And yet America continues to send materiel, demanding to continue its war on Ukraine to the last Ukrainian ... all for Victoria and Austin and Lockheed and Raytheon and Graham and to hide the corruption of the Biden Crime Family and America’s illegal biowarfare labs.
Has there, ever in history, been such a cynical and existential war to protect the illegalities of the administration of a Great Power, as this totally unnecessary annihilation of human beings to protect the illegitimate and illegally-acting American government?
The oligarchy in the Roman republic (after the overthrow of its last king and the imposition of austerity) waged many wars in order to maintain their economic dominance. Conquering and impoverishing through debt. They killed rivals and assassinated any domestic political figures who wanted to return to previous arrangements where certain debts would be periodically forgiven to maintain social stability, as in many near-East societies that existed.
The current conflict and emergence of multipolar world shift eerily echoes this period of antiquity - the Western oligarchy has so far refrained from brutal assassination in the core countries or the US itself but as time goes on and the wars fail to bring success, things may become more dangerous for anyone advocating a more egalitarian approach within the core.
Read Michael Hudson's recent book, "The Collapse of Antiquity." The parallels are quite chilling.
The Empire eventually became feudal, Augustine installed Christianity as the state religion and stripped out the meaning of debt cancellation, turning "forgive debts" into "forgive sins" - the misinterpretation of this period has warped our entire understanding of Western democracy. It's oligarchy vs everyone else on Earth. Which is why this war will go on for a while until the oligarchs are overthrown or the US empire suffers internal collapse.
I was being more dark than comedic. Debt is the motherfucker of our lives. I wonder what role the UK plays in holding so much of the USA's debt. Same way I wonder if they're the ones pushing most for this unnecessary war in Ukraine.
The UK holds some US Treasuries, outsize for its economy but these holdings clearly don't convey British control over US political or economic direction.
The UK still owes Lend Lease debts to the US from WW2, and it was US pressure on France and Britain to repay WW1 debts that caused the worst of the terms of the Versailles treaty.
The UK paid off its debt to the USA in 2006. Whilst this article states that it was to keep the UK afloat after WWII, which it was, the USA, overall, did well out of the war - the British Empire was bankrupt. It's power waned - thereby leaving the USA as the big world power. Not bad bearing in mind that it only joined halfway through... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
The founding fathers were composed in a large part of British establishment figures. It may well be that those in control never really gave anything up except the name of their grouping.
“The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.” ― Henry Ford
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” — Henry Ford
“The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit now.” ― Henry Ford
“In Washington right next to the Holocaust Museum is the Federal Reserve where they print the money. Is that an accident?” ― Louis Farrakhan
“Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist, and you will sweep war from the earth.” — Henry Ford
“Communism all over the world, and not only in Russia, is Jewish.” — Henry Ford
“Control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain things into it.” ― Henry Ford
After the US occupation of Europe in 1945 the ruling powers made clear who was boss. Of course it was all lone gunmen or accidents that took Aldo Moro (Italy), Olof Palme (Sweden), Pim Fortuin (Netherlands), Jorg Haider (Austria) and I probably forget a few. The message has been clear to all who need to understand.
They also kill Carrero Blanco in Spain, who was the appointed as successor of Franco and was against European integration of Spain and against entering NATO.
He was killed in an spectacular bomb attack and some years later Spain entered both NATO and EU.
Assuring the control of the Gibraltar strait for NATO
Pretty sure it was not Augustine who made Christianity the state religion of Rome - It was Constantine.
Nor is your description of "turning feudal", accurate. Rome was never a pro-debtor place; one of the reasons used to justify Julius Caesar's murder was the accusation that he was going to become a tyrant in the Greek sense: proclaim debt cancellation in order to please "the mob". Note Julius Caesar was born 430+ years before Constantine and the Gracchi brothers murdered decades before Julius Caesar was even born.
Constantine did not make Christianity a state religion either. He merely agreed to sentences from Christian bishops in litigation between fellow christians being accepted aa lawful by the Roman state. This was however misinterpreted by post reformation and post Westfalen treaty scholars from the early modern times when there was such thing as a state religion!
Constantine did not diktat a switchover, but he absolutely kicked off the deliberate policy of making Christianity the official Roman Empire religion.
Among other things, Constantine believed he was "a bishop of those outside the Church", he donated all sorts to the Church, he worked hard to mend schism in Christianity and believed he had a personal and direct relationship with the Christian god. That he was not also inflexibly intolerant of other religions does not mean that his goal and impact on the Roman Empire was not to promote Christianity both officially and personally.
Remember the so-called US empire is a globalist project. The “Americans” who help run this shit show don’t have any particular loyalty to this land and its traditions.
“Control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain things into it.” ― Henry Ford
“It is the press, above all, which wages a positively fanatical and slanderous struggle, tearing down everything which can be regarded as a support of national independence, cultural elevation, and the economic independence of the nation.” ― Mein Kampf
Can you base any of your claims on written documents?
I doubt whether Mr. Hudson is fluent in Latin and Greek let alone the other European dialects in order to even deal with the most basic modern literature on the topic.
You presume a great deal to dismiss Dr. Hudson’s work based on what YOU assume are his linguistic limitations and access or lack thereof to competent translators.
In answer to your doubts the research was done and the earlier articles, and now this book , was written with a team of Ancient History professors and researchers / linguists. Micheal Hudson did not conduct this study alone and it has taken almost 20 years.
But, you see, he has an agenda and a blind spot. His agenda forces him to generalize and distort, his blind spot makes him unaware of the deeper roots of certain phenomena.
One contributor to this blog mentioned the fact that Mr. Hudson’s work is supported by numerous other scholars. But since when has number equaled truth? Vox populi vox dei? One raises an eyebrow ...
When Mr. Hudson says e.g. that Constantine established Christianity as a state religion, he is simply wrong. Show me a decree, an edict, a rescript, an inscription or whatever that supports his claim. After 20 years of research, a faux pas like this shouldn’t occur.
Another contributor to this Big Serge’s wonderful blog came forward with the claim that Augustine installed Christianity. One scratches one’s head in bewilderment...
Let us leave it at that. May I propose that we keep our focus on Big Serge’s impressive work and not make this blog a champ de bataille for unrelated issues.
Well some say that the assassinations of MLK, JFK were about there asking certain questions and since then no president has dared ask them. There appears to be factions within the oligarchy. Woodrow Wilson turned America into the bourgeois capitalist empire. Hannah Arendt is also great reading on how bourgeois capitalist empire works. Origin of Totalitarianism was published in 1969. Most Americans are living under illusions of freedom since can still decide a drink to buy say at their favorite coffee shop. But Wilson enslaved us with income tax and federal reserve etc. Also see Frederick Douglass the escaped slave that income taxation is slavery
Radhika Desai was in discussion with Hudson. She sets the tone with:
"You know, in the course of the conflict in the Second World War in Britain, there was talk of fair shares and equal sacrifices.
But what you find in Ukraine now is absolutely the opposite. What you are looking at in Ukraine is what we may call neoliberalism on steroids.
The Zelensky government, even as it is conducting a war, which is very often a kind of “show war” anyway, but it is supposedly at war, it is fighting a great enemy.
Meanwhile, the government is implementing exceedingly anti-labor legislation. It has banned the opposition that will try to resist that. And it is privatizing all sorts of state assets in order to finance the war.
So you’re essentially selling off the family silver in order to pay for an ongoing expense.
And what’s more, the privatizations include the very, very fertile land of Ukraine. And it is not being privatized to ordinary farmers or anything. On the contrary, the land is being sold off to large agribusiness.
So every time you hear about, you know, how urgent it is that Ukrainian grain has to get out to world markets, it’s not the interest of ordinary farmers that are being protected, Ukrainian farmers. On the contrary, these big agribusinesses must get their products out for sale. So this is what’s going on.
And in many other ways as well, private enterprise is deeply involved. Every time there is a loan being given to Ukraine, private sector operators, big financial institutions are involved. And of course, the IMF has is funneling money to Ukraine in various ways and so on..."
Blackrock owns a significant part of Ukraine in an absolute sense, but not a majority or even a tithe of it. And it is a very good question just how much return they will get given that the 4 oblasts now part of Russia, comprised a majority of Ukrainian GDP.
At this point in time, it is probably more accurate to say that Blackrock is positioning itself high up in the list of senior debt holders that can lay claim to whatever value is left, presuming Ukraine survives or perhaps even if Ukraine doesn't - but to extract value from the money that Western governments pour in.
"Has there, ever in history, been such a cynical and existential war to protect the illegalities of the administration of a Great Power, as this totally unnecessary annihilation of human beings to protect the illegitimate and illegally-acting American government?"
The hard part would be finding wars that don't fight your description. War has been a racket since the dawn of civilization, and small nations have perpetually found themselves as pawns between the great powers of the day. You don't get to the top by being the most noble or honourable, you get there by being the best at exploiting resources and relationships.
It's just disheartening to see how many supposedly peace loving people were turned into jingoistic war hawks with just a tiny amount of media propaganda. You know the shadow rulers were taking notes from how easy it was to convince soccer moms and college students to be pro war.
No argument. My question, though, is one of scale. Like WW1, a localized border disagreement, once the US added its weight (then with men & materiel, now just with materiel - so far…. Ukraine has become an abbatior for no reason other than enriching the military industrial complex. It’s insane, unnecessary, and America chose to make it a catastrophe.
The US is largely sending old weapons stocks and is attempting to supply Ukraine as cost effectively as possible frequently using mothballed equipment. The idea that Raytheon and Lockhead are making some huge amount of money from this war is just silly. Go back to your Joe Rogan podcast, rube.
And of course you don’t even address, one assumes because you are unable, the entire point: Ukraine has nothing to do with our NatSec, we have no mutual defense treaty with them, foreign aid is not constitutional (go look in Art 1, Sec 8, for it), we fomented this dumb war by overthrowing their elected government in 2014, we told Putin we would not move NATO “one inch east,” etc.
The entire purpose here is hiding GAE biowarfare labs and the records of the Biden Crime Family’s money laundery, used also by Kerry, Pelosi and others.
So basically your comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of MIC inventory replacement / turning, of geopolitical strategies, of DC current events, and of constitutional authority.
A comment is supposed to address every issue possible in the war in Ukraine? LOL. That is insane. I was addressing your idiocy---one aspect of it. I was not writing an essay on the war in Ukraine.
The US never said we would not move NATO "one inch east." At best, one diplomat said that. Point to the treaty. Point to it. And, tell me, between 2010-2022 who joined NATO. Only an idiot like you who cannot look at a table would believe that NATO was "expanding."
The answer as to how Ukraine affects our national security is clear: 1) Putin is testing NATO resolve to see if he can get away with attacking a NATO country and testing article 5. 2) China is using Ukraine to test US resolve and determine whether it ought to attack Taiwan. 3) Ukrainians are killing Russians. Russia is our enemy. Dead Russians and exploded Russian equipment means that our enemy is weakened.
You are so incredibly low IQ that I don't think there is any helping you. You are an absolute idiot.
You are a coward writing under a pseudonym. Stand up for your pro-Putin stance if you really believe this tripe.
“Rube.” Well at least your name-calling is as intelligent as your comment.
Of COURSE we’re sending old stuff. That’s the ENTIRE POINT: strip old stuff so congress will order you new stuff. It’s all about buying more toys for the MIC that demands three things internationally:
1. Engage every war you find and make-up new ones when you can’t find one
2. Force all your customers (“allies”) to buy your stuff
3. Lose every war, but carry them on as long as possible to increase the number of orders. No one buys bullets for won wars; why do you think (do you? Think, that is?) we fought a buncha guys in black pajamas for 20+ years and then a buncha guys in white pajamas for 20+ years, and lost both times?
What about the Russian General Surovikin's stated objective of battles of attrition? In this context, the Russian "strategy" in Bakhmut was to allow the AFU to keep jamming ever more troops in to defend this position - suffering massive casualties due to the enormous firepower disparity.
If Russian strategy is, in fact, to degrade the AFU's capability as opposed to take territory - this would be consistent with Russian tactics in Bakhmut.
With all of the hyperbole surrounding this affair, I consider this piece to be arguably the first real draft of history that I have seen when it comes to discussing the Battle of Bakhmut/Artyomovsk.
Fantastic read Serge, thank you for this much needed insight!!
Firstly you may be light on Russian numbers "committed" to the battle. For example the Wagner group may have had an average strength of 50,000 but to replace losses must have recieved replacements. If it did indeed lose 17,000 KIA then it is likely they lost another 30,000 to 50,000 wounded. So total Wagner losses could over c 300 days exceed its basic strength.
Similarly Russian Army and other forces were involved in the fighting, and rotated in and out. And how do we define "involved". All those artillery units required manpower to observe, fire and resupply - including a longer logistical tail. At what point do these count as fighting in the battle? Similarly airforces.
Taking a big picture view 22,000 KIA might give 90,000 total Russian casualties - or around 300 per day. That does seem high given the reports we recieved at various stages but who really knows.
Now the Chef is known to exaggerate but he produce a tabulated loss of 72,000 UAF KIA - and obviously there were more KIA in other sectors. But say around 75,000 KIA in total (range 60,000 to 90,000) - 200 to 300 per day - plausible. I think that the UAF struggled to evacuate and treat its wounded here, so actual deaths off the battlefield in hospital and medevac might also be higher. The usual KIA to wounded ratios may not apply. But wounded might be another 150,000 - say 500 per day. This would equate to losing around a battalion per day. Total UAF losses using this estimate would be 200,000 to 250,000 or the full complement of maybe 60 brigades. This is more than the force structure listed above - but clearly some units were rotated in and out of the battle several times having been "refitted" and many thousands of individual replacements were fed into units.
These calculations for both sides might appear high and certainly there were periods where fighting was more and also less intense. And the battle went on long enough for some wounded to recover and return to action.
However my conclusion is that overall the UAF lost around 2 to 3 times the losses of the various Russian forces - maybe more. However the UAF gutted around a third of its army and probably lost much popular support for sending impressed troops into a fire trap. This amounts to a serious but not in my view fatal defeat - there are plenty of UAF forces left. Nevertheless permanent losses (KIA, MIA and WIA who cannot be patched up) for the Russians might be 40,000, for the UAF maybe 100,000 to 150,000. Serious losses for both sides, but especially for the UAF who it seems rarely have more than 300,000 in the field army at any time.
The actual numbers of losses aside, what people don't realize is that by letting a unit get totally destroyed it not only loses total combat effectiveness but you lose the training & experience of every single soldier in it.
Trying to replace a professional army with up till 8 years of training, among others in the most difficult part, combined warfare, with new conscripts within a makeshift army trained for a couple of months, and then expect them to go on the counteroffensive against an army with overwhelming firepower & air support is just sheer total lunacy.
They don't want China's Silk Road to pass through Ukraine to Europe. That would make the US Navy Fleet obsolete.
Although there is, right now, an operating Silk Road train from China that passes through Kazakhstan, Belarus (just north of Ukraine), and ends up at a port in Germany.
The Nato alliance may also be in deep crap if the Russians begin to advance again at any juncture. All the talk of "winning" is already beginning to dwindle. I await the open use for the first time by the BBC, of Ukraine "losing" the conflict.
Although most of us "want" Ukraine to "win" (whatever that's supposed to mean), I feel we're being sold a bill of goods, while brave Ukrainian soldiers are wantonly sacrificed and civilians continue to suffer and die. All because the hopelessly deluded geezer who runs America can't or won't stand up to those who benefit from the continuation of this conflict.
Methinks you didn't go back far enough or deep enough in your reading of history. I surmise your positions from your gut reaction in wanting Ukraine to "win", and in assuming that yours is the universal preference. Read up on Stepan Bandera, Ukraine's national hero. THAT is the true face of this benighted region. Read up on the forced "Ukrainianization" of the eastern breakaway oblasts - a policy of state-sponsored genocide. Your pronouncements betray your ignorance.
Methinks you're too enthralled with your own self-reverence. The US national news coverage is almost 100% pro-Ukraine. Ukraine flags are ubiquitous. So my statement was not wrong. And given Russia's actions against civilians I'll keep to my "ignorance" in believing that an end to this conflict is is the best interests of all. And that our continuing to pour in weapons to keep the pot boiling may not be the wisest course.
Biden/the Obama carryover regime is obsessed with Ukraine because during Obama's 8 years they set up vast money laundering, bioweapon research/production and human trafficking networks for both fun and profit. They escalate and continue the armed conflict for two reasons. 1. they don't want to lose all they've invested in setting up these networks and 2. they don't want the full story to ever be exposed. Hence they fine with Ukraines total destruction.
"And given Russia's actions against civilians ... an end to this conflict is is the best interests of all."
.
Yes, indeed. I would only add that Ukraine's actions against civilians have been almost as bad for 8 years. There are civilians in Donbass as well, as they've been legitimately crying for help for years.
No one should forget that ultimately,, modern-day Ukrainians and modern-day Russians are all out of the same mold. They think pretty much the same, and they have the same lack of limits (or the same realism, depending on one's favoured perspective) as to how war is carried out. So, the sooner this sad show ends, the best for all honest people anywhere in Ukraine.
Also according to Ben Wallace: "we have seen reality, which is that we are all running out” of weapons and equipment that can be donated."
The UK and other nations are increasingly having to purchase arms on the international market for Ukraine, as opposed to tapping into their existing stockpiles, the official explained.
Putin could push right up to the Atlantic beaches, bringing cheap oil and gas and food. The Europeans would welcome the relief from decades of US occupation - no tanks necessary. Imagine the economic growth potential of a unified Europe, Russia, China, India without US interference. They'd all be cheering Biden's largesse. And to think we thought he was senile - what a brilliant leader he turned out to be!
There is no "Europe" of the type you refer to, only Washington's handpicked , heavily compromised apparatchiks running the unelected Washington invention the "EU". Otherwise yes about supposed self image which is really Washington's self image, along with its perverted "values".
I haven’t seen any evidence to justify calling the EU a Washington invention. Europeans are quite capable of inflicting it on themselves without external help.
Starting with rhe Coal & Steel community in the 1950s there has been fierce resistance on the part of national governments. The EU came into being with the Maastricht Treaty 1994 as an extension of NATO, with the ultimate aim of creating one entire country USA-style, with the individual countries inside not even left intact as states or provinces but divided further turned into regions. This was so that - as Kissinger said at the time - when Washington wanted to speak to Europe the US only had to make one phone call.
The signers to Maastricht understood this, and later the Lisbon Treaty, but large parts of both treaties are redacted and not available to the European public. In the same way, those who rule in Brussels (at present von der Leyen, Borell, LaGarde etc) are selected by EU-NATO/Washington and NOT democratically elected. All of these appointees have some form of criminal charge against them, Shashkavili style. All of these appointees make decisions for the EU, impose laws, impose their "values" which are Washington's values if you haven't noticed. They sanction countries within Europe and withhold money owed to those countries (and paid into the funds by those countries) without recourse. At present Hungary is forbidden representation.
These are some pointers: I suggest you look into it.
If the EU leaders received an offer from Putin they couldn't refuse they'd fall into line. They have no significant war fighting capacity. They'd toady up to Putin fast. As for the People, what have they got to do with it? With cheap energy they'd soon be happily going about their business.
I doubt it. In Europe, questioning American dominance is a faux pas on the level of interrupting a High Papal Mass to demand that the person who just farted please identify themselves. You Just Don't Do That, and Europeans are, if nothing else, all about The Done Thing.
Don't believe me? Everyone knows that the US blew up Nordstream, and Europeans refuse to admit it, or when forced to concede the obvious, claim that they must have deserved it somehow.
Scholz is not doing so well, his approval rating is tanking, same with Macron. I'd say the Europeans are looking for a change and the leaders are barely holding on. Couldn't find a Putin approval rating from the EU population. That might settle the question.
Just found Putin's approval in other countries. Not so good in Europe. Good in Mexico though, he could move right in. His highest rating is in Vietnam. If I were Putin, I'd set up shop in every one of the top Putin countries to make trouble for Biden.
Be a great chess strategy and good payback for Ukraine. The neocons would go wild. China has a global economic presence, and Russia could have a global military presence.
We have 750 overseas military installations around the world. China has 1, Russia has 20. Russia could be establishing bases in all these friendly countries.
The real question is can Russia capture the territory it wants, ie absorb it into the Russian Federation, and negotiate a real demilitarization of Ukraine (something where Russian garrisons will be located throughout Ukraine, similar to what happened in Germany post-WW2).
Now the other big question is what happens to NATO borders, which was Russia's other big ask.
These are largely political questions. The Russian armed forces are subservient to the civilian leadership, and to those political questions.
Russia is probably negotiating in secret now, which means there's someone to negotiate with (someone being a Biden handler).
We know the broad outlines of what Russia wants. Taking it by force is much less preferable to taking it in a negotiation.
In the end -- VE Day for Russia -- Russia will get what they want as the victor in Europe. So it's a matter of how much Europe and the US lose, what European citizens lose, how many Ukrainians die, and what Russian citizens / public opinion demands as acceptable terms.
The huge population, the full support and funding of the Ukrainian army by the United States and Europe, as well as the bestial hatred that was brought up in Ukrainians for 30 years against Russia, Ukraine's lack of independence in making any political decisions, make Ukraine an existential threat to Russia. In relation to Russia, Ukraine is a shahid country. A little more, and it would be a shahid with a nuclear bomb. The war will continue until, one way or another, this threat is reduced to an acceptable level, or completely destroyed. This has been talked about for decades. I'm surprised that this point of view has not been conveyed to you. Countries are not guided by the principles of morality, or democracy. Rather, their logic resembles the logic of an anthill, no matter what they say on TV. if the NATO anthill is not able to negotiate, but is only able to expand uncontrollably into the territories adjacent to another anthill, soon you will find yourself in the trenches. I will also be there, although I am not a soldier. When my wife asks me to kill a spider, I take it outside on a piece of paper, being careful not to break its little legs.
Yep, agreed. When up against a dirty fighter, a true psychopathic scumbag bully, one that you know will keep on coming back, one must never give an inch or be gentlemanly. Once the fucker is on the ground go in for the kill MMA style and kick their faces in. Break limbs.
Very good summary of what I saw occur since following the event from last summer. I thought the city would fall by year end, but I clearly did not understand the difficulties on the ground, nor that the Ukrainians would be prepared to lose so much blood and treasure (military hardware) to hold the city.
I keep wishing the Russians would just get this over with to minimize the lost and damaged lives, but I realize now that the Russians are making Ukraine (and the West) pay a terrible and high price for this needsess war.
The Russians don’t mind turning a few towns to Rubble especially in Eastern Ukraine since they will have to rebuild them. The west could care less about civilian infrastructure since the criminal banks just want the resources at bargain prices.
I don't fault Ukraine for its initial regrouping at Bakhmut, but Ukraine continued with it long after it was clear that Bakhmut was being lost and Ukraine was unnecessarily losing troops. It seems the only thing Ukraine achieved was delaying Russia's conquest.
Now, if this allowed Ukraine to build up forces for a grand counterattack or something, great. But it appears it gained nothing but more time to loot the country and steal aid
Could be that Ukraine was forced to continue at Bakhmut against its wishes & all logic at the order of its masters, for whom the meatgrinder aspect was a real plus not a minus.
Interesting to think about. On the one hand, despite NATOs increasingly desperate and duplicitous claims, Ukraine is now entirely a NATO dependency. All this talk of " full membership" is ridiculous - there's nothing else they would do that they haven't already done, article 5 be damned.
On the other hand, there doesn't appear to be any actual oversight at all?
That might be true. More likely Ukraine decided to do so to keep the loot and grift flowing. As long it could pretend a counterattack was coming, the money could flow. The Cabal just wants to kill Russians (See Sen. Graham' recent comments). They will keep this going as long as there is any chance to kill more Russians.
Russia have cleverly been using Bakhmut to tie up and destroy tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops and equipment.
Russia deliberately ignores major territorial gain for a war of attrition via their superior artillery which is decimating the hapless Ukrainians in this proxy war by Nato against Russia.
Small numbered Russian attacking forces are making incremental gains to entice Ukraine to send in more troops to reinforce their defensive lines in places like Bakhmut and to replace the tens of thousands that have been killed particularly by Russian artillery.
This is a deliberate ploy to kill as many Ukrainian and mercenary troops as possible and destroy as much Nato heavy military equipment as possible and is in line with the main stated aim of the SMO to “demilitarize” and “deNazify” Ukraine.
To emphasize this, here is a statement from Evgeny Prigozhin head of Wagner PMC in November 2022.
"Our task is not Bakhmut himself, but the destruction of the Ukrainian army and the reduction of its combat potential".
On May 6th 2023 he also said ……
“95% of Bakhmut is now under Russian control, remaining 5% does not affect course of Special Operation; Goal was not city's capture but to overwhelm and grind Ukrainian troops, to give Russian army breathing space and restore combat capability.
Ukraine lost 50,000 kia or missing defending Bakhmut”.
Great write up man. It's all such a shame Slavs killing Slavs. I wish what is left of the Ukrainian population wake up to the fact that they are dying for foreign interests. Decarbonizing the economy as it were.
A remarkable analysis, as usual. Big Serge, you're beacon of method and reason in an ocean of propaganda. I can't thank you enough for this. At a personal level, I greatly enjoy learning from your analysis methodology.
.
When Prigozhin was giving speeches in prison yards to find recruits, the word from Western media was that Russia was so inept that they had no better way to fight this war than to refill their decimated forces with untrained brutal criminals. A year later, the rationale behind the mass recruitment of convicts seems quite clear. It wasn't just about finding canon fodder that no one would care about, although this had its advantages from the political perspective. It wasn't about refilling forces in a hurry, although this also was useful. It was not about drastically increasing forces either. It was about gaining time to organise and train a proper military power for when Ukraine's ability to resist had been depleted. And now I can't help but recall the recent words of a Russian diplomat about how Russia has not yet started to fight this war seriously...
.
Now that Ukraine forces have no reserve pool left for the future, Russia will safely keep its defensive posture to withstand the offensive to come. And maybe, if the Ukrainian offensive is defeated efficiently, we'll then see a massive and rapid surge in regular Russian army forces, made of well trained guys who volunteered for this, equipped more than sufficiently, to launch an effort meant at sweeping across large portions of Ukrainian territory. And then, who knows where the Russians would be willing to stop? Odessa, Kharkiv, maybe Kiev or the Moldovan border!
It might just be that Russians were in fact much more clever than any official Western voice would only have thought possible in their nightmares, and that they had assessed Ukraine's power and planned for those developments more than a year in advance...
.
NATO and the EU will be forced to regret their arrogance. If really Russia has put the last year to use to grow a power in reserve, and if they prove capable to conquer larger bits of Ukraine after withstanding a Ukrainian offensive, I can't see how they'd accept to sit at any negotiation table in the Autumn, as several European leaders have started hinting. They'll move forward as much as they like, and this whole sad story will end with an unconditional capitulation from Ukraine.
I believe the Khornate reference at the very end sums it all up quite nicely. Skulls for the Skull Throne, indeed. And there really are enough daemons among us, right here on Terra, who really don't care whose blood flows, only that it flows, and flows, and flows...
I would not assume that Russia lost just cannon fodder. Those squads of convicts has to be led too and the Russians are already very short on sergeants due to their officer bloat and then the restructuring to copy Western militaries.
If they managed to preserve their blooded veterans to train up the rest of their forces then it will be a win in the end. But we really have no way of knowing if the MoD is willing to learn from Wagner
As for Ukraine, it's a weird military fighting a war of national suicide and I have no method to judge them. They probably lost a lot of their offensive potential, but the "Big Ukrainian Offensive" was always a terrible idea anyway. Their best move was to try and negotiate peace after taking kharkiv. NATO is getting too much value out of this war though and will keep it running as long as they can no matter the cost to Ukraine.
The population of Ukraine is 80% Russian. If a Ukrainian moves to Russia or a Russian moves to Ukraine, they do not need to exert themselves in any way to integrate into the local society. Almost everyone has relatives on the other side of the border.
Therefore, this war is not interethnic, but rather civil.
With the support of the United States, the power was seized by the Nazis, who ideologically come from the Western part, which was introduced into Ukraine by Stalin, and before that they were slaves to the Austrians or Poles for 500 years. And to everyone who has power in Ukraine, it doesn’t matter what happens to the local population. They do not depend on the population, they do not need it, it is alien and dangerous. Therefore, the Nazis and the Americans destroy the people by sending them to war with their relatives.
After the separatists took power in Kiev, they could only hold on due to support from the West.
The West put pressure on Russia and did not allow support for the Unionists or neutrals. When it became clear that the separatists were leading the country to hell, the unionists rebelled, but it was too late.
NATO may regret trying to extract value from this war, though. The depletion of its ammo stocks is massive, and this imposes big budgetary cost on European countries at the same time they must invest massively in the future of their defense capabilities. And they can't do both at once. In other words, the effort being made now is reducing NATO defense capabilities for many years, including US abilities. Which several countries, starting with Russia, may be interested to take advantage of soon.
They are getting their value in the damage they are doing to Russian society and forcing them to invest so much to kill their fellow Russian-speakers drafted into the UAF. Granted it's a pretty irrational strategy overall, but that's what they are invested in and they will continue to double-down. There also is the damage being done to the Orthodox Church which is a huge plus for the demons and can't be calculated on paper as such.
I think you have an irrealistic view of the impact on Russian society. OK for the church issue and more broadly for the fact that a profound drift has appeared between Ukrainians and Russians, which is a new evolution. But for Russia's society, I don't see any serious negative impact. There was a small stream of people fleeing Russia, which the Russian rulers will see as positive, because they do not want citizens who aren't fully dedicated to the national interest. For the rest, Russia has the means to massively invest in the things that matter, and they've proven that GDP is the worst indicator ever. They produce all they need to sustain a war; they are the world's first exporter of agricultural good; they've been restarted factories abandoned by Western companies, to their own benefit; their domestic industrial output is growing; and they found lots of friends to buy their hydrocarbons. Meanwhile, their opponents in the West prove incapable to restart their industrial capacities, and boast about their GDP wile producing much too little of the hard goods that can allow a country to sustain long term war. Europe is entering recession, and it is set to get worse because there is clear energy shortage, which the US is working hard to benefit from to attract industrial productive capacities from the EU to the US. Any way you put it, NATO as a whole is never coming stronger in the short term. But Russia is set to come out of the Ukrainian war stronger than it was, more resilient, more prepared for further conflict, and with a comparative advantage on the West that will be larger than it was a year ago.
I don't entirely disagree, but the impact is unknown going forward depending on many factors. The globalists are determined to disrupt Russian society as a top goal so I think they are happy to be able to use a proxy in this case. Also I have been looking at Prighozin's statements and it seems pretty clear that he would have been arrested already if there wasn't serious Right-wing opposition in certain sectors, maybe even Putin. Putin has been walking a fine line for many years and now he's putting a lot of faith in Xi to back the antiglobalist project. A good move, but at the same time Xi is also walking a fine line too.
My guess is that Prighozin never speaks a word that has not been fully approved by Putin. There's no beef between them. There are struggles between Prighozin, Shoigu, and a few military commanders, but the boss is in control of all of it. The only serious opposition to Putin comes from people who do not understand why he hasn't declared full mobilisation, used nuclear weapons, and waged total war on NATO... Putin is the moderate centrist in Russia, the one who's much more patient than all others. That's a serious advantage for him. And one should not underestimate his iron-fisted control of Russia's state structures.
As forWetersn efforts... Alright, let's say we haven't yet seen all effects, why not. But from what we've seen so far none of the stated strategic objective have been fulfilled: Russia's economy is not collapsing in any way, Russians are not revolting nor turnign away from their government, Russia is not isolated on the international stage but is instead finding more and more friends, and Russia is not being defeated on the battlefield. Total failure so far. My personal opinion is that when countries go into a worldwide conflict, direct war or not, and their leaders keep failing in all their objectives, then those countries are seriously screwed unless the leaders can be replaced all at once. And this is NOT happening any time soon.
Putin's level of communication with Prighozin is unknown. But we can deduce that the cook does have connections as is operating as a voice for them, how much that aligns with Putin's own opinions is anybody's guess. Personally I think Putin is the ultimate pragmatist and happy to let the patriotic hawks have a voice while also letting the MoD continue on their long time path of cronyism and borderline treason. He doesn't arrest Prighozin, but he hasn't fired Shoigu either. But really who can say what Putin is dealing with behind the scenes.
As for Russian society, it's held together a lot better than most people expected. Still I see plenty of problems in the long-term due to the VERY messy divorce with Ukraine (practically a part of Russia for many years) and also the break with Europe. We shall see how it pans out, especially once Putin retires.
One thing is for sure: Russia has many very real-world problems they are going to have to solve because of the Maidan in Ukraine and this war that's been forced on them. Not a bad return for the NATO investment of out-of-thin-air printed dollars. As a bonus Europe gets screwed too, it's all win-win, though certainly one has to question if such stupidity can last much longer. Maybe Trump will win in 2024 and stick it to the man! /s
I was shocked to read the life expectancy of the Ukrainian on the front is four hours. This compares unfavorably to the fifteen hours an Imperial Guardsman is expected to last against Orks. The Ukrainians often derisively refer to Russians as orcs, but no, these are not orcs, but Orks, particularly brutal and cunning and Orky Orks.
Sorry for that, but you opened the door with your last line. WAAAGH
Its a running theme of several Russian regiments on Telegram to refer to themselves as Orks, and the Ukrainians as Elves/Eldar, in reports full of WH references as they smash through Eldar defenses. There is even a volunteer battalion whose unit insignia is just the Orc Horde banner in Warcraft, so yeah.. they know, and embrace the nickname.
And yet America continues to send materiel, demanding to continue its war on Ukraine to the last Ukrainian ... all for Victoria and Austin and Lockheed and Raytheon and Graham and to hide the corruption of the Biden Crime Family and America’s illegal biowarfare labs.
Has there, ever in history, been such a cynical and existential war to protect the illegalities of the administration of a Great Power, as this totally unnecessary annihilation of human beings to protect the illegitimate and illegally-acting American government?
The oligarchy in the Roman republic (after the overthrow of its last king and the imposition of austerity) waged many wars in order to maintain their economic dominance. Conquering and impoverishing through debt. They killed rivals and assassinated any domestic political figures who wanted to return to previous arrangements where certain debts would be periodically forgiven to maintain social stability, as in many near-East societies that existed.
The current conflict and emergence of multipolar world shift eerily echoes this period of antiquity - the Western oligarchy has so far refrained from brutal assassination in the core countries or the US itself but as time goes on and the wars fail to bring success, things may become more dangerous for anyone advocating a more egalitarian approach within the core.
Read Michael Hudson's recent book, "The Collapse of Antiquity." The parallels are quite chilling.
The Empire eventually became feudal, Augustine installed Christianity as the state religion and stripped out the meaning of debt cancellation, turning "forgive debts" into "forgive sins" - the misinterpretation of this period has warped our entire understanding of Western democracy. It's oligarchy vs everyone else on Earth. Which is why this war will go on for a while until the oligarchs are overthrown or the US empire suffers internal collapse.
Didnt David Graeber in "Debt. The First 5000 Years" make the claim that every revolt in recorded history was due to Debt ?
Taking more than one gives (Unequal Exchange), and, Enough is never enough, are two aspects of Capitalisms Emotional Economy...
Did that excellent audiobook. We should start the Bakhmut Book Club :)
I was being more dark than comedic. Debt is the motherfucker of our lives. I wonder what role the UK plays in holding so much of the USA's debt. Same way I wonder if they're the ones pushing most for this unnecessary war in Ukraine.
Dude, you have it totally backwards.
The UK holds some US Treasuries, outsize for its economy but these holdings clearly don't convey British control over US political or economic direction.
The UK still owes Lend Lease debts to the US from WW2, and it was US pressure on France and Britain to repay WW1 debts that caused the worst of the terms of the Versailles treaty.
The UK paid off its debt to the USA in 2006. Whilst this article states that it was to keep the UK afloat after WWII, which it was, the USA, overall, did well out of the war - the British Empire was bankrupt. It's power waned - thereby leaving the USA as the big world power. Not bad bearing in mind that it only joined halfway through... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
This is worth reading about how USA stuffed the UK: https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/08/britains-vast-unpaid-debt-to-the-usa.html
The founding fathers were composed in a large part of British establishment figures. It may well be that those in control never really gave anything up except the name of their grouping.
Without Guilt there'd be no interest/usury superimposed on economic activity...There'd be no 'capitalist' economy...
Without Guilt the 'legal' system would not exist (You cant plead "Innocent"...Legally you're either "guilty" or "not Guilty")...
Without Guild we wouldnt beg "Father, forgive us our Debts / our Sins" !
Without Guilt we might enjoy masterbating...
To be an effective copper requires unconscious projected belief that Everyone IS Guilty...So, without Guilt there'd be no state enforcers...
And we'd all own nothing, and be happy...
“The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.” ― Henry Ford
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” — Henry Ford
“The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit now.” ― Henry Ford
“In Washington right next to the Holocaust Museum is the Federal Reserve where they print the money. Is that an accident?” ― Louis Farrakhan
“Do you want to know the cause of war? It is capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars. Take away the capitalist, and you will sweep war from the earth.” — Henry Ford
“Communism all over the world, and not only in Russia, is Jewish.” — Henry Ford
“Control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain things into it.” ― Henry Ford
After the US occupation of Europe in 1945 the ruling powers made clear who was boss. Of course it was all lone gunmen or accidents that took Aldo Moro (Italy), Olof Palme (Sweden), Pim Fortuin (Netherlands), Jorg Haider (Austria) and I probably forget a few. The message has been clear to all who need to understand.
They also kill Carrero Blanco in Spain, who was the appointed as successor of Franco and was against European integration of Spain and against entering NATO.
He was killed in an spectacular bomb attack and some years later Spain entered both NATO and EU.
Assuring the control of the Gibraltar strait for NATO
Pretty sure it was not Augustine who made Christianity the state religion of Rome - It was Constantine.
Nor is your description of "turning feudal", accurate. Rome was never a pro-debtor place; one of the reasons used to justify Julius Caesar's murder was the accusation that he was going to become a tyrant in the Greek sense: proclaim debt cancellation in order to please "the mob". Note Julius Caesar was born 430+ years before Constantine and the Gracchi brothers murdered decades before Julius Caesar was even born.
Constantine did not make Christianity a state religion either. He merely agreed to sentences from Christian bishops in litigation between fellow christians being accepted aa lawful by the Roman state. This was however misinterpreted by post reformation and post Westfalen treaty scholars from the early modern times when there was such thing as a state religion!
Constantine did not diktat a switchover, but he absolutely kicked off the deliberate policy of making Christianity the official Roman Empire religion.
Among other things, Constantine believed he was "a bishop of those outside the Church", he donated all sorts to the Church, he worked hard to mend schism in Christianity and believed he had a personal and direct relationship with the Christian god. That he was not also inflexibly intolerant of other religions does not mean that his goal and impact on the Roman Empire was not to promote Christianity both officially and personally.
I appreciate Michael Hudson online so thanks for the recommendation on his new book.
Remember the so-called US empire is a globalist project. The “Americans” who help run this shit show don’t have any particular loyalty to this land and its traditions.
“Control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain things into it.” ― Henry Ford
I will have to check out that book on Z Library or PDF drive. On a lighter note, here are all my "Russia Invades Ukraine Memes" tagged meme compilation posts: https://covidsteria.substack.com/t/russia-invades-ukraine-memes
“It is the press, above all, which wages a positively fanatical and slanderous struggle, tearing down everything which can be regarded as a support of national independence, cultural elevation, and the economic independence of the nation.” ― Mein Kampf
Have you studied ancient history?
Can you read the Greek and Latin sources?
If so, which have you or Mr. Hudson read?
Can you base any of your claims on written documents?
I doubt whether Mr. Hudson is fluent in Latin and Greek let alone the other European dialects in order to even deal with the most basic modern literature on the topic.
You presume a great deal to dismiss Dr. Hudson’s work based on what YOU assume are his linguistic limitations and access or lack thereof to competent translators.
In answer to your doubts the research was done and the earlier articles, and now this book , was written with a team of Ancient History professors and researchers / linguists. Micheal Hudson did not conduct this study alone and it has taken almost 20 years.
Mr. Hudson is definitely a brilliant economist. His hiring by Chase Manhattan and Arthur Anderson is proof of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist)
But, you see, he has an agenda and a blind spot. His agenda forces him to generalize and distort, his blind spot makes him unaware of the deeper roots of certain phenomena.
One contributor to this blog mentioned the fact that Mr. Hudson’s work is supported by numerous other scholars. But since when has number equaled truth? Vox populi vox dei? One raises an eyebrow ...
When Mr. Hudson says e.g. that Constantine established Christianity as a state religion, he is simply wrong. Show me a decree, an edict, a rescript, an inscription or whatever that supports his claim. After 20 years of research, a faux pas like this shouldn’t occur.
Another contributor to this Big Serge’s wonderful blog came forward with the claim that Augustine installed Christianity. One scratches one’s head in bewilderment...
Let us leave it at that. May I propose that we keep our focus on Big Serge’s impressive work and not make this blog a champ de bataille for unrelated issues.
Dr. Hudson's work on antiquities is not solo - he works with a large group of experts in the various past languages and past civilizations.
I would recommend that you listen to 2 or 3 of his interviews to get a better sense of where he bases his conclusions on.
The parallels with history are striking and your reference to Rome is interesting and significant.
I have said that today we follow a timeline similar to WW2 only 80 years ago making it equivalent to 1943.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/02/07/timeline-anticipated-events-in-world-war-3/
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2023/01/06/2022-a-review/
Well some say that the assassinations of MLK, JFK were about there asking certain questions and since then no president has dared ask them. There appears to be factions within the oligarchy. Woodrow Wilson turned America into the bourgeois capitalist empire. Hannah Arendt is also great reading on how bourgeois capitalist empire works. Origin of Totalitarianism was published in 1969. Most Americans are living under illusions of freedom since can still decide a drink to buy say at their favorite coffee shop. But Wilson enslaved us with income tax and federal reserve etc. Also see Frederick Douglass the escaped slave that income taxation is slavery
"Augustine installed Christianity as the state religion" --- uh, what? who?
I believe it was Emperor Constantine. Augustine was an early church father and theologian, if memory serves.
"Augustine installed Christianity as the state religion ... "
You mean Constantine, don't you?
Michael Hudson was recently interviewed regarding the USA's takeover of Ukraine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bF3QkHIB7I
Radhika Desai was in discussion with Hudson. She sets the tone with:
"You know, in the course of the conflict in the Second World War in Britain, there was talk of fair shares and equal sacrifices.
But what you find in Ukraine now is absolutely the opposite. What you are looking at in Ukraine is what we may call neoliberalism on steroids.
The Zelensky government, even as it is conducting a war, which is very often a kind of “show war” anyway, but it is supposedly at war, it is fighting a great enemy.
Meanwhile, the government is implementing exceedingly anti-labor legislation. It has banned the opposition that will try to resist that. And it is privatizing all sorts of state assets in order to finance the war.
So you’re essentially selling off the family silver in order to pay for an ongoing expense.
And what’s more, the privatizations include the very, very fertile land of Ukraine. And it is not being privatized to ordinary farmers or anything. On the contrary, the land is being sold off to large agribusiness.
So every time you hear about, you know, how urgent it is that Ukrainian grain has to get out to world markets, it’s not the interest of ordinary farmers that are being protected, Ukrainian farmers. On the contrary, these big agribusinesses must get their products out for sale. So this is what’s going on.
And in many other ways as well, private enterprise is deeply involved. Every time there is a loan being given to Ukraine, private sector operators, big financial institutions are involved. And of course, the IMF has is funneling money to Ukraine in various ways and so on..."
In fact, Blackrock basically owns Ukraine. There is a video of Zelensky formally receiving the heads of Blackrock in May 2023 and acknowledging it.
No doubt this has been one of Zelensky's given tasks from the start, continuing on from Petr Poroshenko's work.
Blackrock owns a significant part of Ukraine in an absolute sense, but not a majority or even a tithe of it. And it is a very good question just how much return they will get given that the 4 oblasts now part of Russia, comprised a majority of Ukrainian GDP.
At this point in time, it is probably more accurate to say that Blackrock is positioning itself high up in the list of senior debt holders that can lay claim to whatever value is left, presuming Ukraine survives or perhaps even if Ukraine doesn't - but to extract value from the money that Western governments pour in.
The colonial countries lost control not because it was out of fashion. But because the United States and the USSR made great efforts to this end.
The USSR credits the education of more than 100 countries of the world.
"Has there, ever in history, been such a cynical and existential war to protect the illegalities of the administration of a Great Power, as this totally unnecessary annihilation of human beings to protect the illegitimate and illegally-acting American government?"
The hard part would be finding wars that don't fight your description. War has been a racket since the dawn of civilization, and small nations have perpetually found themselves as pawns between the great powers of the day. You don't get to the top by being the most noble or honourable, you get there by being the best at exploiting resources and relationships.
It's just disheartening to see how many supposedly peace loving people were turned into jingoistic war hawks with just a tiny amount of media propaganda. You know the shadow rulers were taking notes from how easy it was to convince soccer moms and college students to be pro war.
No argument. My question, though, is one of scale. Like WW1, a localized border disagreement, once the US added its weight (then with men & materiel, now just with materiel - so far…. Ukraine has become an abbatior for no reason other than enriching the military industrial complex. It’s insane, unnecessary, and America chose to make it a catastrophe.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexanderscipio/p/lets-talk-about-ukraine?r=r6kt1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The US is largely sending old weapons stocks and is attempting to supply Ukraine as cost effectively as possible frequently using mothballed equipment. The idea that Raytheon and Lockhead are making some huge amount of money from this war is just silly. Go back to your Joe Rogan podcast, rube.
And of course you don’t even address, one assumes because you are unable, the entire point: Ukraine has nothing to do with our NatSec, we have no mutual defense treaty with them, foreign aid is not constitutional (go look in Art 1, Sec 8, for it), we fomented this dumb war by overthrowing their elected government in 2014, we told Putin we would not move NATO “one inch east,” etc.
The entire purpose here is hiding GAE biowarfare labs and the records of the Biden Crime Family’s money laundery, used also by Kerry, Pelosi and others.
So basically your comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of MIC inventory replacement / turning, of geopolitical strategies, of DC current events, and of constitutional authority.
And you call me names. LOL.
A comment is supposed to address every issue possible in the war in Ukraine? LOL. That is insane. I was addressing your idiocy---one aspect of it. I was not writing an essay on the war in Ukraine.
The US never said we would not move NATO "one inch east." At best, one diplomat said that. Point to the treaty. Point to it. And, tell me, between 2010-2022 who joined NATO. Only an idiot like you who cannot look at a table would believe that NATO was "expanding."
The answer as to how Ukraine affects our national security is clear: 1) Putin is testing NATO resolve to see if he can get away with attacking a NATO country and testing article 5. 2) China is using Ukraine to test US resolve and determine whether it ought to attack Taiwan. 3) Ukrainians are killing Russians. Russia is our enemy. Dead Russians and exploded Russian equipment means that our enemy is weakened.
You are so incredibly low IQ that I don't think there is any helping you. You are an absolute idiot.
You are a coward writing under a pseudonym. Stand up for your pro-Putin stance if you really believe this tripe.
“Rube.” Well at least your name-calling is as intelligent as your comment.
Of COURSE we’re sending old stuff. That’s the ENTIRE POINT: strip old stuff so congress will order you new stuff. It’s all about buying more toys for the MIC that demands three things internationally:
1. Engage every war you find and make-up new ones when you can’t find one
2. Force all your customers (“allies”) to buy your stuff
3. Lose every war, but carry them on as long as possible to increase the number of orders. No one buys bullets for won wars; why do you think (do you? Think, that is?) we fought a buncha guys in black pajamas for 20+ years and then a buncha guys in white pajamas for 20+ years, and lost both times?
Rube
-USAFA ‘76
Yes
Serge,
What about the Russian General Surovikin's stated objective of battles of attrition? In this context, the Russian "strategy" in Bakhmut was to allow the AFU to keep jamming ever more troops in to defend this position - suffering massive casualties due to the enormous firepower disparity.
If Russian strategy is, in fact, to degrade the AFU's capability as opposed to take territory - this would be consistent with Russian tactics in Bakhmut.
With all of the hyperbole surrounding this affair, I consider this piece to be arguably the first real draft of history that I have seen when it comes to discussing the Battle of Bakhmut/Artyomovsk.
Fantastic read Serge, thank you for this much needed insight!!
Good comment. Totally agree!
Thanks for a very detailed anlysis.
A couple of observations.
Firstly you may be light on Russian numbers "committed" to the battle. For example the Wagner group may have had an average strength of 50,000 but to replace losses must have recieved replacements. If it did indeed lose 17,000 KIA then it is likely they lost another 30,000 to 50,000 wounded. So total Wagner losses could over c 300 days exceed its basic strength.
Similarly Russian Army and other forces were involved in the fighting, and rotated in and out. And how do we define "involved". All those artillery units required manpower to observe, fire and resupply - including a longer logistical tail. At what point do these count as fighting in the battle? Similarly airforces.
Taking a big picture view 22,000 KIA might give 90,000 total Russian casualties - or around 300 per day. That does seem high given the reports we recieved at various stages but who really knows.
Now the Chef is known to exaggerate but he produce a tabulated loss of 72,000 UAF KIA - and obviously there were more KIA in other sectors. But say around 75,000 KIA in total (range 60,000 to 90,000) - 200 to 300 per day - plausible. I think that the UAF struggled to evacuate and treat its wounded here, so actual deaths off the battlefield in hospital and medevac might also be higher. The usual KIA to wounded ratios may not apply. But wounded might be another 150,000 - say 500 per day. This would equate to losing around a battalion per day. Total UAF losses using this estimate would be 200,000 to 250,000 or the full complement of maybe 60 brigades. This is more than the force structure listed above - but clearly some units were rotated in and out of the battle several times having been "refitted" and many thousands of individual replacements were fed into units.
These calculations for both sides might appear high and certainly there were periods where fighting was more and also less intense. And the battle went on long enough for some wounded to recover and return to action.
However my conclusion is that overall the UAF lost around 2 to 3 times the losses of the various Russian forces - maybe more. However the UAF gutted around a third of its army and probably lost much popular support for sending impressed troops into a fire trap. This amounts to a serious but not in my view fatal defeat - there are plenty of UAF forces left. Nevertheless permanent losses (KIA, MIA and WIA who cannot be patched up) for the Russians might be 40,000, for the UAF maybe 100,000 to 150,000. Serious losses for both sides, but especially for the UAF who it seems rarely have more than 300,000 in the field army at any time.
The actual numbers of losses aside, what people don't realize is that by letting a unit get totally destroyed it not only loses total combat effectiveness but you lose the training & experience of every single soldier in it.
Trying to replace a professional army with up till 8 years of training, among others in the most difficult part, combined warfare, with new conscripts within a makeshift army trained for a couple of months, and then expect them to go on the counteroffensive against an army with overwhelming firepower & air support is just sheer total lunacy.
It will never work..
Excellent exposition. Should be on the front page of every major newspaper around the world.
Should be but won't be.
The WSJ continues to shriek that a big Ukrainian offensive is coming.
Meanwhile Ukrainians continue to die because Biden and his hapless harridan, Nuland, want this lunacy to continue. Why?
They don't want China's Silk Road to pass through Ukraine to Europe. That would make the US Navy Fleet obsolete.
Although there is, right now, an operating Silk Road train from China that passes through Kazakhstan, Belarus (just north of Ukraine), and ends up at a port in Germany.
The UK press is just as bad.
The Nato alliance may also be in deep crap if the Russians begin to advance again at any juncture. All the talk of "winning" is already beginning to dwindle. I await the open use for the first time by the BBC, of Ukraine "losing" the conflict.
Or the open use of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons.
Although most of us "want" Ukraine to "win" (whatever that's supposed to mean), I feel we're being sold a bill of goods, while brave Ukrainian soldiers are wantonly sacrificed and civilians continue to suffer and die. All because the hopelessly deluded geezer who runs America can't or won't stand up to those who benefit from the continuation of this conflict.
Who is most of us? I want the unconditional defeat of Ukraine and if possible that such stage disappear forever.
Methinks you didn't go back far enough or deep enough in your reading of history. I surmise your positions from your gut reaction in wanting Ukraine to "win", and in assuming that yours is the universal preference. Read up on Stepan Bandera, Ukraine's national hero. THAT is the true face of this benighted region. Read up on the forced "Ukrainianization" of the eastern breakaway oblasts - a policy of state-sponsored genocide. Your pronouncements betray your ignorance.
Methinks you're too enthralled with your own self-reverence. The US national news coverage is almost 100% pro-Ukraine. Ukraine flags are ubiquitous. So my statement was not wrong. And given Russia's actions against civilians I'll keep to my "ignorance" in believing that an end to this conflict is is the best interests of all. And that our continuing to pour in weapons to keep the pot boiling may not be the wisest course.
Biden/the Obama carryover regime is obsessed with Ukraine because during Obama's 8 years they set up vast money laundering, bioweapon research/production and human trafficking networks for both fun and profit. They escalate and continue the armed conflict for two reasons. 1. they don't want to lose all they've invested in setting up these networks and 2. they don't want the full story to ever be exposed. Hence they fine with Ukraines total destruction.
"And given Russia's actions against civilians ... an end to this conflict is is the best interests of all."
.
Yes, indeed. I would only add that Ukraine's actions against civilians have been almost as bad for 8 years. There are civilians in Donbass as well, as they've been legitimately crying for help for years.
No one should forget that ultimately,, modern-day Ukrainians and modern-day Russians are all out of the same mold. They think pretty much the same, and they have the same lack of limits (or the same realism, depending on one's favoured perspective) as to how war is carried out. So, the sooner this sad show ends, the best for all honest people anywhere in Ukraine.
Bakhmut broke NATO.
According to Jens Stoltenberg NATO's ammunition stocks are exhausted.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-02/nato-chief-urges-allies-to-sign-defense-deals-to-boost-output
Also according to Ben Wallace: "we have seen reality, which is that we are all running out” of weapons and equipment that can be donated."
The UK and other nations are increasingly having to purchase arms on the international market for Ukraine, as opposed to tapping into their existing stockpiles, the official explained.
https://www.rt.com/news/577366-ben-wallace-west-running-out-weapons/
They could also buy back the grenade launchers from the Mexican cartels their generals sold to them.
So I have read.
If that is indeed the case, then Russia needs to kick its enemies when they are down, not give them time to recover.
Putin could push right up to the Atlantic beaches, bringing cheap oil and gas and food. The Europeans would welcome the relief from decades of US occupation - no tanks necessary. Imagine the economic growth potential of a unified Europe, Russia, China, India without US interference. They'd all be cheering Biden's largesse. And to think we thought he was senile - what a brilliant leader he turned out to be!
I doubt it. Europe has a long history of taking steps that favor its self-image at the expense of its own economic interests.
There is no "Europe" of the type you refer to, only Washington's handpicked , heavily compromised apparatchiks running the unelected Washington invention the "EU". Otherwise yes about supposed self image which is really Washington's self image, along with its perverted "values".
I haven’t seen any evidence to justify calling the EU a Washington invention. Europeans are quite capable of inflicting it on themselves without external help.
Starting with rhe Coal & Steel community in the 1950s there has been fierce resistance on the part of national governments. The EU came into being with the Maastricht Treaty 1994 as an extension of NATO, with the ultimate aim of creating one entire country USA-style, with the individual countries inside not even left intact as states or provinces but divided further turned into regions. This was so that - as Kissinger said at the time - when Washington wanted to speak to Europe the US only had to make one phone call.
The signers to Maastricht understood this, and later the Lisbon Treaty, but large parts of both treaties are redacted and not available to the European public. In the same way, those who rule in Brussels (at present von der Leyen, Borell, LaGarde etc) are selected by EU-NATO/Washington and NOT democratically elected. All of these appointees have some form of criminal charge against them, Shashkavili style. All of these appointees make decisions for the EU, impose laws, impose their "values" which are Washington's values if you haven't noticed. They sanction countries within Europe and withhold money owed to those countries (and paid into the funds by those countries) without recourse. At present Hungary is forbidden representation.
These are some pointers: I suggest you look into it.
It's not as if elected European governments are any different.
If the EU leaders received an offer from Putin they couldn't refuse they'd fall into line. They have no significant war fighting capacity. They'd toady up to Putin fast. As for the People, what have they got to do with it? With cheap energy they'd soon be happily going about their business.
I doubt it. In Europe, questioning American dominance is a faux pas on the level of interrupting a High Papal Mass to demand that the person who just farted please identify themselves. You Just Don't Do That, and Europeans are, if nothing else, all about The Done Thing.
Don't believe me? Everyone knows that the US blew up Nordstream, and Europeans refuse to admit it, or when forced to concede the obvious, claim that they must have deserved it somehow.
Europeans *like* being slaves.
The EU apparatchiks are appointed to be Washington's slave chorus. Of course they "like" it. Citizens' role is to be tax-farmed and silenced.
Scholz is not doing so well, his approval rating is tanking, same with Macron. I'd say the Europeans are looking for a change and the leaders are barely holding on. Couldn't find a Putin approval rating from the EU population. That might settle the question.
Just found Putin's approval in other countries. Not so good in Europe. Good in Mexico though, he could move right in. His highest rating is in Vietnam. If I were Putin, I'd set up shop in every one of the top Putin countries to make trouble for Biden.
Be a great chess strategy and good payback for Ukraine. The neocons would go wild. China has a global economic presence, and Russia could have a global military presence.
We have 750 overseas military installations around the world. China has 1, Russia has 20. Russia could be establishing bases in all these friendly countries.
The real question is can Russia capture the territory it wants, ie absorb it into the Russian Federation, and negotiate a real demilitarization of Ukraine (something where Russian garrisons will be located throughout Ukraine, similar to what happened in Germany post-WW2).
Now the other big question is what happens to NATO borders, which was Russia's other big ask.
These are largely political questions. The Russian armed forces are subservient to the civilian leadership, and to those political questions.
Russia won't negotiate anything. There know that there is no one to negotiate with. They will force the outcome of their choice.
I disagree with some of your comment.
Russia is probably negotiating in secret now, which means there's someone to negotiate with (someone being a Biden handler).
We know the broad outlines of what Russia wants. Taking it by force is much less preferable to taking it in a negotiation.
In the end -- VE Day for Russia -- Russia will get what they want as the victor in Europe. So it's a matter of how much Europe and the US lose, what European citizens lose, how many Ukrainians die, and what Russian citizens / public opinion demands as acceptable terms.
I really don’t think that Russia and the U.S. are negotiating anything now.
We are not in 2014 and there are several reasons for this.
1- It does not have sense to negotiate with people who does not hold their word
2 - What can Russia get out of negotiation?
International recognition of new borders? US will never accept it
Assure that the remaining of Ukraine will not join NATO and will not have a nuke? Impossible to trust.
NATO come back to 1997 frontiers? Will not happen.
In this war there is nothing to negotiate.
China envoy has realised this, India and other countries also, and even the EU.
This war will end in the unconditional surrounded of Ukraine or in a nuclear war
Let's hope it ends in the capture of Ukraine. The alternative is much worse.
A lot of questions worth asking. What is Russia's end-game? What specifically does it look like?
The huge population, the full support and funding of the Ukrainian army by the United States and Europe, as well as the bestial hatred that was brought up in Ukrainians for 30 years against Russia, Ukraine's lack of independence in making any political decisions, make Ukraine an existential threat to Russia. In relation to Russia, Ukraine is a shahid country. A little more, and it would be a shahid with a nuclear bomb. The war will continue until, one way or another, this threat is reduced to an acceptable level, or completely destroyed. This has been talked about for decades. I'm surprised that this point of view has not been conveyed to you. Countries are not guided by the principles of morality, or democracy. Rather, their logic resembles the logic of an anthill, no matter what they say on TV. if the NATO anthill is not able to negotiate, but is only able to expand uncontrollably into the territories adjacent to another anthill, soon you will find yourself in the trenches. I will also be there, although I am not a soldier. When my wife asks me to kill a spider, I take it outside on a piece of paper, being careful not to break its little legs.
Yep, agreed. When up against a dirty fighter, a true psychopathic scumbag bully, one that you know will keep on coming back, one must never give an inch or be gentlemanly. Once the fucker is on the ground go in for the kill MMA style and kick their faces in. Break limbs.
Ground well covered by the likes of McGregor and Ritter but without this premium detail. Big Serge remains the Biblical authority..
Very good summary of what I saw occur since following the event from last summer. I thought the city would fall by year end, but I clearly did not understand the difficulties on the ground, nor that the Ukrainians would be prepared to lose so much blood and treasure (military hardware) to hold the city.
I keep wishing the Russians would just get this over with to minimize the lost and damaged lives, but I realize now that the Russians are making Ukraine (and the West) pay a terrible and high price for this needsess war.
The Russians don’t mind turning a few towns to Rubble especially in Eastern Ukraine since they will have to rebuild them. The west could care less about civilian infrastructure since the criminal banks just want the resources at bargain prices.
I don't fault Ukraine for its initial regrouping at Bakhmut, but Ukraine continued with it long after it was clear that Bakhmut was being lost and Ukraine was unnecessarily losing troops. It seems the only thing Ukraine achieved was delaying Russia's conquest.
Now, if this allowed Ukraine to build up forces for a grand counterattack or something, great. But it appears it gained nothing but more time to loot the country and steal aid
Could be that Ukraine was forced to continue at Bakhmut against its wishes & all logic at the order of its masters, for whom the meatgrinder aspect was a real plus not a minus.
Interesting to think about. On the one hand, despite NATOs increasingly desperate and duplicitous claims, Ukraine is now entirely a NATO dependency. All this talk of " full membership" is ridiculous - there's nothing else they would do that they haven't already done, article 5 be damned.
On the other hand, there doesn't appear to be any actual oversight at all?
That might be true. More likely Ukraine decided to do so to keep the loot and grift flowing. As long it could pretend a counterattack was coming, the money could flow. The Cabal just wants to kill Russians (See Sen. Graham' recent comments). They will keep this going as long as there is any chance to kill more Russians.
Russia have cleverly been using Bakhmut to tie up and destroy tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops and equipment.
Russia deliberately ignores major territorial gain for a war of attrition via their superior artillery which is decimating the hapless Ukrainians in this proxy war by Nato against Russia.
Small numbered Russian attacking forces are making incremental gains to entice Ukraine to send in more troops to reinforce their defensive lines in places like Bakhmut and to replace the tens of thousands that have been killed particularly by Russian artillery.
This is a deliberate ploy to kill as many Ukrainian and mercenary troops as possible and destroy as much Nato heavy military equipment as possible and is in line with the main stated aim of the SMO to “demilitarize” and “deNazify” Ukraine.
To emphasize this, here is a statement from Evgeny Prigozhin head of Wagner PMC in November 2022.
"Our task is not Bakhmut himself, but the destruction of the Ukrainian army and the reduction of its combat potential".
On May 6th 2023 he also said ……
“95% of Bakhmut is now under Russian control, remaining 5% does not affect course of Special Operation; Goal was not city's capture but to overwhelm and grind Ukrainian troops, to give Russian army breathing space and restore combat capability.
Ukraine lost 50,000 kia or missing defending Bakhmut”.
120,000 were wounded.
Great write up man. It's all such a shame Slavs killing Slavs. I wish what is left of the Ukrainian population wake up to the fact that they are dying for foreign interests. Decarbonizing the economy as it were.
Yes. I recently visited Croatia and there's a very similar vibe there.
Seems Slavs are just destined to be forever fighting one another, for various different reasons.
No doubt a situation highly satisfactory to The West.
A remarkable analysis, as usual. Big Serge, you're beacon of method and reason in an ocean of propaganda. I can't thank you enough for this. At a personal level, I greatly enjoy learning from your analysis methodology.
.
When Prigozhin was giving speeches in prison yards to find recruits, the word from Western media was that Russia was so inept that they had no better way to fight this war than to refill their decimated forces with untrained brutal criminals. A year later, the rationale behind the mass recruitment of convicts seems quite clear. It wasn't just about finding canon fodder that no one would care about, although this had its advantages from the political perspective. It wasn't about refilling forces in a hurry, although this also was useful. It was not about drastically increasing forces either. It was about gaining time to organise and train a proper military power for when Ukraine's ability to resist had been depleted. And now I can't help but recall the recent words of a Russian diplomat about how Russia has not yet started to fight this war seriously...
.
Now that Ukraine forces have no reserve pool left for the future, Russia will safely keep its defensive posture to withstand the offensive to come. And maybe, if the Ukrainian offensive is defeated efficiently, we'll then see a massive and rapid surge in regular Russian army forces, made of well trained guys who volunteered for this, equipped more than sufficiently, to launch an effort meant at sweeping across large portions of Ukrainian territory. And then, who knows where the Russians would be willing to stop? Odessa, Kharkiv, maybe Kiev or the Moldovan border!
It might just be that Russians were in fact much more clever than any official Western voice would only have thought possible in their nightmares, and that they had assessed Ukraine's power and planned for those developments more than a year in advance...
.
NATO and the EU will be forced to regret their arrogance. If really Russia has put the last year to use to grow a power in reserve, and if they prove capable to conquer larger bits of Ukraine after withstanding a Ukrainian offensive, I can't see how they'd accept to sit at any negotiation table in the Autumn, as several European leaders have started hinting. They'll move forward as much as they like, and this whole sad story will end with an unconditional capitulation from Ukraine.
I believe the Khornate reference at the very end sums it all up quite nicely. Skulls for the Skull Throne, indeed. And there really are enough daemons among us, right here on Terra, who really don't care whose blood flows, only that it flows, and flows, and flows...
I would not assume that Russia lost just cannon fodder. Those squads of convicts has to be led too and the Russians are already very short on sergeants due to their officer bloat and then the restructuring to copy Western militaries.
If they managed to preserve their blooded veterans to train up the rest of their forces then it will be a win in the end. But we really have no way of knowing if the MoD is willing to learn from Wagner
As for Ukraine, it's a weird military fighting a war of national suicide and I have no method to judge them. They probably lost a lot of their offensive potential, but the "Big Ukrainian Offensive" was always a terrible idea anyway. Their best move was to try and negotiate peace after taking kharkiv. NATO is getting too much value out of this war though and will keep it running as long as they can no matter the cost to Ukraine.
Where are you from, if not a secret?
The population of Ukraine is 80% Russian. If a Ukrainian moves to Russia or a Russian moves to Ukraine, they do not need to exert themselves in any way to integrate into the local society. Almost everyone has relatives on the other side of the border.
Therefore, this war is not interethnic, but rather civil.
With the support of the United States, the power was seized by the Nazis, who ideologically come from the Western part, which was introduced into Ukraine by Stalin, and before that they were slaves to the Austrians or Poles for 500 years. And to everyone who has power in Ukraine, it doesn’t matter what happens to the local population. They do not depend on the population, they do not need it, it is alien and dangerous. Therefore, the Nazis and the Americans destroy the people by sending them to war with their relatives.
I consider it a civil war up until the SMO.
After the separatists took power in Kiev, they could only hold on due to support from the West.
The West put pressure on Russia and did not allow support for the Unionists or neutrals. When it became clear that the separatists were leading the country to hell, the unionists rebelled, but it was too late.
? SMO is civil war too.
NATO may regret trying to extract value from this war, though. The depletion of its ammo stocks is massive, and this imposes big budgetary cost on European countries at the same time they must invest massively in the future of their defense capabilities. And they can't do both at once. In other words, the effort being made now is reducing NATO defense capabilities for many years, including US abilities. Which several countries, starting with Russia, may be interested to take advantage of soon.
They are getting their value in the damage they are doing to Russian society and forcing them to invest so much to kill their fellow Russian-speakers drafted into the UAF. Granted it's a pretty irrational strategy overall, but that's what they are invested in and they will continue to double-down. There also is the damage being done to the Orthodox Church which is a huge plus for the demons and can't be calculated on paper as such.
I think you have an irrealistic view of the impact on Russian society. OK for the church issue and more broadly for the fact that a profound drift has appeared between Ukrainians and Russians, which is a new evolution. But for Russia's society, I don't see any serious negative impact. There was a small stream of people fleeing Russia, which the Russian rulers will see as positive, because they do not want citizens who aren't fully dedicated to the national interest. For the rest, Russia has the means to massively invest in the things that matter, and they've proven that GDP is the worst indicator ever. They produce all they need to sustain a war; they are the world's first exporter of agricultural good; they've been restarted factories abandoned by Western companies, to their own benefit; their domestic industrial output is growing; and they found lots of friends to buy their hydrocarbons. Meanwhile, their opponents in the West prove incapable to restart their industrial capacities, and boast about their GDP wile producing much too little of the hard goods that can allow a country to sustain long term war. Europe is entering recession, and it is set to get worse because there is clear energy shortage, which the US is working hard to benefit from to attract industrial productive capacities from the EU to the US. Any way you put it, NATO as a whole is never coming stronger in the short term. But Russia is set to come out of the Ukrainian war stronger than it was, more resilient, more prepared for further conflict, and with a comparative advantage on the West that will be larger than it was a year ago.
I don't entirely disagree, but the impact is unknown going forward depending on many factors. The globalists are determined to disrupt Russian society as a top goal so I think they are happy to be able to use a proxy in this case. Also I have been looking at Prighozin's statements and it seems pretty clear that he would have been arrested already if there wasn't serious Right-wing opposition in certain sectors, maybe even Putin. Putin has been walking a fine line for many years and now he's putting a lot of faith in Xi to back the antiglobalist project. A good move, but at the same time Xi is also walking a fine line too.
My guess is that Prighozin never speaks a word that has not been fully approved by Putin. There's no beef between them. There are struggles between Prighozin, Shoigu, and a few military commanders, but the boss is in control of all of it. The only serious opposition to Putin comes from people who do not understand why he hasn't declared full mobilisation, used nuclear weapons, and waged total war on NATO... Putin is the moderate centrist in Russia, the one who's much more patient than all others. That's a serious advantage for him. And one should not underestimate his iron-fisted control of Russia's state structures.
As forWetersn efforts... Alright, let's say we haven't yet seen all effects, why not. But from what we've seen so far none of the stated strategic objective have been fulfilled: Russia's economy is not collapsing in any way, Russians are not revolting nor turnign away from their government, Russia is not isolated on the international stage but is instead finding more and more friends, and Russia is not being defeated on the battlefield. Total failure so far. My personal opinion is that when countries go into a worldwide conflict, direct war or not, and their leaders keep failing in all their objectives, then those countries are seriously screwed unless the leaders can be replaced all at once. And this is NOT happening any time soon.
Putin's level of communication with Prighozin is unknown. But we can deduce that the cook does have connections as is operating as a voice for them, how much that aligns with Putin's own opinions is anybody's guess. Personally I think Putin is the ultimate pragmatist and happy to let the patriotic hawks have a voice while also letting the MoD continue on their long time path of cronyism and borderline treason. He doesn't arrest Prighozin, but he hasn't fired Shoigu either. But really who can say what Putin is dealing with behind the scenes.
As for Russian society, it's held together a lot better than most people expected. Still I see plenty of problems in the long-term due to the VERY messy divorce with Ukraine (practically a part of Russia for many years) and also the break with Europe. We shall see how it pans out, especially once Putin retires.
One thing is for sure: Russia has many very real-world problems they are going to have to solve because of the Maidan in Ukraine and this war that's been forced on them. Not a bad return for the NATO investment of out-of-thin-air printed dollars. As a bonus Europe gets screwed too, it's all win-win, though certainly one has to question if such stupidity can last much longer. Maybe Trump will win in 2024 and stick it to the man! /s
"Was it all just blood for the blood god?"
I was shocked to read the life expectancy of the Ukrainian on the front is four hours. This compares unfavorably to the fifteen hours an Imperial Guardsman is expected to last against Orks. The Ukrainians often derisively refer to Russians as orcs, but no, these are not orcs, but Orks, particularly brutal and cunning and Orky Orks.
Sorry for that, but you opened the door with your last line. WAAAGH
Its a running theme of several Russian regiments on Telegram to refer to themselves as Orks, and the Ukrainians as Elves/Eldar, in reports full of WH references as they smash through Eldar defenses. There is even a volunteer battalion whose unit insignia is just the Orc Horde banner in Warcraft, so yeah.. they know, and embrace the nickname.
This is a joke. Basically, Ukrainians and Europeans are perceived as Nazi zombies. Unreasonable and inadequately aggressive.
What was the line?
"Skulls for the blood god throne"?
It's Artemovsk now.