• The end of the Ukrainian success story

    Date: 2014.08.31 | Category: in english | Tags: ,,

     

    This is an english translation of this article. All the nice english prose (and all the gratitude) is attributed to the translator and all the errors to the deteriorating pidgin english I use the last few years to communicate here in germany)

     

    The news kept coming in over the past month, but only last week it became clear what the situation there is all about.

    According to the official narrative, the past two months the Ukrainian army, with the help of their friends of the fascist militias, was ready to crush the filthy worms, who until a few months ago were their fellow citizens, but now have transformed into clones of Putin destroying innocent Malaysian airplanes. The “consultants” of the CIA located in Ukraine, continuously fed the ever credulous (but with high journalistic principles of course) BBC with various similar “feel good” reports. After all, the attacks against civilians by artillery missiles in the two large cities around the resistance areas (Donetsk and Luhansk) made it ​​clear who had the upper hand. The Americans pressed Kiev to close the case before the Europeans had a chance to wake up. Nevertheless the international isolation against Russia weighed upon the shoulders of Putin.

    And suddenly the BBC and the rest of the Western media (with its high journalistic principles), found out that the rebels who had supposedly confined themselves in their cities and waited upon their defeat, were found to be located 10km from Mariupol, a city in the southwest and completely outside the field of battle. So great was this “surprise” that in order to justify it to the Western and the local population, the new president of Ukraine and American puppet Porosenko, came out and accused Russia of outright invasion.

    Of course no such invasion has happened, despite the fact that Russia allows a steady stream of volunteer groups to cross the borders in order to help their brothers in the new Russia (the locals call the rebellious areas Novorossiya). And apart from the blessings of the local orthodox priest, the Russian government offers for free a special giftbox with the appropriate military equipment and of course the appropriate volunteer “counselor” (instead of a how-to manual).

    The physical and financial help of the Russian towards the rebels became apparent by two events before about two months. a) the rebellious areas acquired cash liquidity, b) the rebellious areas practically counteracted the air superiority of the Ukrainian army with anti-aircraft short-range missiles (manpads). The timing and the way it happened, show that this was not a result of an accidental discovery of a stock of such portable missiles.

     

     

    A civil war directly from the manual of how to conduct one.

    The modern western warfare doctrine followed by the Ukrainian army,takes for granted the complete air superiority on the battlefield. And this doctrine has its origin in the opponents chosen by the Americans over the past 20 years- in few words, armies that were technologically closer to 1955 than to 2000 . Thus when the directors of the CIA gave guidelines on how to conduct the civil war, they followed a very linear logic, which starts from the Greek civil War (with all the lessons learned the germans left there from 1944) and reaches the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    For starters, the Ukrainian army, which obviously had no desire to start a civil war, should be reformed. The officers who did not show enough fervor against their fellow citizens, quickly were releaved from their positions and were replaced by others more willing (as in Greece in 1946-1947). We have known for months now how willing soldiers were trained in the forests of Poland. The alliance between “new-europe”/ US neocons after all exists many years before Rumsfeld invented the term in 2003.

    The Polish and other eastern Europeans therefore trained in their territory the ideological (and several times and natural) descendants of the brigades of Stepan Bandera, who slaughtered Polish with greater fervor than any other unit of the SS. These new seedlings of democracy found their place in the Ukrainian army, or in the event that they were too thick skulled- into militias that magically appeared, funded by various oligarchs, like the massacer of odessa EU citizen Kolomoisky (a splendid hagiography from wall street journal here) .

    At the same time the counselors of CIA, with the decorations of Maidan in their pocket, tried to reform the Ukrainian airforce, which was in a pitiful state, as was the rest of the Ukrainian army. Besides, each oligarch president over the past 15 years had ensured to increase exports of arms and his personal fortune, many times even with arms slightly used from the warehouse of the Ukrainian army. You see, customers sometimes were in a hurry and could not wait for the reasonable period of time required when delivering weapons systems. This reform involved not only finding pilots who would be willing to attack their fellow citizens, but also finding effective combat aircrafts even from the stock of the allies of the new Europe. Kiev could not fly with f16 and a nice solution had to be found for the issue. Relieving the old USSR stock from “new europe”, tanks, airplanes and other heavy weaponry made its way to ukraine, in the same “porous” borders.

    The idea thus was a small army of willing Ukrainians and Nazi militias entering the rebel areas and giving an end to the little resistance and a population that may not have liked the February coup, but would not necessarily take up arms to secede. This new army may have had higher morale than the old Ukrainian -unwilling to fight a civil war- army, but very low-level military training, so the whole project would be supported by air. The air superiority essentially forgives many a tactical shit gone wrong on the ground.

    Somewhat like that began the invasion of eastern Ukraine, with the massacre in Odessa (the nationalists in Kiev refer to those victims of Kulikovo Pole Square as “May Day shish-kebabs”) showing the fate that the losers could expect.

    And then in the early summer we start seeing a distinct change in the character of the civil war. Instead of the theater-style roadblock squats with only a few real skirmishes between rebels and the army we saw in the first few months, now we start seeing this qualitative change the CIA consultants in Kiev were preparing. The war gets serious, airplanes start attacking cities and artillery begins to hit populated areas without the initial “failure”, or use of the wrong ammunition which previously distinguished them. Thus, the goal of Kiev becomes clear. Because one is not going to attack a very weak guerrilla army (we know of this weakness from the rebel leaders themselves, who in the beginning complained about the unwillingness of the citizens to participate in the movement), starting by bombing cities. The only certainty is that it will infuriate the locals and push them to the rebels side. The only reason to do this is to “compel” the Russians to intervene by invading the Ukraine and thus justifying the narrative about a new cold war against the aggressive and brutal Russian. Practically Kiev tried to create a situation of equivalent asphyxiation with the one created by the Serbs in Sarajevo, by sitting on the hills and bombarding the city at will.

    Porosenko and his men sacrificed Ukraine in order to make Victoria’s Nuland dream a reality. And as the Russians did not invade, he pressured for more attacks on civilians and cities, but that simultaneously created a de facto breakdown of the country as the ambivalent locals wouldnt be too happy to return to the Ukrainian union. If you see the map of battles this is absolutely clear. The Ukrainian army surrounded cities almost indifferent to the rebels, who at the same time were mainly in the forests.

    The Russians therefore seeing the trap that the Americans were preparing for them, decided to play their own proxy war card and began to support the resistance even more feverishly. As the Ukrainian army with Nazi militias could not repeat the massacre in Odessa on a large scale, there was no reason for a Russian invasion. By arming the rebels therefore, they tried to prevent the advance of Kiev to the east and to create a safe space for insurgent areas, while at the same time calming their public with a wink that the “little green men” (i.e. their “consultants”) were protecting their brothers.

    At the same time they adopted a very clever narrative on a antifascist front both at home and abroad. The anti-fascist front awakened memories of the Great Patriotic War (and great victory) and at the same time raised doubts in the western camp, which always keeps for itself the role of the good guy. Especially for a reluctant Germany, the accusation that they once again support the Banteristas was too heavy to pass unnoticed.

    Nevertheless the movements of the volunteers (along with the necessary “consultants”) and of the military equipment was quite discreet in the early months. But while the rebels did not seem capable of repelling the onslaught of the increasingly determined Ukrainian army, Russia decide to pick up the glove of escalation. And offered to the rebels the same weapon that the Americans had offered to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan: portable anti-aircraft missiles. It is exactly the point where for the first time such quantities of missiles appear, that can not be justified from a looted warehouse of the Ukrainian army or weapons left by defeated or indifferent to a civil fight units of the Ukrainian army (we had plenty of those in the beginning). At the same time it is clear from multiple sources that the political leadership of the rebels has money and thus practically creates a de facto second administration. This money cannot possibly come from the locals, as the economic crunch of the insurgents was clear.

    The same obviously applies to the camp of Kiev, as the Ukrainian economy is deeply bankrupt and with no natural gas supply from Russia. Their payments are taken over by the American via the oligarchs.

    The use of portable anti-aircraft missiles prevents the so called close air support (CAS) flights and thus the Ukrainian army and Nazi militias lost a great tactical advantage. But their numbers and weapon superiority, allows them to occupy cities and to count victories. It is practically difficult for the rebels, like any guerrilla army, to hold their ground so their main task became to damage the attackers as much as they can. If you combine this with Kievs’ army obsession to surround and bomb cities (in order to cause the Russian invasion), a clear picture of what was happening is formed.

    The first dramatic change in favor of the rebels happened about a month ago, when a sizable force of the Ukrainian army was directed to the south of Luhansk trying to surround it. The problem was that in this move the unit was pinned down and aid from the West was far from arriving. The failure of the airforce units not only to provide them with ammunition, but also to actually bail them out, practically left them isolated from the rest of the army. For one month the rebels and most probably Russian artilery from the adjacent border, bombed them until practically the whole force was dissolved. And this is a very familiar pattern, not only in Ukraine, but also in the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    I know at least two cases in the invasion of Iraq where the American troops found themselves surrounded, far away from other friendly forces and ready to be vanquished. The one is quite known. It was that weekend where Americans played the melodramatic salvation of JI Jane from the nearby Iraqi civilian hospital nurses. Of course, the real drama was played elsewhere. The only reason we have not learned about this disaster of the US Army was their complete air supremacy. This superiority is something the Ukrainian no longer have, so advanced army units, especially near the two major insurgent cities, are being frequently cut off and isolated.

    The problem with the Sarajevo tactic followed by the Ukrainian, is that it offers almost no tactical advantage, because it does not address the rebel threat. The aim was to provide a strategic advantage, the official invasion of Russia and the corresponding formal invasion by NATO, in order to create the new Korea and the new cold war. Which like the original, would not be cold at all. But as long as the opponent refuses to play the role it is offered, the Sarajevo tactic acts only negatively. Not only because it de facto places the locals in the camp of the rebels, but also because it allows the rebels to follow their own plans, as city bombardment is not harassing them at all.

    This is exactly what we see happening in the last 10 days. Several of the most willing Ukrainian military forces are pinned down around urban centers, while at the same time rebels are heading south-west to Mariupol.

    This defeat has multiple effects in Kiev. On the one hand pro-Nazis began to accuse Porosenko for treason (how else to explain the defeat to a right-wing brain), on the other hand families of conscripts serving in the Ukrainian army seem to have reached their limits for a war that they never asked for and practically is carried out ​​for the US and Nuland’s allies. Naturally the conscripts themselves and their families would have fewer objections if the Ukrainian army was winning, but as we know defeat is an orphan.

     

     

    On the great chessboard

    This defeat has clearly a great impact abroad too. Initially in Germany, the establishment of which was divided between those who followed the Americans and the fans of ost politik seeking to find a solution of some kind with Russia for Ukraine. As you can imagine, the famous for her “mercurial” shifts in policy (i.e. where the wind blows) chancellor was originally drafted in favor of western intervention and invasion of NATO. But as soon as she realized that the bankrupt Ukraine will become a big bad new Kosovo for which she will be forced to pay, she decided that the wind has changed and now speaks of an enlarged autonomy of areas that revolted and maybe the secession of some “historically russian” areas that the (always bad) Bolsheviks made them part of Ukraine during the soviet tames . The French were more suspicious of the plan of the new cold war. The British on the other continue to beat the drums of war along with the New Europe.

    On the other side of the pond, Nuland and friends (even on the “opponent” camp like Hillary) see once again their plans going sour (after the defeat in Gaza), as practically no one else aparts from them wants to endorse the policy of chaos and the new cold war. How will the peace Nobel Prize winner Obama react? -frankly i don’t know, as he does not have the flexibility of the German Chancellor. The only sure thing is that he must choose among the new aggressive stance towards China, the cold war with Russia and the new crusade against the daash jihadists. Public relations would bet on the third as it is a topic that the most at the UN would agree on and is a relatively attainable goal. But it is evident that Nuland and co. have not necessarily said their last word. Especially with their own Hillary at the helm.

    Whatever the case, summer is at its end, it’s getting colder, time is hopelessly running out for the puppets in Kiev and Obama can write in his diary that during his presidency he managed to dismantle just four countries. And the narrative for Ukraine ends somewhere here with two guest stars.

     

     

    Economic Sanctions

    The inability of the West to accept the end of its Almighty is so big, that it makes them behave in a completely comic (and of course ineffective) fashion. The latest example of this blindness is the economic embargo on Russia. An embargo is effective only in the following two cases. a) when everyone is adhering to it, or b) when the one who imposes it has the military capability to sustain its enforcement. A relatively successful example of the first case was the sanctions on bad Saddam (although the Chinese were not so keen). Successful examples of the latter is almost all the embargoes imposed by the British Navy from the early 19th century until 1941.

    So when the Americans and the Europeans decide to impose overnight an embargo against Russia, it is obvious that this embargo is far from being successful. a) because they do not have the military power to enforce it, and b) because the rest of the world does not agree with them. There was a no more powerful “in your face” than the signing of the large Sino-Russian agreement, when at the same time the Western media deluded themselves that Putin would come crying to the feet of Baroness Ashton begging Europe to lift the embargo against Russia.

    And as if that was not enough, when Europe and USA (except France who was whistling casually and said that the frigates will be handed over) proceeded to an even harsher embargo, the Russian government responded with a corresponding embargo of their own. Their objective was clear: to split the European front. There was a no more ridiculous response than the European bureaucrats statement, saying that the Russian embargo is contrary to the agreements of WTO. The truth is that the blinded West can not imagine how one can impose sanctions on them as easily as they themselves disperse their own.

     

    And what about that Malaysian plane

    Do you remember that Malaysian plane? No, not the one in the Indian ocean, the other one, lost over Ukraine. Remember that Obama immediately came out and said that the Russians launched a BUK missile and that the rebels do not have such weapons, so it had to be the Russians? Remember the panic the next few weeks all over the Western media? You remember, right? Well now all the Western media wants you to do is to forget it all. Like the magical snipers of Maidan, this too disappeared from the news and went along with the great mysteries of the universe, along with the Bermuda Triangle, the existence of UFO and the great pyramid of cheops.

    The black boxes have been for almost a month in the hands of the British. Thank God that we wanted an independent accident investigation authority. It doesn’t get more independent than the British. They were the same ones who argued that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. But anyway, so far we have not heard a word of what these boxes have to say, from the otherwise very talkative British. At the same time, the Dutch announced that over the coming weeks they would have some preliminary findings, but also indicated that they would not have the contents of the black boxes released. Generally the issue is buried in the third basement of all Anglo-Saxon media. Only wikipedia is left echoing the propaganda of the first weeks, continuing to insist that they know who hit the plane. And only this last week decided to keep a more neutral stance, taking under consideration that maybe wapo (washington post), when invoking U.S. Department of Defense, may not be such a reliable source.

    The reliable UK media on the other hand are dealing with the recognition of the second British person who was on board. To escape the humiliation maybe they will start a public pilgrimage or even try to resurrect Diana.

    As with 9/11, so with the flight MH17, you do not need to know exactly what happened. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be nice, I am saying that this is likely we will never find out what really happened. What you need to know is that the official narrative is see through quality. And you need to follow the train of thought of the players. The Americans and their friends were so clear from the way they moved, that there is no reason to discuss the details. All statements supported the launch of the new cold war. And fortunately this seems to be prevented. As for the victims? I hope you do not really believe that anyone is interested in the victims, as they do not make good headlines to promote the agenda. Even if half of them are Westerners.