The industrious writer, Simplicius The Thinker, has published a round up of recent strike events in Ukraine. It would appear that Russia has unleashed a new wave of distance attacks that featured the largest number of drone strikes yet seen, including swarm-type tactics aimed at various targets, including the Starokonstantinov airfield, that may have been home to a squadron of Ukrainian jets equipped with British Storm Shadow cruise missiles. The strike is purported to have resulted in the loss of five aircraft. It is possible that Russian targeting efforts may have been partially aided by the publication of a photograph by Defence Minister Reznikov that depicted an SU-24 equipped with the missile and the unit’s insignia. The photograph was signed by none other than UK Defence Minister, Ben Wallace, who wrote:
To all the brave “few” who risk all for the glory of Ukraine.
Wallace and Reznikov might have given the game away.
It is possible that this single piece of intel, while not revealing the location of a particular squadron, at least revealed its possession of the missiles and thereby helped Russia prioritise that squadron’s base over others. If so, this would have to go down as Wallace’s second most amateurish of acts while in a Ministerial position that may have directly cost lives and certainly cost equipment. Wallace potentially created an intel asset that was uncontrolled and later mishandled by his Ukrainian counterpart. This beggars belief and speaks to a kind of bizarre incompetence that we have not seen so egregiously in war until now. What possible purpose does it serve for Reznikov to publish that image anywhere? It is bad enough that Ukraine’s weapons inventory, supply schedule and therefore overall potential capability is an ongoing matter of public record. To provide even more specific targeting information could be considered treason by some. Indeed, if Ukraine is actively prosecuting citizens who share videos of missile and drone strikes on the grounds of treason, Reznikov has done equivalent or worse.
The scale and scope of the latest airborne attacks speaks to the further worsening state of Ukraine’s air defence capabilities and therefore the balance of power in theatre.
Counteroffensive Under Sub-Optimal Conditions
Ukraine’s increasingly late, fully telegraphed counteroffensive must be conducted under pressure exerted by third parties whose political narratives and media commentary are increasingly fractured, discordant and waning. The scale of equipment and manpower involved is roughly estimable precisely because Ukraine and its sponsors declare this information, making it straightforward for Russia to keep a scorecard of Ukraine’s inventory.
Confirmatory footage of gigantic explosions have been shared to the public detriment of Ukraine, whose security services have reacted draconianly against individual citizens sharing the footage. Ukraine is now attempting to implement even more strict bans on images and footage of strike damage while claiming that its air defences are working to defeat Russia’s strikes. The Patriot systems, of which there may have been a total of 3, appear to be totally ineffective and possibly completely destroyed, meaning that they never worked and were nothing more than the most expensive white elephant imported into theatre.
Simplicius writes:
On that note, this article from 2018 is an old gem uncovered recently, from Foreign Policy:
Noting the contents of the article, it’s absolutely crazy that the Patriot system could possibly be ‘sold’ to us these days as a potential “game changer” in Ukraine.
The author is irate and sick of the dangerous propaganda of the Patriot being a good system, because he says this puts all American allies in danger, having to rely on such an obvious, proven ‘lemon’.
The Patriot is an emblem of the duplicitous economics of Europe’s largest conflict since WW2 and, in VST’s opinion, the death knell for the continent in its present form.
One does not have to be a professional analyst or military expert to consider, if not discern a key difference between each side’s chosen method of conduct of information warfare as it relates to combat outcomes. One year ago, on May 13, 2022, VST wrote:
Consider an information warfare paradigm.
Russian narrative of its Ukrainian “Special Military Operation” is locked out of western information channels. Westerners have to find and select the Russian narrative. There is a massive and growing divergence between the Western and Russian narrative (see here, here and here) in at least the following areas:
The basic reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
The presence and Western sponsorship of Nazi ideologies within the power structure of the Ukrainian government
Russia’s objectives, tactics, strategy and progress
War crimes on Ukrainian and Russian sides
Casualty counts and civilian casualties
Legitimacy of foreign war fighters/mercenaries in Ukraine
Details of combat encounters (Moskva, Snake Island, Azovstal and others)
Biolabs
So, Russia is competing in an asymmetric information war with the West as it tries to penetrate the western information sphere. In pursuit of that objective should Russia lie and use propaganda? If she does and is shown to be lying, Russia’s losses in the information arena are massive as its credibility is battered in a time when all Western noise is against it. The West can freely lie endlessly in its own information sphere because it controls it and does not hold itself to account for its own lies. Therefore, might a more effective weapon for Russia to use be fewer but more powerful truthbombs instead of lies? What if Russia’s propaganda is actually grounded in just enough well spun truth? Truthbombs take longer to penetrate and longer to detonate, but when they do they are far, far more destructive and the damage lasts.
Let’s take a moment to test the above in the context of today’s known circumstances. It remains true that western observers must actively seek out, assess and filter the Russian narrative because none of it is to be found within the western media sphere. In this regard, Russia remains “locked out of western information channels.”
Generally information output operates at three levels:
Opinion, information, evidence and requests expressed, provided and/or made at the UN level.
Constant military narrative put out directly by either side about engagements (location, strength and type). The Russian MoD provides near daily (shortly) after-the-fact confirmations of strikes and targets while never revealing its casualties. The west provides similar from multiple sources spanning the US, UK, EU and Ukrainian official outlets, amongst which there are constant conflicts and short term contradictions. Both sides maintain some form of enemy casualty count but Russia maintains a single, consistent count interspersed with Wagner’s Artyomovsk claims. Regarding casualty counts, what is confirmed by both sides is that Russia’s equipment and manpower losses are significantly lower than Ukraine’s, which is a fundamental means to assess the progress in a war of attrition.
Mixed political, media and “citizen” narrative and commentary through multiple channels.
The quick and easy test of any of the above is the simple, short-term evaluation of:
the degree of bombast and leading claims employed; versus
observable outcomes in theatre and within each side’s nations and wider spheres of influence; versus
the consistency of either narrative;
the time required for narrative to reflect observable theatre outcomes.
United Nations
At the UN level, the format remains consistent. Russia sticks to its list of complaints that underpin its invasion while calling out biolabs (information efforts have recently increased here) and escalatory acts by Ukraine and its sponsors. The west: asserts illegality without detailed analysis, justification or actions that back its assertions e.g. ICC cases; calls for ostracization and sanctions; denies the entirety of Russian claims and its accusations of escalation e.g. Nord Stream, weapon proliferation, terrorist tactics, border and deep strikes on Russia etc. At the UN level, western sponsors of the war continue to ignore Russia’s statements and warnings, irrespective of the picture on the ground or UN nation geopolitical actions (trade, finance, politics etc). Russia’s revolving presidency of the UN was objected to by Ukrainian sponsors despite there being no apparently legitimate and specific reason to object, especially when the USA’s presidency is set against its conduct of multiple wars throughout the 20th and 21st century. This shows a glaring inconsistency amongst USA allies.
Military
At the military level, Russia continues to be largely consistent in that the MoD remains the sole, somewhat boringly understated source of “factual” reports of engagements and results after they have happened. The MoD never telegraphs its actions beforehand and from what VST has seen, nor does any other significant official source. At best, general grave statements and comments are made that do not reveal specific intent or capability, save for actions which are by nature publicly known (major troop and materiel movements, mobilisation). Wagner’s output superficially stands outside this but is constrained to Artyomovsk and its actions, once the battle was established there. This is why VST has maintained scepticism about what Prigozhin says because much of it could serve as a form of Psy-Op. If it was such a thing, Zelensky literally fell for it and over committed to the battle. Prigozhin’s bombastic statements look like the general exception to Russia’s approach to information warfare and are picked up and spun by western narrators to limited and short-term effect against a contradictory backdrop of hard military outcomes. Literally, the way the west has spun Prigozhin’s outbursts does not match what has generally happened on the front and rarely, if ever, has anyone asked “is Prigozhin trolling, bullshitting and goading us?”.
Wagner has recently released its detailed tally of Ukrainian losses in Artyomovsk. Quoting Simplicius:
And speaking of Prigozhin, while Wagner has officially vacated Artyomovsk and handed it over to the nominal Russian forces, they have released some interesting new audit reports. This includes the final tally of Ukrainian forces and equipment destroyed which Wagner meticulously totted up for each monthly period, and it’s a doozy
If Prigozhin is to be taken at face value, these kill counts are phenomenal. The Tank, IFV and APC counts alone are huge. Consider just the December shopping list Zaluzhny (who appears to have briefly and finally reappeared) claimed was necessary to “win” the war, while Artyomovsk was actively raging (our bold):
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine General Valeriy Zaluzhny, speaking about the need for 300 tanks, 600-700 infantry fighting vehicles, 500 howitzers for victory, had in mind the needs of a specific operation, but for complete de-occupation of Ukrainian lands as of 1991, more equipment and weapons are needed, Minister of Defense of Ukraine Oleksiy Reznikov said.
Wagner’s kill count comprises 309 tanks, 566 IFVs, 131 APCs (totalling 697 IFV & APCs) and 3155 artillery guns, plus 83 MLRS (a form of rocket artillery). For Wagner to have destroyed all this gear and won the battle means that Zaluzhny’s shopping list was inadequate for just the Artyomovsk theatre, because Ukraine had that much equipment. Should the shopping list have been fully available for the battle, some of it would also have been lost. So what was required to win Artyomovsk would have been that destroyed by Wagner plus the shopping list, plus all the capable troops required to operate all of the equipment. According to this list, Ukraine has permanently lost 72k men. The POW count is very low and would be in line with Wagner’s refusal after a certain point to take POWs, combined with the highly fatal nature of CQB/FIBUA fighting.
Of course, Prigozhin’s numbers could be propaganda of some sort, possibly designed in line with the shopping list and then some. What is known is that Zaluzhny’s shopping list has not been secretly delivered in full in ways that provide immediate capability. Instead western sponsors continue to publicise numbers, types and delivery dates of equipment, leaving route, storage point and final delivery locations to the Russians to establish, who appear to be at least partially, perhaps increasingly successful in locating significant amounts of supplies. These western supplies have diminished in size and scale, with growing admissions that various equipment is either old, partially serviceable (Strykers, MiGs) or sub spec (Abrams). The men and materiel problem that was clearly laid out by Scott Ritter, Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Brian Berletic has come home to roost (see Narrative Time Lag, below).
Wagner aside, the Russian military commentary largely revolves around stating what has been done in theatre. It does not explain past, present or future tactics or strategies and it does not telegraph any of its activities ahead of time.
The USEUNATO military narrative is a totally different loudmouth beast involving myriad outlets. The US comprises the Whitehouse, Pentagon, DoD, CIA outlets and individual personnel within each. NATO looks like outgoing Jens Stoltenberg but is actually an aggregate of its military council plus its member states’ own governments. The EU comprises its Parliament, Council and Commission, as well as its member states’ governments and military leadership. The UK is superficially self-contained within its MoD, MI5 and MI6. Within this disparate group, it would appear that information warfare is difficult to manage. In just the USA, there is clear narrative inconsistency and failure on a repeat and shortening basis. US policy and doctrine towards Ukraine does not match its own records since 1991. The Obama doctrine of “Ukraine is not our interest” doesn’t match deep state and subsequent administration actions. The US has crossed every escalatory red line while employing paper thin narratives that crumble as soon as they are wetted by any form of challenge or enquiry. It now depends on flimsy statements that serve to cut Ukraine loose for actions that USEUNATO have clearly fomented, sanctioned, enabled and even engaged in joint venture on. Remember that Musk’s Starlink is a fundamental data service provided for war operations above all else that is still employed in theatre despite whatever Musk says about the war.
Within just the USA, F-16s are now being described as largely a nothingburger by none other than General Mark Milley:
“If you look at the F-16, 10 F-16s [cost] a billion dollars, the sustainment cost another billion dollars, so you’re talking about $2 billion for 10 aircraft,” Milley said, adding that if the planes had been sent sooner, they would have eaten up the funding for those other capabilities that have put Ukraine on their front foot.
“There are no magic weapons in war, F-16s are not and neither is anything else,” he said.
The coalition plans to train roughly 20 Ukrainian pilots initially, although the exact number will depend on the countries’ capacity to support the project, according to a UK government spokesperson, who was granted anonymity to discuss details ahead of an announcement.
Ukraine will require a pipeline of pilots to learn the fundamentals of flying who can then move up to jets, the spokesperson said. To that end, the first stage of instruction will focus on ground-based basic training of Ukrainian pilots, who will then be ready to learn specific airframes, such as the F-16 and others. The F-16 training will take place at a site in Europe, Defense Department officials have said.
Here, Politico is also actually describing something worse than the lack of F-16 efficacy in the hands of converted but experienced combat pilots. It is describing initially training just 20 pilots, who will likely man less jets, on an implied lead time that is largely irrelevant to the war’s current tempo. It is stated by other sources and implied here that F-16s flown by Ukrainians are unlikely to operate before this year is out. The obvious question here is exactly how many suitably experienced and trainable (read “English speaking”) pilots has the UAF got? It needs enough to fly the fleet it has, plus more for the F-16s. One way of affecting that equation is for Russia to kill pilots. If Ukraine is left with an excess of MiG and SUx aircraft, someone has to make a command decision whether to write off those airframes by sending the reducing number of pilots away for F-16 training and thereby depriving the UAF of net combat capability as its existing jets are grounded through a self-enforced lack of manpower.
To avoid labouring the point about the complexity and inconsistencies of the western information warfare capability, simply think back and compare what you can personally recall of the west’s messaging on the war and where the west stands now. Sanctions and combat don’t stand up to initial or ongoing claims about how the war would pan out, save for the fact that the west knew the war would come, fomented and extended it. Through the course of those actions, increasing amounts of military narrative across the USA, EU and UK has sprung leaks and it appears unable to fix all of them before the next wave of strikes come in and take something else of theirs off the table.
Political, Media and “Citizen” Narrative
This is much too large an area to cover in any significant sense save to say that you, the reader, must judge for yourself the quality, consistency, reliability and usefulness of the political, media and citizen narratives that you consume. It is for you to decide how you evaluate information. One key test is the predictive power it gives you, but this requires you to run back tests. What can be said is that all of this takes discernment and the will and ability to keep somewhat abreast of narrative you know is false or unreliable. This is a difficult discipline to maintain. An interesting periodic exercise to undertake is to simply use Chrome or Brave browsers with active translation extensions to look at Russian, Ukrainian or European news outlets and read their output. It can be more revealing that you might imagine. Here's a few samples from Ria Novosti today:
Russian Foreign Ministry: British intelligence services are behind the search for mercenaries for Ukraine
Adzuna job posting ad on the Adzuna job search engine website last week Middle East and North africa to participate in the Ukrainian counteroffensive. According to information provided on the portal, a company is looking for people to vacancy "military equipment for repair" on a full-time basis EU Citizenship Program, SUH in London. Applicants are offered to conclude an unlimited contract, they promise 20 thousand pounds.
Former Advisor to the Head of the Pentagon McGregor: The West Can't Make peace with Strong Russia
The West does not want to put up with independent Russia, so it continues to exacerbate the Ukrainian conflict, said former adviser to the head of the Pentagon, Colonel Douglas McGregor interview to journalist Stephen Gardner.
WSJ: China Rejected US Proposal for a Meeting of Defense Ministers at a Forum in Singapore
China rejected US proposal to hold a ministerial defense meeting on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue regional security forum in Singapore, newspaper writes The wall street journal with reference to sources in the Pentagon.
Europe is moving to the rails of the military economy. If you think this is an exaggeration, then this is not our fiction at all. This was directly stated by the head of European diplomacy, Joseph Borrel, saying that otherwise the worst is waiting for Europeans — ending the war in Ukraine. Pro-European media also call upcoming measures "industrial plan of the military economy".
American Twitter users criticized President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky for his congratulations on Memorial Day.
The head of the Kiev regime expressed gratitude to the American military, "whose power has turned into the power of freedom", "who was destined to show the whole world that freedom will always shine brightly on a hill". He also said that "the victory of Ukrainian soldiers will make this light shine brighter".
The new Russian satellite "Kosmos-2569" will conduct reconnaissance of military facilities in Ukraine
The new Russian radar satellite Cosmos-2569 will be able to conduct reconnaissance of Ukrainian military facilities up to twice a day, an informed source told RIA Novosti.
"The new Kondor-FKA radar satellite launched into orbit on Saturday will be used for reconnaissance of Ukrainian military facilities. On average, it will pass over Ukraine twice a day and is capable of shooting military facilities in the radar range with a resolution of one meter," he said.
Country.ua: Ukrainian military men become oligarchs with the help of conscripts
Employees of Ukrainian military committees are enriched by bribes from conscripts-clinists, writes "Country.ua" with reference to a source in armed groups.
""In Western Ukraine, now every military man is almost a billionaire... In my city, a military man has already released so many people from Odessa and Kharkov on help, " the interlocutor of the publication said.
The author of the material noted that there are more and more stories about bribery. For example, a military man of the Lviv region, a former deputy of the regional council, organized requisitions from district commissioners and took part in the theft of humanitarian aid. He also used the services of private security companies.
Atlantic: Ukrainians understand that they would already lose Russia without US help
Ukrainians are well aware that they would already lose to Russia without American help, the observer wrote Atlantic Corey Shake.
According to her, during a recent trip to Kiev she talked with officials and ordinary Ukrainians. Those with whom she met realize that Ukraine depends on American leadership, weapons and financial assistance, the journalist said.
Senator Pushkov said the US tried to hide an unpleasant fact about the American economy
The United States tried to justify its economic decline by hiding a curious fact, wrote in its Telegram channel Senator Alexei Pushkov.
According to him, the growth of American economic indicators over the past 20 years surprisingly coincides with the increase in the ceiling of the US public debt.
"His increase acquired an uncontrolled character in the early 2000s, and now it is already exponentially. In other words, US economic growth is largely driven by gigantic external financing, which has already exceeded their annual GDP by almost $ 7 trillion. This unpleasant "detail" propagandists of the American economy prefer to leave behind the scenes, "— said Pushkov.
What should be noted but obvious is that of the selection above, the vast majority is based directly on either the west’s own reporting, or western or Ukrainian sources. If Ria Novosti is biased, pro-Kremlin Russian propaganda, how much propaganda is it having to invent compared to the western output it is literally recycling in Russian? Ria Novosti is talking to a Russian readership and showing it what the west is saying about itself to itself.
Also, for some time the British have been actively recruiting foreign “workers” and mercenaries to operate in theatre from Africa for the paltry sum of just £20,000. That’s the price Britain places on a human life. This is lower than it estimates the maximum price of a vaccine killed British citizen, which maxes out at £120,000. It is frankly disgusting that the British government should pursue such a strategy outside its borders and this should be called out but won’t be. Rates for foreign fighters have anecdotally ranged from $500 to $3500 per month for US fighters. Why would anyone fight in the Ukraine war for $500 per month?
Bombast
Within the UN and military spheres, from what VST has observed, Russia’s obvious use of some degree of bombastic language can be sampled via several sources: Putin, Medvedev, UN representative Nebenzya, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Kremlin Spox Maria Zhakarova and Prigozhin. Let’s just lightly compare Medvedev and Putin.
Medvedev periodically engages in overt, bombastic statements aimed outside Russia’s borders. Medvedev employs direct, colourful and easy to parse rhetoric that is designed for public consumption and recycling in foreign media, as well as for bolstering the strength of a home audience. Tass has a page of Medvedev statements and Yandex returns plenty of articles. His tweets in English are here. A few quotes:
It is obvious to all the powers that be that if the US wants to defeat Russia, we are heading for a conflict on a global scale. If the US wants to defeat Russia, we have the right to defend ourselves with any weapon, including of the nuclear kind.
After all, the American establishment's reasoning so far has been the following: we will interfere in your affairs, we will supply copious amounts of weapons to the Kiev regime, we will work to defeat Russia, we will limit and destroy you, but strategic security is a separate topic. It's not related to the overall context of the US-Russia relationship. It is almost like a sacred cow.
Let the US elites who have lost touch with reality think about what they have achieved. Let's also watch the reaction of other NATO nuclear powers: France and the UK. Their strategic nuclear forces were not usually included in the list of nuclear warheads and carriers when preparing agreements between the United States and the USSR (Russia), but it is high time to do so.
Russia can only respond to this crime by directly killing terrorists, as is the custom elsewhere in the world. This is what Russian citizens expect. That was a terrorist act and sabotage committed by the criminal Kiev regime. There never was any doubt about that. All reports were presented and conclusions made,
The entire strategic nuclear arsenal was then left in this country. And we have been preserving it at a very high level. And that is the best guarantee of preserving Russia’s might.
Medvedev’s tweets span the direct, pithy, mocking, brutal and more, while being a means to subject his (and perhaps “Russia’s view”) to a back test. This lengthy tweet is key and should be read, digested, remembered and tested in the coming years. It could serve to be extremely prescient.1
Some other Medvedev tweet samples:
A certain person calling himself the president of France said that Russia had already lost geopolitically, and was transforming into the other countries’ vassal. The president of the Republic was obviously harmed by socializing with the Kiev junkie. He inhaled too much of the warm Paris air mixed with Ukrainian cocaine waste, that his guest was emitting. A geopolitical loss? It was back in 2022 that NATO was lazily shooing us away when the matter concerned the security guarantees. Like, leave us alone, no time for you. And now, all of the NATO member states go to bed at night, and wake up in the morning thinking of Russia. Moreover, some of the especially cowardly and suffering from phantom pains, like temporarily occupied Poland and our Baltic provinces, have well soiled themselves. So, if there has indeed been a loss, it is that of the primitive NATO politics, with its underlying ambition to play the exceptional role in the 21st century. Speaking of vassal dependence… Look who’s talking! Europe the beauty, including France, has turned into an elderly wench who is especially thoroughly satisfying all of the most perverted whims of Americans. And in the process, it is hurting its own economy and ordinary Europeans with masochistic lust. As they put it, tel maître, tel valet.
Borrell has spoken out against using the attack on the Kremlin for possible further escalation of the conflict. An impudent old fool. It is exactly to the escalation of the conflict it will lead, the terrorist attack committed by the Kiev authorities, guided by the US, and approved by the EU leadership. This is just what Washington and many dumbheads in Brussels want.
In Kiev, Stoltenberg said: “Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you to make this possible”. Translating NATO Secretary General’s utterance from Ukro-English into plain English: “over time” means, “will join the alliance with the parts by then belonging to Poland, Hungary, and Romania”, and “our support will help you” stands for, “it’s so good that soon I won’t be there”.
Putin delivers key, lengthy missives that lay out Russia’s view of the geopolitical situation. He characterises the western situation today as the failing of western states that have lost themselves amongst: the largesse of a visibly corrupt, morally confused if not bankrupt “values” that they can pursue if they wish but should not seek to force on others; their dependence on an outmoded, unipolar US-centric power model; overextension of the militaristic, imperialistic US empire that does not serve the interests of the international community of the global majority; and the abandonment of the rule of law at international and ruling elite/corporatocratic levels. Putin generally compares this to his stated desire - echoed by China and various strategic allies to some degree - for: primacy of the UN Charter and international law (law-based order); respect for and accommodation of multi-polar power models; respect for nationally diverse socio-political arrangements that implies the cessation of interventionist foreign policy that largely stems from the west; the superficial expression of “power” through law-abiding, mutually agreed and maintained relationships manifesting through trade and relations ahead of overt military dominance and subservience. Amongst this, Putin contrasts (and criticises) the decline of moral standards in the west to Russia’s fundamental historic conservatism that draws from its long religious and political history. Putin maintains a fundamental stance of the inalienable sovereignty of Russia and its intent to survive in the face of any and all overt and covert attempts to diminish it, with reference to innumerable historic events. This can largely be found amongst the transcripts of his speeches published by the Kremlin. 2 A couple of recent illustrative excerpts follow:
Today, our civilisation is at a crucial turning point. A real war is being waged against our country again but we have countered international terrorism and will defend the people of Donbass and safeguard our security.
We believe that any ideology of superiority is abhorrent, criminal and deadly by its nature. However, the Western globalist elites keep speaking about their exceptionalism, pit nations against each other and split societies, provoke bloody conflicts and coups, sow hatred, Russophobia, aggressive nationalism, destroy family and traditional values which make us human. They do all that so as to keep dictating and imposing their will, their rights and rules on peoples, which in reality is a system of plundering, violence and suppression.
They seem to have forgotten what the Nazis’ insane claims of global dominance led to. They forgot who destroyed that monstrous, total evil, who stood up for their native land and did not spare their lives to liberate the peoples of Europe.
It seems that the West really has decided to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian – no longer in words, but in deeds. But in this regard, I would like to note that if all this comes to pass, then Russia will have to respond accordingly. What I mean is that the collective West is already starting to use weapons with a nuclear component.
At the same time, I would like to emphasise that Russia and China pursue an independent and sovereign foreign policy. We jointly work to create a more just and democratic multipolar world order, which should be based on the central role of the UN, its Security Council, international law, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
We consider it important to continue to maintain close coordination within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, to work in conjunction with the G20, APEC and many other multilateral platforms, and, of course, to continue efforts to link integration processes within the EAEU and the Chinese Belt and Road initiative with an eye to creating the Greater Eurasian Partnership in the future.
In VST’s view, from a communications perspective, Putin ploughs a statesman-like furrow that is detailed, often grounded in historical references, direct, and serious. Putin’s speeches usually show up the dearth of quality displayed by US and UK leadership whose output is largely facile, superficial and typical of low-skilled people rotating through the fast track of corporatocratic nepotism. The “problem” with Putin and Lavrov is that they’ve been around for decades and are strategic thinkers and actors, which is bound to come across in their ability to communicate. Putin is renowned for his 4-hour long Q&A sessions on a broad spectrum of topics without any notes. This style of leadership is utterly absent in the west because the public face of power changes to maintain the illusion of democracy while the policies of actual power persist to be enacted by the changing faces. Of course, this means that one could argue that the “Putin regime” is therefore a dictatorship, but this would have to be proven by an inability to remove him or change elements of the Russian power structure. If this was not possible, there would be no point trying and yet the USA expends massive resources on trying to do just this (see Reaction to Western Strategy, below). Arguably, Russia has been under elements of consistent strategic leadership that has overseen its long term rebuild and recovery from the USSR’s collapse and the ruination of the USA proxy Yeltsin years. Whether it is a terrible regime is for the people of Russia to decide in exactly the same way the people of the west decide - through the constraints of the system they all tolerate.
Medvedev, by comparison, could be said to bring the bark of an attack dog via his direct, often vitriolic rhetoric that sometimes strays into invective but nonetheless, like Putin’s, recalls some form of historical reference to underpin his “opinions”. Together, they make up just two of the voices of a multi-headed Hydra, which comprises just one body and carries all the heads in the same direction. When one adds in Nebenzya, Lavrov, Zhakarova and even Prigozhin, what VST sees is roughly consistent alignment to shared goals and objectives. Only Prigozhin’s public criticism of aspects of the military rubs up against Mother Russia at levels below Putin and centring on Shoigu and Gerasimov, but his output is likely to serve two purposes: in theatre propaganda designed to affect the tactical and strategic decisions of the enemy in the Artyomovsk theatre; the protection of his interests in theatre and possibly beyond by forcing the Russian MoD to feed the Wagner machine in pursuit of victory in Artyomovsk and beyond. Prigozhin is often referred to in the west as a key figure in the Russian propaganda machine, having apparently been a funder of at least five films labelled as propagandistic in their depiction of aspects of recent Wagner engagements. Examples include “Granit”, “Solntsepyok” (“Blazing Sun”), and most recently “Best in Hell”. VST has seen “Best in Hell” and can state that it cinematically depicts a supposed real world two-hour-long urban assault mission undertaken by Wagner forces, up against an equally capable force. In order to convey the complexity of both sides of the mission it breaks the fourth wall and uses interspersed tactical outlines to keep the audience abreast of the moving engagement, both up close and from afar. It is a little like a more focussed version of Blackhawk Down, with a key difference being the bodycount on both sides and its depiction of the opposing force as being as capable as Team Russia.
Narrative Time Lag
Another measure of the quality of a given narrative is the time it takes for the narrative to adapt to and eventually reflect events and established facts. In this regard, the west fares poorly. It is taking roughly 10-12 months for the narrative to acknowledge hard realities of the war. Mostly, this lag is embodied by the effect western proxy and supply strategy was meant to have, versus what it is now acknowledged to have had.
14 months into the war’s hard outcomes to date and the west is finally acknowledging via various points of its information warfare matrix that western supplies will not result in a battlefield victory, and have exposed the west in totality to be overextended in terms of war supplies and its ability to fight other wars now or in the near future. Tensions between members of the US hegemon have been exposed, be that Hungary’s constant unwillingness to take sides and sanction EU efforts, or various signs of stress in France, Kosovo, Holland, Poland, Britain and elsewhere that are connected politically and financially to the war.
This lag exists because those who rule pursue policies using unaccountable and authoritarian means for reasons that do not reflect the interests of and are not democratically sanctioned by citizens. They implement those policies and take those actions while using captive media to propagandise their populations and thereby acquire short-term narrative legitimacy. After a time, that propaganda runs up against countervailing narrative and facts that force the narrative to have to be updated. Some truth penetrates the Empire of Lies and forces it to react. The speed at which this takes place is a measure of two things: the strength of the propaganda message and the machine that promulgates it; the competence and truthfulness of those in power. Competent truth tellers will never really have to modify or update their narratives as a result of being exposed as liars. At best, they will only adapt in the face of actual counterbalancing or reactionary actions taken by the opposing force.
The west’s narrative is having to be modified in light of its own lies. A key task of the propaganda machine is to hide, ignore or deny that lies were told. Additionally, Russia’s capability and capacity on the battlefield is also maintaining a combat (and wider political) reality that does not and never will comport with the US hegemon’s narrative. These two forces - western lies and Russia’s battlefield (and geopolitical) performance - combine and expose the western narrative as increasingly schizophrenic, fractured and out of touch with the real politik. This is why the west has resorted to accelerating its efforts in censorship of the information space in ways and for reasons that further expose its weakness.
On the international stage, Russia has not changed the reasons it did what it did. It also does not overtly lie about the progress of the war. Nor does it lead with bombastic statements about how the war will go. It also doesn’t undermine its future position by telegraphing actions. It simply prosecutes the dynamics of war, reacts to escalation, and counter-escalates in the way that RAND identified (see below). Russia itself warns of its will to counter-escalate and then it follows through. So far, as Ritter claimed, Russia has not bluffed. To claim that “Putin has bluffed about using nukes in the face of our escalation, so this proves he’s ultimately weak” is utterly absurd. One measure of lethal strength is the ability to exercise the appropriate amount of force to achieve an outcome without overstepping the mark. Russia’s ability to withstand provocations in all forms that seek to trigger a tactical or full blown nuclear release while achieving its objectives (over any time frame) is a measure of its strength.
Russia’s Reaction to Western Strategy
Since the start of the war (and before) Putin and Medvedev have been demonised in the western press, especially for stating that the entire Russian arsenal is at the nation’s disposal, and for laying out Russian nuclear weapons doctrine, in their differing styles and remits. The press and officials were expectedly quick to claim that Putin was engaging in “nuclear blackmail” and making direct threats to use nukes on a whim and first, when actually this does not stack up with events to date or Putin’s actual statements. All nuclear-armed nations possess doctrine or rules governing the weapons’ use and have variously cited them at times in the past in context. It should come as no surprise that declaring one’s nuclear doctrine is a means of backstopping escalation by reminding the world of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction when embroiled in active warfare against multiple nuclear powers. MAD has seemingly been forgotten by leaders in the west who continue to deliberately push Russia to react to their escalations and projectionist public narrative. Indeed, the west has fully admitted what it intended to do over the course of decades and it has done what was intended. The recent RAND report “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” is a tick list of actions that the US hegemon weighs and pursues. To wit:
ECONOMIC COST-IMPOSING MEASURES
Expanding U.S. energy production
The cost of these choices run counter to Climate Change narrative on a global basis as it is all fossil fuel-based
Imposing deeper trade and financial sanctions
Largely failed on historic basis and recently seem to have utterly backfired
Increasing Europe’s ability to import gas from suppliers other than Russia
Forcing the need to use other suppliers by literally destroying Russian supply lines, while lying about the reality of Russian energy supplies still being bought. This involved terrorist and criminal actions
Encouraging the emigration from Russia of skilled labor and well-educated youth
The intent to get Russian citizens to literally abandon ship
GEOPOLITICAL COST-IMPOSING MEASURES
Providing lethal aid to Ukraine
Done with massive lethal effect for the benefit of a minority. Potentially against the UN Charter
Increasing support to the Syrian rebels
Done but subject to failure following the involvement of Russia in support of Syria. Deepening failure due to reforming of M.E. relations independent of USA, who is now seeking to build more illegal bases in Syria. Against the UN Charter
Promoting liberalization in Belarus
Read fomenting a coup. Against the UN Charter.
Expanding ties in the South Caucasus
Read fomenting a coup in Armenia, Azerbaijan or Georgia (again) and opening a second front. This is being actively pursued. Against the UN Charter
Reducing Russian influence in Central Asia
Read fomenting a coup
Flip Transnistria and expel the Russian troops from the region
This is likely on the cards via the Ukraine war and Ukrainian, Russian and US forces have been deliberately positioned in and around Transnistria to keep this an active option
IDEOLOGICAL AND INFORMATIONAL COST-IMPOSING MEASURES
Diminishing faith in the Russian electoral system
If the Russian electoral system was broken or corrupt in the minds of the Russian population such that Putin is an unmovable and unwanted dictator, faith in the system would already be diminished. This is part of fomenting a coup and is
Creating the perception that the regime is not pursuing the public interest
Which suggests that a perception existed/exists that the regime is pursuing the public interest
Encouraging domestic protests and other nonviolent resistance
Read fomenting a coup in Russia. Against the UN Charter.
Undermining Russia’s image abroad
Read anti-Russian propaganda campaigns
AIR AND SPACE COST-IMPOSING MEASURES
Reposturing bombers within easy striking range
Done via NATO for decades and with increasing intent now via Ukraine
Reposturing fighters so that they are closer to their targets
Done via NATO for decades and with increasing intent now via Ukraine, Finland, Sweden and other NATO expansion
Repositioning U.S. and allied ballistic missile defense systems
“Repositioning” can also mean expansion, see Finland.
A key risk of these options is being drawn into arms races that result in cost-imposing strategies directed against the United States. The United States might goad Russia into a costly arms race by breaking out of the nuclear arms control regime, but the benefits are unlikely to outweigh U.S. costs. The financial costs of a nuclear arms race would probably be as high for the United States as they would be for Russia, perhaps higher. But the more serious costs would be political and strategic.
MARITIME COST-IMPOSING MEASURES
Increasing U.S. and allied naval force posture and presence
NATO expansion, US fleet deployment and permanent base expansion e.g. Syria
Increasing naval R&D efforts
Ongoing weapons development
Checking the Black Sea build-up
Attempts made to actually destroy it in the Ukraine war
Shifting nuclear posture toward SSBNs
LAND AND MULTIDOMAIN COST-IMPOSING MEASURES
Increasing U.S. forces in Europe, increasing European NATO member ground capabilities, and deploying a large number of NATO forces on the Russian border
Done
Increasing the size and frequency of NATO exercises in Europe may help to enhance readiness and deterrence, but it is unlikely to prompt a costly Russian response unless the exercises also send risky signals.
Done. Provided cover for Nord Stream bombing according to Sy Hersh
Developing but not deploying an intermediate-range missile
TBC
Incremental investments in new technologies
Ongoing
CONCLUSIONS
The most-promising options to “extend Russia” are those that directly address its vulnerabilities, anxieties, and strengths, exploiting areas of weakness while undermining Russia’s current advantages. In that regard, Russia’s greatest vulnerability, in any competition with the United States, is its economy, which is comparatively small and highly dependent on energy exports. Russian leadership’s greatest anxiety stems from the stability and durability of the regime, and Russia’s greatest strengths are in the military and info-war realms. The table below draws from the earlier tables to identify the most-promising options.
Most of the options discussed, including those listed here, are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counterescalation. Thus, besides the specific risks associated with each option, there is additional risk attached to a generally intensified competition with a nuclear-armed adversary to consider. This means that every option must be deliberately planned and carefully calibrated to achieve the desired effect. Finally, although Russia will bear the cost of this increased competition less easily than the United States will, both sides will have to divert national resources from other purposes. Extending Russia for its own sake is not a sufficient basis in most cases to consider the options discussed here.
Rather, the options must be considered in the broader context of national policy based on defense, deterrence, and—where U.S. and Russian interests align—cooperation.
Given all of the above RAND recommendations and long standing US efforts across most of the options, how should Russia react? From its perspective, doing nothing or acquiescing is not an option. What would you expect your nation to do if it were subject to an equivalent and published strategic intent that would result in the literal break up of your nation? Why doesn’t the content of the RAND report constitute a plan for hybrid war? Why would any nation not pay attention to the public output of a US think tank that plays a role in determining and reflecting actual US foreign and military policy? Are both Putin’s and Medvedev’s public statements in any way justified in reaction to just the RAND report’s recommendations of potential actions against it, many of which represent meddling in other UN nation’s internal affairs?
The low-browed also cite Russia’s supposed inability to bring Kiev and its sponsors to heel within days, weeks or months as a direct measure of its total ineptitude. Such people take no account of both what Russia is really up against and the limits it has imposed on itself from the outset. The USA could not bring Iraq to heel in the three years it was there, using an indiscriminate shock-and-awe aerial campaign in the absence on any air power. It could not manage the civil war and insurgency it unleashed. What Iraq is today came at a price in blood and treasure that numbers into the millions of bodies and trillions of dollars and was wholly illegal. The same for Afghanistan over a twenty year period, where the justification is brought into question by the simple fact that the Taliban remain in power.
Russia by comparison has tried multiple approaches in Ukraine before it invaded. Its invasion started with a high speed entry that brought Kiev to the table and to heel until the US hegemon said it would directly sponsor war. Since then, Russia has adapted on a multi-phase basis while the dynamics of kinetic war against a tough, defensive enemy have played out. While the tactical methods have escalated in line with the force applied against it, Russia’s objectives have remained the same. The amount of territory it will take depends partly on its strategic assessment of the risks it will face into the future from the Ukraine that remains, the amount it has spent and blood it has spilled, and what it can actually achieve with its military. It has gone from trying to make Kiev capitulate by swinging its big stick a few times to now constantly demonstrating its ability to genuinely grind and crush Ukraine until the place is totally wrecked, in line with Mearsheimer’s and Cohen’s predictions. To grind and wreck Ukraine is to do the same to its sponsors through their proxy and they know it. Those sponsors are fighting a two front battle against Russia (and its growing allies among the “global majority”), and against their own people. The main tools of the internal battle are the propaganda machine, the suppressive strength of law and security forces, and the ability to control people by putting them under increasing financial and economic stress. There is a point in that Venn diagram where the pressure cannot be contained. Approaching that point, the rate of narrative change will start to look increasingly exponential. In VST’s opinion, Europe is at the base of that curve.
To answer the question of whether Russia is winning the information war, the answer depends on where one is looking. From VST’s assessment, Russia’s actions and words match up and the measurably accurate statements and truthy parts of its narrative are beginning to penetrate the western media sphere. The Empire of Lies is actually having to acknowledge and admit to Russian narrative, on a year long lag. Some of Russia’s “truthbombs” are beginning to penetrate, even if they are still getting spun. However, if you don’t look at what VST looks at, and you don’t think the same way, it is perfectly possible to believe a totally different narrative that the west is still pumping out. However, that narrative has changed and still contains concessions and admissions of prior western falsehoods. That’s still an indication that Russia is making some form of progress in the information war.
Predictions
For its own intellectual amusement and that of its readers, VST is willing to make some predictions:
Some form of “counteroffensive” will take a maximum of three months of substantial fighting at two points along the front. Russian forces will surge and try to breakthrough a different point on the front to ensure that no matter the progress elsewhere, it is uncontained in country somewhere, saturating Ukraine’s management and resources. From that surge, it may loop back and enclose the other areas of fighting to repeat its cauldron tactics. This will comprise much higher amounts of air power. There is reportedly one major line of Ukrainian defence left beyond Artyomovsk. If true and Russia penetrates or circumvents it, that will be a key moment marked by violent swings in the western narrative and possibly panicked attempts to revert to diplomacy by France and Germany going through China.
In the course of that fighting, Ukraine and its sponsors will carry out some form of near unimaginable outlier act such as a compromise of a nuclear facility, destruction of major dams in the south that flood a vast area, or shocking damage to Russian interests e.g. the eventually successful sabotage of a major ship in the Black Sea fleet or a big terror attack on Russian territory. This outlier act will not have overwhelming military significance, rather it will be an act of childish military desperation gone too far that could not have been done by Ukraine alone, especially when fully embroiled in total war. The world will largely be publicly quiet in the face of such an act, but it will mark the public beginning of the end of the west’s extension strategy.
Semi-simultaneously, waves of deeper Russian strikes will constantly ramp up on Kiev and other command locations to actively kill more of the capable political, military and security personnel below the primary layer, where the primary layer are not competent. Military supply points further west may be massively targeted to substantially choke off western resupply via road, rail and air.
Some F-16s will enter Ukraine. How much they’re used won’t be revealed but the propaganda value of their shoot down will be high. Russia will consider tolerating their use in order to give it a chance at shoot downs and will then quickly focus on annihilating airbases and known informal runways.
Transnistria will see a military incursion, likely an attempted attack on a Russian ammo dump. This will be desperately justified by the need to strike Russian military interests in light of its grinding progress. The attack will be conducted similarly to present Russian border incursions i.e. by forces designed to provide (im)plausible deniability. The US may use that attack to enter the territory and “independently secure” the location. This may be the outlier event, but it could happen separate to that.
Zelensky’s leadership will end before the war ceases. He will indirectly carry the can for the outlier act and territorial losses that do not comport with any of his statements and tactical or strategic decisions. Artyomovsk will be cited as his key mistake in ignoring his generals and going rogue from the west’s guidance. Theatrically, some form of health issue will justify his removal and handover to leadership that will be instructed to begin to capitulate and make noises for negotiations. Zelensky’s departure will “wipe the slate” with global leadership who have been variously offended (publicly or otherwise) with his “leadership” style. This will pave the way for the scrapping of the requirement for Putin to leave power before negotiations can occur. China and Turkey will be involved in the mediation. In extremis, Zelensky may be killed by “disgruntled, disappointed and alienated right-wing extremists who fought for a Ukrainian victory that can no longer be fully realised thanks to uncompromising Russian imperial bloodlust.” He will be hailed as a European martyr and a totally false legacy will be erected after his death that is used constantly as a rallying cry for general, unrelated issues like humanity’s fight against climate change and for DEI agenda.
Into winter, more Russian energy than today will be finding its way back into Europe to prevent widescale industrial collapse. This will not be admitted in the mainstream, even though the signs have been there since the war started. Meanwhile, citizens will be under greater energy price and supply stress than last winter. The ruling elite will keep that pressure on out of subservience to US political objectives, even in the face of increasing public discontent. Increasingly draconian, authoritarian measures combined with more overt and nonsensical propaganda will be employed across the continent and the dissent will feed the authoritarianism.
Within a year from now, Russia will hold the minimum territory it will settle for but the war may not actually be over.
What remains of Ukraine will eventually be broken up under the guise that it is the only way it can be sensibly rebuilt using EU money i.e. under the territorial stewardship of Poland, Hungary and perhaps Moldova. This arrangement will be an extension of EU money laundering and wealth transfer with reconstruction following a kind of Iraq/Halliburton model that is eventually exposed as utterly corrupt and totally opaque, connected directly to the elites in and around the EU Commission.
Somewhere in the world a new biological threat in the form of a deliberate outbreak will occur and the Covid 2.0 narrative will start to spin up and fill the narrative gaps the wind down of the Ukrainian disaster leaves open, serving partly to draw attention away from how the war hawks pick over Ukraine’s smashed carcass.
WHY WILL UKRAINE DISAPPEAR? BECAUSE NOBODY NEEDS IT
1. Europe doesn’t need Ukraine. The forced support of the Nazi regime, by the American mentor’s order, has put Europeans into a financial and political inferno. All for the sake of bandera’s unterukraine, that even the snobby, insolent Polacks don’t take for a valid country, and time and again toss in the issue of its western areas anschluss. There’s a nice perspective ahead: to permanently put the nouveau-Ukrainian blood-sucking parasites on the decrepit EU’s arthritis-crippled neck. That’ll be the final fall of Europe, once majestic, but robbed off by degeneration.
2. The US doesn’t need Ukraine. True, the military and sanction campaigns are attempted for PR by political blabbermouths, who long ago attested to their impotence and imbecility. Average Americans don’t understand what “Ukraine” is, and where “it” is. Most of them won’t show this “power” on the map on the first take. Why won’t the US establishment focus on inflation and job issues, or emergencies in their home States, instead of a country 404, unbeknownst to them? Why does so much dough go across the ocean? Sooner or later, they’ll ask for that. Then, storming of the Capitol in January 2021 would seem like scout games.
3. Africa and Latin America don’t need Ukraine. The hundreds of millions spent by US on pointless fights in Ukraine, could finance many development programmes for Latin American and African states. Latin America is gringos’ backyard – that’s what they’ve been rubbing in for decades. Africa’s had its share of suffering from the genocide, and colonial dependence, imposed by former western slave traders. That’s why the people of African huts and Latin American favelas ask a very reasonable question: for their former suffering and present-day loyalty, why is somebody else rewarded – very, very far away?
4. Asia doesn’t need Ukraine. By Russia’s example, they see “colour” technologies at work to eradicate the largest competing powers. They understand what scenario the America-led collective West has for them if they disobey. “Help us to overcome Russia, and we’ll soon come to you”, the utterly brazen Western leaders tell them. Such gigantic countries as India, China, and other Asia-Pacific states face the big enough challenge of post-pandemic economic recovery, let aside the drugged clowns, with their whining for aid. “We are not interested in you”, Asia tells their messengers, responding to the calls to support Ukraine and confine Russia. The country, geopolitically many times closer to Asian powers, the one that historically has proven itself a reliable strategic partner. Do Asian giants need such headache coming from former colonisers?
5. Russia doesn’t need Ukraine. A threadbare quilt, torn, shaggy, and greasy. The new Malorossiya of 1991 is made up of the artificially cut territories, many of which are indigenously Russian, separated by accident in the 20th century. Millions of our compatriots live there, harassed for years by the Nazi Kiev regime. It is them who we defend in our special military operation, relentlessly eradicating the enemy. We don’t need unterukraine. We need Big Great Russia.
6. Finally, its own citizens don’t need the Nazi-headed Ukraine. That’s why out of 45 million people there’re only some 20 million remaining. That’s why those who stayed want to leave for any place: the hated Poland, EU, NATO, to be America’s 51nd state. Joining the Antarctic with its pinguins will also be fine. As long as it’s quiet, and the food’s good. The ruling junta’s criminal ambitions forced Ukrainians to beg and roam around the countries and continents, searching for a better life. All that is for an obscure European perspective. Or rather, to let the harlequin in a khaki tricot and his band of thievish Nazi clowns to put the money stolen from the West into their offshore accounts. Would ordinary Ukrainians need that?
Nobody on this planet needs such a Ukraine. That’s why it will disappear
President of Russia – Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation Armed Forces Vladimir Putin attended a military parade marking the 78th anniversary of Victory in the 1941–1945 Great Patriotic War.
For us, for Russia, there are no unfriendly or hostile nations either in the west or in the east. Just like the vast majority of people on the planet, we want to see a peaceful, free and stable future.
We believe that any ideology of superiority is abhorrent, criminal and deadly by its nature. However, the Western globalist elites keep speaking about their exceptionalism, pit nations against each other and split societies, provoke bloody conflicts and coups, sow hatred, Russophobia, aggressive nationalism, destroy family and traditional values which make us human. They do all that so as to keep dictating and imposing their will, their rights and rules on peoples, which in reality is a system of plundering, violence and suppression.
They seem to have forgotten what the Nazis’ insane claims of global dominance led to. They forgot who destroyed that monstrous, total evil, who stood up for their native land and did not spare their lives to liberate the peoples of Europe.
We see how in certain countries they ruthlessly and cold-bloodedly destroy memorials to Soviet soldiers, demolish monuments to great commanders, create a real cult of the Nazis and their proxies, erase and demonise the memory of true heroes. Such profanation of the feat and sacrifices of the victorious generation is also a crime, an outright revanchism on the part of those who were cynically and blatantly preparing a new march on Russia and who brought together neo-Nazi scum from around the world for this.
Their goal – and there is nothing new about it – is to break apart and destroy our country, to make null and void the outcomes of World War II, to completely break down the system of global security and international law, to choke off any sovereign centres of development.
Boundless ambition, arrogance and impunity inevitably lead to tragedies. This is the reason for the catastrophe the Ukrainian people are going through. They have become hostage to the coup d’état and the resulting criminal regime of its Western masters, collateral damage in the implementation of their cruel and self-serving plans.
The memory of defenders of the Fatherland is sacred for us in Russia, and we cherish it in our hearts. We give credit to members of the Resistance who bravely fought Nazism as well as the troops of the allied armies of the United States, Great Britain and other countries. We remember and honour the feat of Chinese soldiers in the fight against Japanese militarism.
I strongly believe that the experience of solidarity and partnership during the years of fighting a common threat is our invaluable heritage and a secure foothold now when the unstoppable movement is gaining momentum towards a more just multipolar world, a world based on the principles of trust and indivisible security, of equal opportunities for a genuine and free development of all nations and peoples.
It is crucial that leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States have gathered here in Moscow today. I see it as appreciation of the feat of our ancestors: they fought and won together since all the peoples of the USSR contributed to our common Victory.
We will always remember that. We bow our heads in cherished memory of those who lost their lives during the war, the memory of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, sisters and friends.
I declare a minute of silence.
(A minute of silence.)
Citizens of Russia,
The battles that were decisive for our Motherland always became patriotic, national and sacred. We are faithful to our ancestors’ legacy and have a deep and clear awareness of what it means to be up to the mark of their military, labour and moral achievements.
We take pride in the participants in the special military operation, all those fighting on the frontlines, those who deliver supplies to the front and save the wounded under fire. Your combat activities now are of paramount importance. The country’s security depends on you today as does the future of our statehood and our people. You commendably perform your combat duty fighting for Russia. Your families, children and friends stand behind you. They are waiting for you. I am sure you can feel their unfailing love.
The entire country has united to support our heroes. Everyone is ready to help, everyone prays for you.
Comrades, friends, dear veterans,
Today, every family in our country honours Great Patriotic War participants, remembers their family members and their heroes, and lays flowers to military memorials.
We are standing on Red Square, a place which remembers retainers of Yury Dolgoruky and Dmitry Donskoy, the people’s militia of Minin and Pozharsky, soldiers of Peter the Great and Kutuzov, the military parades of 1941 and 1945.
Today we have here participants in the special military operation – regular servicemen and those who joined the army ranks during the partial mobilisation, troops of the Lugansk and Donetsk corps, many volunteer units, personnel of the National Guard, Interior Ministry, Federal Security Service, Emergencies Ministry and other security agencies and services.
My greetings to all of you, friends. My greetings to everyone who is fighting for Russia in the battlefield, who is now in the line of duty.
Our heroic ancestors proved during the Great Patriotic War that nothing can beat our strong, powerful and reliable unity. There is nothing stronger than our love for the Motherland.
For Russia! For our glorious Armed Forces! For Victory!
As we approach the final chapters of yet another useless war, all that's left is to send in the clowns. Oh wait, my country, the US, has done just that. I am embarrassed for our senseless interference in these affairs.
The neocons like Lindsay still hate Russia for no good reason. Russians and Ukrainians are like any others hoping to live in peace. It is the barbarians in the DC Swamp that seek to wreck the world...including their own country.
As we approach the final chapters of yet another useless war, all that's left is to send in the clowns. Oh wait, my country, the US, has done just that. I am embarrassed for our senseless interference in these affairs.
The neocons like Lindsay still hate Russia for no good reason. Russians and Ukrainians are like any others hoping to live in peace. It is the barbarians in the DC Swamp that seek to wreck the world...including their own country.
Thank you for providing a source of “reality” for those of us seeking to understand the nonsensical US support of this Ukraine “war”.