Tag: ukraine

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

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 here, here, 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

Leaks expose secret British military cell plotting to ‘keep Ukraine fighting’

Leaked files show top UK military figures conspired to carry out the Kerch bridge bombing, covertly train “Gladio”-style stay-behind forces in Ukraine, and groom the British public for a drop in living standards caused by the proxy war against Russia.

Emails and internal documents reviewed by The Grayzone reveal details of a cabal of British military and intelligence veterans which plotted to escalate and prolong the Ukraine proxy war “at all costs.” Convened under the direction of the British Ministry of Defense in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the cell referred to itself as Project Alchemy. As British leadership sabotaged peace talks between Kiev and Moscow, the cell put forward an array of plans “to keep Ukraine fighting” by imposing “strategic dilemmas, costs and frictions upon Russia.”

The leaks obtained by The Grayzone expose a hidden hand behind Britain’s policy in Ukraine, showing in unusually granular detail how it aimed to engineer a long, grinding war through covert operations that stretched the bounds of legality.

Project Alchemy’s proposed schemes spanned every conceivable field of warfare, from cyber attacks to “discreet operations” to outright terrorism. The secret cell even put forward a plan to “aggressively pursue” and “dismantle” independent media outlets – including The Grayzone – through an aggressive campaign of legal harassment and online censorship, so they “would be forced to close.” The incendiary blueprints were fed to the highest levels of the British state and national security structure, where they were apparently well-received.

Founded by a senior British Ministry of Defence official, Project Alchemy is composed of veteran military and intelligence operatives united by a desire for all-out war between the West and Russia. Some have trained Ukrainian forces in clandestine sabotage tactics. 

Members of the national security cabal tacitly acknowledged that their proposed operations stretched the bounds of British law. Thus they suggested that London should be “prepared to creatively use the law” to meet its goals, and even be willing to erase “legal restrictions on UK deniable ops” against Russia. 

Some of Project Alchemy’s most extreme recommendations have already been implemented, often with calamitous results. These include the cell’s proposal to strike Crimea’s Kerch Bridge, which prompted a Russian escalation that saw punishing attacks on Ukraine’s electricity infrastructure. Alchemy also envisioned the construction of a secret, Gladio-style army of Ukrainian partisan fighters to carry out assassination, sabotage, and terror missions behind enemy lines. 

Keep reading

The Impact of the US Election For Ukraine- Can Trump do a Deal With Putin on Ukraine?

Trump’s plans and approach towards Russia’s war on Ukraine is already evident in his campaign speeches and psoturing. Trump has often boasted about his capacity to negotiate deals, positioning himself as a peacemaker who will bring an end to the war.

His approach would center on swift negotiations and most certainly involving controversial proposals for territorial compromises. However, it is war and unpredictability is a constant. So the specifics would depend heavily on the ongoing state of the conflict and geopolitical dynamics in early 2025.

1. Focus on Negotiation and Ceasefire

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he could negotiate a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia within a short timeframe (sometimes stating 24 hours). His approach would center on bringing both parties to the negotiating table for immediate ceasefire talks. He’s already had phone calls with Zelensky and Putin who is currently pushing the strategic edge with Trump by calling for a Trump-led negotiation kick-off. In a way, Putin and Trump are already on same page but on same negotiation terms? That will have to be seen but it’s unlikely Trump will want to entirely go Putin’s way and be seen as bending over for Putin.

Trump’s main pitch would likely involve pressuring both sides into halting hostilities temporarily, setting the stage for further discussions on territorial disputes. Trump will argue that continued conflict is a lose-lose situation especially for Ukraine- a claim he already repeated, insisting that Ukraine is losing and Russia is winning and has hinted ending US aid, and he isn’t known to back down from his position even when proven wrong. Leveraging economic interests with Russia as an appeal to ending the war is also key for him.

2. Compromise in the name of “Peace”

Trump has shown a willingness to consider compromises that will involve territorial concessions, at least implicitly. This position is contentious for many reasons and would be met with strong resistance both in Ukraine and among Western allies.

Trump might propose a referendum-based approach, especially so as key members of his team support this.

Elon has repeatedly pushed similar ideas, suggesting that disputed areas such as Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk hold internationally supervised referendums to determine their status. Like it or not, Trump will take it as great if Elon says it’s good. This idea could be framed as a democratic solution, though it would be heavily criticized given Russia’s strong political/military control and occupation over those areas, especially so as millions of Ukrainians has fled those areas leaving their homes and livelihood behind.

Another possible angle could involve Trump advocating for a federated model in Ukraine, where regions could have greater autonomy- hasn’t worked in the past due Russia’s persistent interference. This might include proposals to give the Russian-occupied areas special status or increased autonomy while remaining under nominal Ukrainian sovereignty. It would be an attempt to satisfy both parties without a full land concession. But with Russian interference, it will be Moldova all over again. Some will argue that’s better if it stops the war now. Ukraine however much prefers a solution that contains Russia now and in the future.

3. Pressure on Ukraine to Compromise

Trump has often criticized the extensive military aid provided to Ukraine, arguing it prolongs the conflict. Trump’s Republican Party blocked aid to Ukraine for more than nine months from October 2023 to April 2024, forcing Kyiv to deplete its wartime budget, while the EU scrambled indecisively, mostly due to limited wartime capacity, leading to the loss of some of Ukraine’s most capable fighters and territorial gains for Russia. In a second term, Trump will leverage US support to push Ukraine towards a compromise, by conditioning future aid on entering negotiations with Russia and possibly demanding territorial concessions.

This stance would clearly be met with strong opposition from Ukrainian leadership, who have maintained a firm line on not ceding any territory.

Keep reading

Developments in Kursk Region: Ukrainian fighters suffer losses, face charges in Russia

Ukrainian forces lost more than 100 servicemen in the Kursk area over the past day, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The enemy’s losses during the hostilities totaled more than 32,680 troops, according to the ministry.

The Main Military Investigation Department of the Russian Investigative Committee opened a criminal case against Ukrainian soldiers suspected of shelling the Dmitrievskaya church in the Sudzha district.

TASS has put together the key developments.

Progress of operation to destroy Ukrainian forces

– Units of the battlegroup North continued their offensive and struck Ukrainian formations in the areas of the settlements of Daryino, Leonidovo, Malaya Loknya, Maryevka, Nykolayevo-Daryino and Plekhovo.

– Strikes by army aircraft and artillery fire inflicted damage to clusters of Ukrainian personnel and equipment in the Kursk Region.

– Tactical aircraft and rocket forces struck at enemy concentration areas and reserves in the Sumy Region.

– The operation to destroy Ukrainian formations is pressing on.

Keep reading

Kiev admits its forces collapsing as Russia advances fast in Donbass

Ukrainian officials acknowledge that Russian forces are advancing in Donbass faster than at any time since the conflict escalated, while at the same time, Kiev says its defences are collapsing due to a shortage of fighters, the Financial Times reported. The news only deepens problems for the Kiev regime, especially following the announcement that Mike Pompeo, who is sympathetic to Ukraine, was confirmed not to have a position in the incoming Trump administration.

The newspaper said Ukrainian military officials and international experts expect the conflict to enter a critical phase in the coming months as both sides jockey for territorial advantage ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 with a key “[battle] shaping up in Russia’s Kursk region,” parts of which Ukraine invaded in August with some of its best-equipped units. Russian troops ultimately held off that invading force.

According to the Financial Times, while Kiev is directing resources to reinforce its incursion into the Kursk region, Ukrainian defences in Donbass are “crumbling” due to a shortage of fighters and ammunition. Russian troops have intensified attacks in recent months, where Ukrainian troops have been unable to hold the front line.

“The average age is already above 40 in various brigades and there doesn’t seem to be enough reinforcements arriving on the frontline,” said Franz-Stefan Gady, a military analyst and fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, to the outlet.

Keep reading