Russian Air Defenses Down 5 ATACMS Missiles Over Bryansk Region

The armed forces of Ukraine struck with six ATACMS ballistic missiles at the Bryansk Region, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.

“At 3:25 a.m. tonight [local time, 00:25 GMT], the enemy struck a facility in the Bryansk Region with six ballistic missiles. According to confirmed data, US-made ATACMS tactical missiles have been used,” the report read.

Russian air defense systems shot down five missiles, one was damaged. Its fragments fell on the technical territory of a military facility in the Bryansk region, which caused a fire, which was promptly eliminated, the ministry said, adding that there were no causalities or destruction.

Keep reading

Ukraine Reportedly Carries Out First Strike Inside Russian Territory Using US-Made Long-Range Missiles

The escalation of the war in Ukraine has reached peak level, as Ukraine is reported to have launched western missiles at a target inside Russia, a move that can lead to a potential nuclear retaliation by Moscow.

The first Ukrainian strike targeted the border region of Bryansk in Russia, and it comes just as President Vladimir Putin updated the nuclear doctrine greatly expanding the conditions for using atomic weapons.

Ukrainian forces fired six ATACMS missiles at a facility in the Russian Bryansk region, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

Bloomberg reported:

“Ukraine deployed ATACMS missiles to strike a military facility in the western Bryansk region, RBC Ukraine reported on Tuesday, citing an official in the nation’s military. It was the first known attack following the decision by President Joe Biden’s administration to approve Kyiv’s limited use of the weapons to hit targets inside Russia.

Ukraine’s General Staff confirmed a strike on a warehouse in the city of Karachev, detonating ammunition stored at the site some 115 kilometers (71 miles) from the border with Ukraine. Neither the General Staff nor the Defense Ministry would comment on what missiles were used, saying the information is classified.”

Keep reading

Have the US and NATO Decided to Play FAFO With Russia?

FAFO is a social media acronym that means F**k Around Find Out. It appears that the United States and NATO have decided to play that dangerous game with Moscow. I had an offline chat with Alastair Crooke this morning. He flagged an article in the Times of Israel that I had missed, and he discussed it with the Judge. The article is an interview with retired Israeli General, Itai Brun, the former head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence research and analysis division. Here are the salient points:

[Brun] warned Saturday that Israel’s inability to recognize that Hamas was preparing to invade shows a far-reaching systemic failure that cannot be fixed simply by replacing key officers and officials.

Correcting that strategic failure, said Brun in a TV interview, requires a fundamental change in the approach and culture of intelligence gathering, the processing of intelligence by the security establishment, and the interaction with the political leadership. . . .

But while Israel’s military intelligence community recognized that it had refused to even consider that Hamas could and would burst through the border fence, and “they realized that they needed to rethink” as regards Gaza, some fundamentally false conceptions continued to be held even after the invasion and slaughter.

Israeli intelligence still failed to recognize and internalize that the Iran-led axis believed it could destroy Israel, Brun specified. “They didn’t understand this change.”

He said Israeli intelligence had so much data, all indicating that Hamas was deterred and was not seeking a war, that there was a refusal to so much as countenance the possibility that this conception was erroneous — not even when the IDF obtained documentation such as the Jericho Wall material showing Hamas’s attack plans.

This intelligence failure is the result of at least two kinds of bias — reporting bias and confirmation bias.

Reporting bias is when managers and analysts selectively report or omit information based on the outcome of the research or personal beliefs.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favour, seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, whilst giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

This is different than lying. And this phenomenon is not unique to Israel. In fact, I believe it is a major reason the US intelligence community has been so wrong, so often in its analysis of Russia and the war in Ukraine. We are seeing a manifestation of that now with Biden giving the Ukrainians the green light to use ATACMs inside Russian territory. Biden and his inept advisors have convinced themselves that they can unleash Ukraine and Russia will not respond. If Ukraine goes forward and launches the missiles — with the help of US intelligence data to program the missiles — then Russia will respond in a forceful way. Initially, I believe they will limit their response to Ukrainian territory, but Putin will authorize targeting NATO sites that have gone unscathed until now.

Keep reading

Is Joe Biden Trying To Start World War 3 Before He Leaves Office?

As if everything that Joe Biden has done so far was not enough, now he has decided to push us to the brink of nuclear war.  On Sunday, Joe Biden decided to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles provided by the United States to hit targets deep inside of Russia.  This is a bombshell.  I don’t know how else to put it.  The Russians have already warned us how they will respond if long-range missiles provided by the United States and other NATO countries start raining down on their cities.  Sadly, most Americans have no idea what a direct conflict with Russia would mean.

When I first heard what Joe Biden had done, I reacted very emotionally.

I am still feeling very emotional at this moment.

Everyone needs to clearly understand what just happened, because this is a major turning point

Keep reading

Russia’s Veto Of The UNSC Resolution On Sudan Saved It From A Neocolonialist Plot

The text was ambiguous about the authorities’ legitimacy even though they represent their country at the UN, didn’t call for the RSF to cease its attacks against the SAF, could have led to more arms smuggling to the group under the cover of aid, eroded Sudan’s sovereignty via the ICC, and could have led to a disastrous military intervention.

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy railed against Russia at the UNSC on Monday following the latter’s veto of a draft ceasefire resolution in Sudan, which Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy responded to right afterwards. His words can be read in full here and will be summarized in the present piece, but before doing so, here are five background briefings for readers to review if they forgot about the origins of this conflict or weren’t aware of them to begin with:

* 16 April 2023: “Sudan’s ‘Deep State’ War Could Have Far-Reaching Geostrategic Consequences If It Continues

* 21 April 2023: “Here’s Why The US Is Trying To Pin The Blame For Sudan’s ‘Deep State’ War On Russia

* 27 April 2023: “Russia Is Right: ‘Political Engineering’ From Abroad Is Responsible For The Sudanese Crisis

* 4 May 2023: “The Mainstream Media’s Admissions That American Meddling Ruined Sudan Are Misleading

* 15 July 2023: “Sudan’s Neighbors Signaled That They’re Disinterested In Fighting A Divide-And-Rule Proxy War

To oversimplify, the rivalry between Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (“Hemedti”) exploded in spring 2023, exacerbated as it was by foreign pressure to complete the political transition. Burhan didn’t believe the rumors that the RSF was backed by Wagner, which were spread to pressure him into scrapping Sudan’s plans to host a Russian naval facility in exchange for Western support.

The military dimension of the conflict has since stalemated even though the humanitarian consequences continue to worsen. An estimated 24.8 million people out of the country’s nearly 50 million total population are now in need of humanitarian assistance, there are over 8 million internally displaced people, and 3 million fled abroad as refugees. These startling facts are the reason why the UNSC tabled the latest draft resolution for a ceasefire, but as could have been expected, the West sought to exploit it.

Keep reading

Ex-security adviser accuses Biden of trying to ‘sabotage’ Trump’s effort to end Russia-Ukraine war

Aformer top security aide to Donald Trump on Monday accused the Biden administration of trying to intentionally “sabotage” the President-elect’s efforts to bring an end to the Russian war against Ukraine.

Former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz said President Joe Biden was repeatedly unwilling to authorize Ukraine to use U.S.-made missiles to strike deep inside Russia before the election, and his lame-duck decision this weekend to authorize it now smacks of an effort to thwart Trump’s effort to create a ceasefire and peace deal.

“The timing is really curious, because Biden was reluctant to do this before the election, because he was worried he would escalate the war. He would take a lot of criticism for possibly escalating the war,” Fleitz told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “And now that the election is over, he’s made this decision, which Putin has said is a red line and could put Russia at war with the United States.

“I don’t think this is an effort to give Ukraine leverage in negotiations with Russia, because it’s going to make the war worse,” he added. “I think this is a deliberate attempt by Joe Biden to sabotage President Trump’s efforts to negotiate a ceasefire.”

Keep reading

The Moment Of Truth: How Will Russia Respond To Ukraine’s Use Of Western Long-Range Missiles?

It remains unclear what Putin will ultimately do, but whichever of these two choices he makes will determine the trajectory of this conflict from now on, either more escalation or a possible compromise.

Reports emerged on Sunday that the US finally approved Ukraine’s request to use long-range ATACMS missiles against targets inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders, which was followed by other reports claiming that France and the UK then followed suit. They’ve yet to be used at the time of writing, but Zelensky ominously implied later that day that this could happen very soon. The reason why this is the moment of truth is because Putin earlier warned that it would amount to NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict.

This analysis here about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine hyperlinks to eight related analyses about everything from “red lines” to the “war of attrition” that readers should review for background context. It also points out how this new policy “regard[s] an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation” in Putin’s own words. The stakes therefore haven’t ever been this high.

The reason why the US only just now greenlit Ukraine’s request is because the outgoing ruling collective wants to create the conditions for ensuring that Trump either perpetuates or escalates the conflict. There was concern after his historic electoral victory that he’d completely cut Ukraine off of aid and thus hand Russia its desired maximum victory that would then lead to the US’ worst-ever strategic defeat. It was explained herehere, and here, however, that he was always more likely to “escalate to de-escalate”.

In any case, what’s most important is how perceptions of those who are still in power shape their policy formulations, which in this example manifested themselves through granting Ukraine the use of Western long-range missiles despite Russia’s prior warnings. The whole point is to intensify the conflict over the next two months before Trump’s reinauguration so that he inherits a much more difficult situation than at present. This is expected to push him into adopting a more hawkish position on the conflict.

Realistically speaking, however, all that’ll likely happen between then and now is that Russia carries out more missile strikes against military targets in Ukraine. Nothing extraordinary like its speculative use of tactical nukes or bombing NATO is expected, both possibilities of which were addressed in the pieces that were enumerated in the earlier analysis about Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine. At most, it might destroy a major bridge across the Dnieper or carry out decapitation strikes, but even those are unlikely.

Putin is averse to escalation since he sincerely fears everything spiraling out of control into World War III. Time and again, precedent proves that he’ll do his utmost to avoid that worst-case scenario as proven by him refusing to significantly escalate after Ukraine bombed the Kremlin, Russia’s early warning systems, strategic airfields, the Crimean Bridge, oil refineries, and residential areas, among its many other targets. There’s accordingly no reason to expect him to jump out of character and significantly escalate after this.

Keep reading

Interpreting The Times’ Report About A Ukrainian Think Tank’s Nuke Proposal

The top takeaway isn’t that Ukraine might soon develop nukes, which it couldn’t make any progress on without Russia detecting it, but that Ukraine might soon build its own long-range ballistic missiles and thus lead to Russia compromising on its goal of demilitarizing Ukraine if it’s unable to stop this.

The Times sent tongues wagging after their report last week about a Ukrainian think tank’s proposal advising their country to accelerate the construction of crude nuclear weapons if Trump cuts off aid. This follows similar comments from Zelensky last month that he then swiftly backtracked and which were analyzed here. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denied any such intentions and Zelensky’s top advisor Mikhail Podoliak claimed that such a plan wouldn’t deter Russia even if it was successfully implemented.

The abovementioned developments were newsworthy in their own right, but it’s regrettable that other aspects of The Times’ report were drowned out by the sensationalism of this story. The present piece will therefore draw attention to three points that most folks might have missed if they didn’t read the original report and instead only relied on others to inform them of the gist about it. The significance of what was left out from this story will then be analyzed too since it’s arguably the most important part.

The first point that many missed is that the director of the think tank that produced the report claimed near the end of The Times’ article that his country is just six months away from producing its own long-range ballistic missiles, which could reach as far as 1,000 kilometers/621 miles. That could place Moscow in Ukraine’s crosshairs if such missiles are launched from west of the Dnieper or St. Petersburg if they’re launched from Chernigov Region. He might just be bluffing, but it’s still worth pointing out.

The second point is that the aforesaid director and the report’s author agreed that “should the US abandon Ukraine, Britain could honour its security obligation under the Budapest memorandum by helping Ukraine to develop a nuclear deterrent.” And finally, the author claimed that “the threshold for developing a nuclear rearmament programme would be Putin’s troops reaching the city of Pavlohrad”, after which Dnipro and Kharkov could then be captured by Russia before nukes are developed.

Pavlograd is only around 96 kilometers/60 miles from the front and directly on the highway between Pokrovsk, which Russia might soon lay siege to or capture, and Dnipro on that eponymous river’s banks. Unlike what he claimed about Kharkov, however, Russia’s capture of Pavlograd would actually make it easier to then lay siege to or capture nearby Zaporozhye to the south than that northern city. In any case, Russia’s victory in the impending Battle of Pokrovsk could lead to the collapse of the entire front.

To review, most news outlets that reported on this story didn’t mention that: 1) Ukraine claims to be just six months away from producing its own long-range ballistic missiles; 2) some in the country want the UK to help them rapidly develop nukes; and 3) they’re worried that the entire front might soon collapse. Whether any of this is true or not, it might be meant to pressure Trump into perpetuating or even escalating the conflict in order to avert Ukraine and the West’s supposedly impending strategic defeat.  

Keep reading

Here We Go… Ukrainian President Zelensky Threatens Russia After Biden Gives Ukraine Permission to Fire Long-Range Missiles Strikes Inside Russia

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a fresh threat to Russia, emboldened by the Biden regime’s reckless decision to permit Ukraine to carry out long-range missile strikes deep inside Russian territory.

The Gateway Pundit reported on Sunday that Biden would allow Ukraine to use a powerful American long-range weapon for strikes inside Russia, supposedly in response to North Korea’s recent aid to Russia in the form of thousands of troops.

Ukraine will be specifically allowed to use the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to hit targets inside Russia.

As The Post notes, ATACMS is a supersonic-guided missile system that can be used with either cluster munitions or conventional warheads. It has a maximum range of about 190 miles.

The Post elaborates that Ukraine is expected to focus on and around the Kursk region at first but could expand its targets. Officials did not elaborate of what other targets this could include.

Until now, the Regime refused to allow Ukraine to fire these ATACMS into Russian territory, correctly warning that the move could lead Vladimir Putin to retaliate in an even more severe manner.

In fact, Putin has warned for months that Russia would be “at war” with the United States and its NATO allies if they allowed Ukraine to use of long-range Western weapons like ATACMS. He added that all options would be on the table in response to such an attack, including nuclear weapons.

Keep reading

Russia Is “Furious” At Biden’s “Serious Escalation” Of Ukraine War

The Biden Administration’s insane decision to give the green light for Ukraine to fire long range US missiles at Russia has been met with fury by the Kremlin.

“Departing US president Joe Biden… has taken one of the most provocative, uncalculated decisions of his administration, which risks catastrophic consequences,” Russian state newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta declared Monday morning.

Russian MP Leonid Slutsky, who heads the pro-Kremlin Liberal-Democratic Party, warned that the move will “inevitably lead to a serious escalation, threatening serious consequences”.

Keep reading