
I like the history lesson, Doc.
What I didn't really care for is the choice of words: "abandoning."
That seemed like a pejorative choice that was purposely done, correct?
Fair enough.
I had thought it was supposed to be a tactical retreat.
Was I misinformed?
However, you agree with Surovikin [the man making the hard decisions] that it makes military sense.
Both Surovikin and Putin are very cool under fire - something to emulate?
The hysterical reactions are unfortunate, but at this stage I wouldn't worry too much about them.
Where are these reactions coming from?
From those who understand very little of what's going on militarily?
From those worried about betrayal at high levels in government?
From those who are following/absorbing Western propaganda that is targeted at undermining morale, faith and trust?
From what I understand, Putin's government is still popular, and the Russian people's commitment to winning is still strong.
If I am right about those two things, there is nothing to worry about.
And you and I both know why: it is because the Kherson tactical retreat made military sense.
Alexander Mercouris of the Duran discusses the retreat.
https://rumble.com/v1tf4is-russia-withdraws-from-kherson-surovikin-steadies-nerves-promises-offensive.html
“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Scott Ritter gives his view.
"General Surovokin took command of the SMO on October 16.
Two days later, he gave a press conference in which he described the situation on the ground in the Kherson region as “tense.”
On his orders, civilian authorities began evacuating non-combatant persons from the territory held by Russian forces on the west bank of the Dnieper River, including the city of Kherson proper.
One of the reasons cited to justify this action was a growing concern on the part of Russian officials that Ukraine was preparing to destroy a major dam on the Dnieper, north of Kherson, at the Nova Kakhovka hydroelectric power station.
If this dam were destroyed, a wall of water between 5 to 15 meters high would sweep down the river, washing away critical infrastructure, killing thousands, and trapping survivors—military and civilian alike—on the west bank.
An estimated 200,000 civilians and 30,000 Russian troops would be put at risk.
The evacuation of civilians from the west bank of the Dnieper River, when seen in this light, was a prudent humanitarian move in total compliance with the responsibilities assumed by a military commander under the law of war."
...
"Russian forces may very well have been able to sustain a presence on the west bank of the Dnieper, but at what cost?
The highly favorable casualty ratio that was produced in the October fighting would have evened out, or even been adjusted to favor the Ukrainians.
The fundamental question facing Russian leadership was this: what price was Russia willing to pay to hold on to the west bank of the Dnieper River?
No Russian leader was willing to sacrifice up to 3,000 troops to sustain a frontline which gave Ukraine all the advantages.
General Surovokin recommended the adjustment, and General Sergei Shoigu, the Russian Minister of Defense, agreed.
Russian mothers, wives, and children should applaud this decision, as should anyone who holds the life of a Russian soldier in high regard.
Moreover, on can never forget the threat posed by the potential destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam.
How could any responsible commander risk the lives of his troops under such a threat?
Imagine the outrage that would be expressed by these very same keyboard heroes when trying to square the deaths of thousands of Russian troops, and the potential capture of thousands more, in the aftermath of such a catastrophe?
Why didn’t the Russian commanders do something to prevent this, they would cry.
General Surovokin just did."
https://www.scottritterextra.com/p/on-kherson?utm_source=substack&publication_id=6892&post_id=83794263&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true
> The highly favorable casualty ratio that was produced in the October fighting would have evened out, or even been adjusted to favor the Ukrainians.
I think Ritter should provide reasoning for the statement above.
If the Kherson retreat was due to difficult resupplying of the bridgehead, then why the problem didn't surface sooner. Consider also that now the situation is even better, because there are no civilians left, so trucks with food and ammo can cross each day. Can use helicopters as well to airlift supplies, without any artillery threat.
Before, the excuse was 'the danger of the dam breaking', now it is the shelling of Antonov bridge, which yes it's more convincing, but still feels like a pretext to me.
Positions right now have proven after two months of having been besieged to be sound; there is enough manpower to man them, contrary to what happened with the Balakliya debacle; remains to calculate how many tons of food and shells are required to sustain the effort of 20 - 30k troops? You need just 4 trucks \per hour to get a flow of 100 \per day and half of that is more than enough not only for direct consumption, but to build stockpiles as well.
Plus if Ukrainian attacks keep getting stifled, the US could become tired of sending equipment into what may be perceived to have become a black hole. And a stop to NATO aid would mean certain military defeat to Ukraine.
So the decision to retreat here is a bad one - if it is genuine, and not instead due to what Bezuhov implies in his musings.
If you want to ask Ritter, he answers questions every Friday., Scott Ritter Extra. https://rumble.com/c/c-1744631
I thought the real killer reason for withdrawing was the issue of the dam breaking.
Anyone have a retort to that?
A 5 to 15 meter wall of water coming down the river, wiping out everything in its path?
We need to remember that the only ones who care about casualties and death [for Russian troops and Ukrainian civilians] are the Russians.
The Ukrainian leaders care nothing for them; neither do the European leaders, and certainly not the UK or the USA leaders.
I just can't understand the self-assuredness of those condemning the withdrawal - what do they know? or think they know?
Not being fond of egg all over my face, I tend to be careful about any conclusory statements, preferring to work in hypotheticals, always couched with a healthy amount of "assuming this fact scenario" or "apparently this may be the case, given the following" backstops.
Ritter has a vast background, and he is the closest thing I know of in this situation to being an expert.
He also is very fair to Russia.
The article he wrote - if one wished to try and rebut it - should be taken as a whole.
If one had the time, I would suggest taking his points one by one, and attempt a fair-minded refutation.
We can all gain by honest disagreement.
Why would I ask Ritter when he's been wrong about everything so far?
Cryptic.
> I just can't understand the self-assuredness of those condemning the withdrawal - what do they know? or think they know? Not being fond of egg all over my face, I tend to be careful about any conclusory statements, preferring to work in hypotheticals, always couched with a healthy amount of "assuming this fact scenario" or "apparently this may be the case, given the following" backstops.
It seems to me I offered sufficient reasoning for all the points I raised.
I don't really care who voices an opinion, credentialed expert or anonymous internet troll, on a subject I find interesting I'll offer my rumination, if I happen to have labored one in the meanwhile.
Straightforward or hypothetical the delivery might be, the substance of contents remains the same. Obviously facts will follow their own path, independent from what I say or predict but I do not need to state the obvious everytime I comment, do I?
Yeah, I get you.
Everyone's got an opinion.
That's true.
But if persuasion is a goal, it always helps to at least attempt to rebut contrary opinions, pointing out why you disagree.
But stating your discomfort for what happened is also fine if you can't be bothered.
You rebut the arguments by asserting that the "dam issue" and the shelling of the bridge are pretexual.
OK.
I don't find that persuasive.
But I still respect your right to rant, just like I like to do.
By the way, you basically came here parroting something someone else said, and then felt challenged after getting an informed reply, which wasn't even a retort as I put a like under your comment.
It's as if you are not actually that interested in the topic at hand, but just in spamming comments to signal your presence...? for the sake of it? I really don't know, but I get the impression that logic offends you.
Next time I'll post my comment as a stand-alone, it's even more visible that way.
Rather than presenting opinions as fact [e.g., "it's clear the handing over of Kherson was a political request from the West in order to start talks, there was no military reason to pull back"], I try to recognize my lack of expertise and factual knowledge.
So, I "parrot" the opinions of people I consider as having a much greater understanding of the current situation than I do.
My depth of knowledge or understanding [not much, really, although I've been actively following this situation since the very beginning, daily following the Duran, Military Summary Channel, New Atlas, and others] and my respect for my own ignorance does not allow me to make definitive claims about factual situations.
We see through a glass darkly.
A missile from HIMARS will only make a dent on a gargantuan structure like a dam. That dam can be seen from space. Something huge like that is different from a building, which is an empty shell with only a few load-bearing walls of concrete, if well-made at all. HIMARS are effective against a target like that. To destroy the dam you'll need entire volleys of missiles, and hope the water pressure from the basin will do the rest. But air defenses are in place so these volleys will mostly be deflected. Plus there is the fact that the left bank is 50 m below the forfeited right bank, hence a flood will still affect the Russian troops more, even right now.
About the shelling of the bridge making resupplying difficult, I covered it at length in my previous posting.
This was a political decision: it is sufficiently clear that the bridgehead could be effectively defended, as it has been in the last 2 months against continuous attacks.
Now that Turkey and the USA have publicly praised the Russian decision as wise and conductive to negotiations (https://southfront.org/russian-withdrawal-from-kherson/), it's clear the handing over of Kherson was a political request from the West in order to start talks, there was no military reason to pull back.
Maybe NATO is throwing Zelensky over the side and they just made a deal with Russia. Russia just put this badass guy in charge of the military and they’re not acting out of desperation.
So the retreat is a military necessity? A military choice forced onto politicians?
How is this a good thing?
All it says is that the military is facing an overwhelming force in places they’re not even able to repel. There is literally no other conclusion to be made.
I guess you’re trying to make the point the army was not fighting hard enough. It appears they’re pretty much saying they’re not able to without a endless stream of body bags. No military dominance to speak of. That’s the nail in the coffin of an already tragic awakening of a Russia that sees the consequences of the europization or more accurately jewification of the whole system post Soviet Union.
I’m not against the decision to retreat but it basically makes the political class look like absolute morons and saboteurs, although that has been made crystal clear with the various cuck moves we get at least once a month.
>I guess you’re trying to make the point the army was not fighting hard enough.
No, I'm saying this was baked in the cake. Ukraine mobilized and enjoys 3:1 numbers to Russia. What else could have happened?
You insult Russians in the first paragraph on the premise that this is a sound military decision. It's only a sound military decision if Russia is losing the war. That's what upsets people. You may not feel like you have skin in the game but there are many people who feel like their country is an extension of themselves and take stuff like this personally.
It doesn't matter if they're outnumbered. Russians believed, the rhetoric from the Kremlin assured, and global perception was operating on the notion that Russia is so superior to Ukraine that they literally have to watch that they don't play ball too hard. This is ignoring the fact that defense always has the edge.
This theory of the military suddenly calling the shots doesn't make sense. If anything they were given free reign on the promise they wouldn't wage total war which might have led to slight sabatage. Slowing down the offensive to stand still was their choice. Their desire not to embarrass themselves overrules any political ambitions where we literally see Kremlin scramble to throw some bullshit together to try give the military what's on their shopping list, where as the business owners this all relies on are either useless or handicapped from the way the whole system works.
You give off a notion of optimism. That since army is not handicapped anymore they will start to fight for real. What exactly is fighting for real? Because this whole attrition warfare is clearly not killing Ukraine fast enough, what else can they do but dust off the old military handbooks and pull something out of a hat? Hopefully I'm proven wrong once all the mobilized are ready to go.
Lastly the theory that this is all staged theater is looking stronger everyday. The west is evil according to Putin, but we need to urgently get back to international business as usual, according to Putin. Why? Because Africans needs food. Am I suppose to fucking retarded?
Why turn this into a partisan polemic?
To what purpose?
From what I've read, war is NOT a science, it is not an algorithm.
Necessary tactical adjustments based on changing circumstances are what separate the winners from the defeated.
Those on the outside, with nothing to lose but their bets based on their ideological standpoints, carp and criticize.
Let's face it: the highly experienced, highly knowledgeable, highly honorable general, with an extensive track record of success, made a tactical call, and even provided hard, logical reasons for the call.
Other highly experienced, highly knowledgeable, highly honorable military leaders agreed with this call.
Of course, it is not necessary for any of us to agree with this call.
But who is the person with the experience and responsibility, openly carrying the can for his decision?
Nothing hidden here.
Thanks for the information.
Very interesting to get a view on how matters are being perceived by the Russian populace.
Putin's calm demeanor - I love this guy!
And Surovikin is apparently doing the job for which he was hired.
These are the two adults in the room - keeping calm and steady, doing what needs to be done.
The fact that they - at least publicly - seem unperturbed by the tumult this is causing merely increases my faith in them.
Brian of "The New Atlas" addresses this withdrawal as well.
https://rumble.com/v1t11qj-russian-kherson-withdrawal-trap-or-necessary-chess-move.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=7
Interesting take by Gonzalo who is in Kharkov.
Waiting for the ground to freeze,
then the Russian fireworks begin. https://youtu.be/d4l220bBG4A
This is not your best post I'm afraid. All your criticisms of the Russian critics could be also directed at what you argue - e.g., you repeatedly say what is their "evidence". Well what is your evidence? This is not a question of "evidence", it's simply a matter of observing events and trying to draw reasonable inferences that can explain what is and has been happening. It seems to me their inferences are no less reasonable than yours. And I would add if the withdrawal from Kherson was necessitated by difficulty of supply due to Ukie attacks on the bridges making supply difficult, how would you explain the Russian failure (with hugely more powerful missiles) to attack the Ukie controlled bridges (and there are not that many - I understand about six that are really critical) across the Dnieper that are crucial to Ukraine keeping its hugely greater army in the East supplied. Why, after nearly nine months have they not been destroyed - it would be easily done with the missiles Russia has - and would make the Ukrainians military position in the east completely unsustainable? This is just one example among many I could cite - and it is also part of a long sequence of bizarrely strange decisions and events dating back to 2014. It is the totality of all these actions by the Russian political leadership that is leading many to conclude that it may not simply be incompetence, but something more than that.
To me personally, Putin's actions more and more remind me of Gorbachev. Like Putin, Gorbachev also was a highly intelligent and competent man, and he was not a deliberate traitor to his country (although that's what his actions resulted in). His problem seems to have been a massive blind spot. An admiration for the west, a desire to emulate and be part of it, and a deep and powerful desire to believe and accept everything western leaders were telling him (completely against the advice of everyone else in the Russian administration). Hence his disastrous decisions and policies that destroyed the USSR. Putin seems the same, and the only difference I can see from Gorbachev is that Putin has over the years managed to surround himself with others who share his blindness. And that makes it much worse.
I'll never go against a popular man like Putin. It goes against my whole worldview. Even JC the champion of Rome made mistakes and was too lenient with his enemies. That doesn't mean I'd root for the optimates or call for Mark Anthony to replace him.
What do you think about this analysis: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGqRZZXVRjwzhhTGdlPlMztbBCR
I tried that link and got: "The conversation you requested could not be loaded."
MYSTERY: To either supply or retreat from west Kherson, the Russians should have many hundreds of small boats. This could easily be bought from China. I see no evidence of this. Why?
Boats are a pain in the ass. You need masses of docks on both sides of the river, cranes to unload trucks and load boats on one side, unload boats and load trucks on the other side, roads linking the docks on both sides, traffic control, double the number of trucks and drivers, etc., as opposed to driving across a bridge and unloading right where it's needed., turning around and heading back for another load.
"This is quite an allegation to even hint at. It was only fringe nationalists who were alleging that the FSB was knocking off militia commanders in the Donbass who didn’t agree with Minsk I and II and who resisted connected mafia dons from Moscow coming in to squabble over Donbass’ resources back in the day."
Knocking off people like that is something an opposition secret service might do in order to stir up trouble among the loyal. The timing - on the very day of pullout - makes that conclusion especially alluring. Only way the frisbees did this is if they are penetrated by Ukrainians, British etc. In which case it isn't the FSB doing it anyway.