Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
As the West drags its feet over additional military support to Ukraine, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg’s well-worn words of support are starting to jar with reality

---

Quote:

---

By Henry Foy | Nov 29, 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/f2cfebb4-77c9-490a-ac99-8c16f3385373

A scoop to start: EU countries including France and Belgium are permitting transshipments of billions of cubic metres of Russian gas, a practice banned by the UK and others, in a scheme that helps Moscow fund its war against Ukraine. (EU ports help sell on over 20% of LNG imports from Russia

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Well, fine!
But don't be surprised if you see a political revolt in Europe, and a lot of governments changing hands in the next couple of years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OK, let's see. In one case (your family) "not surrendering" led to prosperity. Ok, that's a good reason to keep on keeping on. Of course, there's a difference between hard work and pathological greed, and I suspect that the top 1% didn't really work hard d to get there.

In another case (Europe) "not surrendering" leads to permanent poverty. So, what's the upside for "not surrendering"? And who are they "not surrendering" to? Because from where I sit, the EU elite are doing the USA's and globalists' bidding, and you want the people to surrender to their elite.

I really don't see a reason for Europe to continue fighting Russia. Russia has very clear security goals which I think are quite reasonable for everyone: a belt of neutral nations, like Austria, between NATO and Russia. Austria has done quite well as a neutral state, bc being NATO member would just put them in a state of permanent hostility, tension, and increased military expenses. Russia has no interest in invading Austria, or anyone, and did everything possible since 2014 to avoid conflict in Ukraine. It was "the west" that provoked the war.

The sooner people in Europe realize that, the sooner they'll be free of our, and their, bloodsucking elite.

One of us in confused, and I don't think it's me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OK, let's see. In one case (your family) "not surrendering" led to prosperity. Ok, that's a good reason to keep on keeping on. Of course, there's a difference between hard work and pathological greed, and I suspect that the top 1% didn't really work hard d to get there.

In another case (Europe) "not surrendering" leads to permanent poverty. So, what's the upside for "not surrendering"? And who are they "not surrendering" to? Because from where I sit, the EU elite are doing the USA's and globalists' bidding, and you want the people to surrender to their elite.

I really don't see a reason for Europe to continue fighting Russia. Russia has very clear security goals which I think are quite reasonable for everyone: a belt of neutral nations, like Austria, between NATO and Russia. Austria has done quite well as a neutral state, bc being NATO member would just put them in a state of permanent hostility, tension, and increased military expenses. Russia has no interest in invading Austria, or anyone, and did everything possible since 2014 to avoid conflict in Ukraine. It was "the west" that provoked the war.

The sooner people in Europe realize that, the sooner they'll be free of our, and their, bloodsucking elite.

One of us in confused, and I don't think it's me.

SECOND: You have forgotten Russia's past, haven't you? Invading countries and never leaving, at least not until the Soviet Union disintegrated.

---

Quote:

---

They all give promises to NOT do this or that extremely stupid thing, like sign purchase agreements or leases, but then they would break the promises and do as they pleased. That didn't work out to their advantage because they understand nothing about how Capitalism works. On the flip side, they'd promise to do things and then didn't

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It appears that nobody is rushing to complete this delivery because they don't see it as a matter of life or death:

Ukraine's new long-range rocket delivery from US pushed to next year

By Mike Stone | November 30, 2023 11:14 AM CST
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-new-long-range-rocket-de
livery-us-pushed-next-year-2023-11-30/

WASHINGTON, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Ukraine will need to wait until next year before it receives its first big shipment of rocket-propelled bombs the U.S. has adapted to strike at a nearly 100-mile (160km) range, according to the Pentagon and people familiar with the timing...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Russian attempt to control narrative in Ukraine employs age-old tactic of ‘othering’ the enemy

By Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager | November 30, 2023 8:37am EST

https://theconversation.com/russian-attempt-to-control-narrative-in-uk
raine-employs-age-old-tactic-of-othering-the-enemy-206154

Controlling the narrative has long been crucial to Russian President Vladimir Putin in his war against Ukraine.

In the worldview he promulgates, the U.S. is an “empire of lies,”

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine Finally Starts To Build Defense Lines

After wasting ten-thousands of men in hopeless battles the Ukrainian comedian has finally acknowledged that his army's performative 'counter-attacks' and hold-to-the-last-man defenses have made no sense.

Politco's Dreamer of the year finally calls for building defensive lines:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy called for a faster buildup of major defensive lines amid Kyiv’s stalled counteroffensive and concerns that Russia could attempt to take more territory.

Zelenskiy urged greater speed and efficiency in building defenses in a video statement on Telegram after a meeting with key military and security officials Tuesday evening. He encouraged local communities to pitch in and pledged to make money available for the effort.

“Our country will definitely have enough mines and concrete,” he said. He didn’t provide details on where the fortifications would be built or how extensive they might be.

It took the Russian army several months and lots of money to build its extensive defense lines in the southeast of Ukraine.

Zelenski has neither the time nor the money to build solid lines but he wants many of them (machine translation):

According to Zelensky, he held a meeting on fortification in all major directions – first of all on Avdiivka and Maryinsky, as well as on Kupyansk and on the Kupyansk – Liman line, in Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.

In addition, fortifications will be built along the entire border with Russia and Belarus.

"We will work with our partners to strengthen our defensive lines," the president added.

Earlier, Zelensky already spoke about a "special" meeting of the Stavka, where they discussed strengthening the fortification.

Comments Strana (machine translation):

This is quite a landmark statement. It sounds like an announcement of the construction of large-scale defensive lines-similar to the one that Russia has built in the south.

And more broadly, this can be interpreted as a transition to a defensive strategy, which began to be talked about more and more often after the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine actually stopped, and the Russians themselves switched to large-scale attacks.

But officially, the authorities do not talk about the transition to defense, and the main thesis remains that the APU is preparing to attack, and there is no deadlock (which even the commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny wrote about) at the front.

Zelenski called for private companies to build the new fortifications. In the context of Ukraine that means more corruption - lots of it - as government officials will ask for kick backs for any contract they may sign. Previous attempts of privately build defense lines had ditches that were too shallow and of little utility. Some concrete was poured but in the wrong places and shapes.

---

Quote:

---

Zelenskyy ready to hold election BUT... says Ukrainians oppose it as war rages on

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know SECOND'S mental state is fragmenting when he has to post excessively long justifications/ rationalizations to shore up his narrative.

Hey SECOND: Nobody's gonna read your bullshit, and no matter how many words someone writes a square is not a circle, and Ukraine is still losing.
What Russia is doing now is "active defense" according to Shoigu. (Local offensives along the entire frontline.) Apparently we haven't seen the real offensive yet.

Edited to add: Last October, our National Security statement said that Russia was running out of shells, missiles, and people, Ukraine was "winning", and the USA was the strongest military in the world and defending democracy across the globe
All propaganda and worth only as TP. Pretty much like anything our establishment and conjoined media publishes.
Idiots.

---

Quote:

---

Meaning In History
Read in the Substack app

Seymour Hersh's Weird 'General To General' Negotiation Story
Mark Wauck
Dec 2, 2023

Yesterday noted investigative reporter Seymour Hersh came out with a new substack article. In it, Hersh advances the wildly implausible idea that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is being secretly negotiated by the two generals in charge of their respective country’s war efforts: Valery Gerasimov on the Russian side and Valery Zaluzhny on the Ukrainian side:

GENERAL TO GENERAL

A potential peace is being negotiated in Ukraine by military leaders

To get a flavor for just how implausible this narrative is, consider this paragraph:

The driving force of those talks has not been Washington or Moscow, or Biden or Putin, but instead the two high-ranking generals who run the war, Valery Gerasimov of Russia and Valery Zaluzhny of Ukraine. to tell 4

In other words, Hersh is asking readers to believe that these two generals have taken upon themselves the task, not of fighting and winning a war, but of negotiating a peace. And that behind the backs of their respective country’s elected leaders and political power structures (on Gerasimov’s Russian side, that would be the Russian Security Council). On its face, such shenanigans would be treasonous for either general.

Now, it’s true that this narrative comes at a time of open disarray and feuding within what Russia refers to as “the Kiev regime”—not even deigning to refer to the government of a country called Ukraine. It is also a time in which there is open and widespread speculation that the Zhou regime in DC is plotting the removal of Zelensky from Kiev, to be replaced by a new leadership team in which none other than Zaluzhny himself would be the real power. That, one presumes, is the meaning of the trip to Kiev by the de facto SecState of the US (officially Director, CIA), William Burns—a desperate attempt to get Zelensky back on board with the American program. Again, it’s no secret that the American Empire—faced with a growing debacle in Ukraine and the prospect of a humiliatingly decisive Russian victory in an American election year—is increasingly desperate to put a stop to the war by hook or by crook, before Ukraine is totally destroyed as a nation worth looting. From this perspective, it could make a bit of sense to suppose that Zaluzhny would put out feelers to the Russian side, if he had the American Empire at his back.

Nevertheless, Hersh’s narrative was widely dismissed by all sides of the opinion spectrum—Neocons as well as those backing a productive peace. Alexander Mercouris, today, rejected Hersh’s goofy claim that Gerasimov was telling Zaluzhny that Russia could accept Ukraine membership in NATO. Mercouris, correctly, stated that this was “all but incomprehensible.” I would delete the “all but.” Such a concession would be tantamount to Russia suddenly declaring its own defeat in a war that leading figures in the West are conceding that Russia has won. Putin would be signing off on his political—and conceivably personal—demise were he to accept such a ridiculous concept. The whole point of this costly war for Russia has been to thwart a Ukrainian accession to NATO.

Beyond that, Russia, having been lied to repeatedly (in Minsk and then in Istanbul) by Ukraine at the direction of the American Empire, has repeatedly stated that there would be no negotiating with intermediaries—only face to face negotiations with American officials. The US is being presented by Russia with the alternative: either perform yet another bugout for all the world to see, or reveal your guiding role and sit down to negotiate with us—again, for all the world to see. Which is precisely the humiliating set of choices that the Neocons are attempting to avoid.

In fact, yesterday in Skopje Russia’s world class foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov (also a member of the Russian Security Council), shot down any notions that negotiations were ongoing. Back in 2017 Lavrov had stated that, in diplomacy, it takes two to tango but that, while Russia was prepared to tango, the US was breakdancing. Lavrov revived that metaphor in describing the current situation:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that it takes two people to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, like in tango, and Ukraine and its Western curators are breaking dancing.

Lavrov said this during a press conference following the meeting of the OSCE foreign ministers in Skopje.

The minister stressed that so far Russia has not seen on the part of Kiev and its "masters" a willingness to start a settlement of the conflict.

"In order to start a political process, you need two, just like in tango, but the guys on the other side dance not tango, but breakdance," Lavrov said.

In other words, Lavrov reiterated the Russian position that the “Kiev regime” is not a sovereign and independent actor—it is a puppet regime of the American Empire. Therefore, no true settlement can take place without direct talks between the two real parties in interest: Russia and Americ

Now, yesterday in the comments to our post Big Serge On The Theory Of Modern War--With Examples, Hersh’s narrative was the hot topic of discussion. We all agreed that, as it stood, it was nonsensical. That led to the question: What were Hersh’s sources using him to put out in public? The general consensus was this. Given that the Neocons refuse to negotiate face to face with the Russians, Hersh was being used to let the Russian side know what terms the American Empire was willing to accept—and enforce on the Kiev Regime—in other words, the Hersh narrative represented an indirect negotiating gambit. There are two problems with that. The first is that the terms being offered—Ukraine’s entry to NATO—are a deal breaker from the get go. The second is that Russia is demanding an actual treaty, ratified by the US Senate. That was what Putin proposed before beginning his Special Military Operation and the success of Russia’s military campaign and defeat of the sanctions war will, no doubt, have only strengthened his resolve in that regard.

Simplicius the Thinker, in one of his trademark long posts, addresses some of these issues today. Firstly, Simplicius characterizes the core part of the narrative as “eye rolling”:

Firstly, many have understandably rolled their eyes at the claim that Russia is ready to give Ukraine the NATO allowance, or is content to simply walk away with Crimea and Donbass. But keep in mind, since this was relayed to Hersh through an alleged “American official,” it likely represents just the American side’s offers, not what the Russian side is necessarily actually willing to accept—but who knows.

But as we have seen, America may be making offers, but Russia is ignoring them. Simplicius goes on to rehearse several of the recent Russian rejections, which include direct statements that strongly indicate Russia’s intent to prosecute the war to its logical conclusion—the dissolution of the Ukrainian puppet state:

Let me add that there has been an increasing volume of voices from the Russian side pointing to the complete disavowal of any potential ceasefires. All the usuals like Medvedev and co. have been barking but there’s been a few interesting new additions. For instance, Russian deputy foreign minister Ryabkov said there’ll be no ceasefire in all of 2024:

Is that an indicator that Russia intends to put an end to the war in 2024? Maybe so:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/8-November-Combi
ned-PDF-for-Upload.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know SECOND'S mental state is fragmenting when he has to post excessively long justifications/ rationalizations to shore up his narrative.

Hey SECOND: Nobody's gonna read your bullshit, and no matter how many words someone writes a square is not a circle, and Ukraine is still losing.
What Russia is doing now is "active defense" according to Shoigu. (Local offensives along the entire frontline.) Apparently we haven't seen the real offensive yet.

Edited to add: Last October, our National Security statement said that Russia was running out of shells, missiles, and people, Ukraine was "winning", and the USA was the strongest military in the world and defending democracy across the globe
All propaganda and worth only as TP. Pretty much like anything our establishment and conjoined media publishes.
Idiots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Meanwhile, Meduza (same source) estimates the total #of Russian soldiers killed at only 37,000 as of last week.

Hardly a figure that matches the idea of a military that runs "meat puppets". Also, Russian lengthy training and weapons-heavy "preparation" of a battlefield (you REALLY should watch Military Summary Channel!) also tells a story of a military that is careful of its soldiers.

In sum: unmitigated bull-twaddle.

---

Quote:

---

"Has Kyiv Already Lost?" – Germany's Welt Newspaper Claims Ukraine Is "Crumbling" & That Orbán Was Right But "Nobody Dares Admit It"

Germany’s Welt newspaper, perhaps the most popular publication in the country, is well known for its pro-Ukraine stance and ran numerous articles in the past about the likely success of Ukraine’s military offensive against Russia.

However, in a column published yesterday by the paper’s chief correspondent, Sascha Lehnartz, the assessment of Ukraine’s chances in the war is decidedly bleak.

Entitled “Has Kyiv already lost?” the article describes Ukraine’s military growing increasingly despondent to the point that the country’s commander-in-chief admits there is a “stalemate” at the front.

“Winter is just around the corner. The counteroffensive seems to have failed. The allies are weary. And since the beginning of November at the latest, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has a new opponent who was not necessarily to be expected: his own commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny,” writes Die Welt.

Welt is referring to a recent interview in the Economist, in which Ukraine’s top general, Valery Zaluzhny, stated that “(a)s in the First World War, we have reached a technical level that puts us in a stalemate situation” and that in order for Ukraine to win, it would take miracle weapons to defeat the Russians, “like Chinese gunpowder.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

JUST KEEPING IT REAL, FOLKS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

JUST KEEPING IT REAL, FOLKS.

SECOND: Is Vladimir Putin winning? Can't declare a winner because the war has many more years to go.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

"The" war? Which war is that?
The war proxy between Ukraine and Russia is coming to a close.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I predict it will end in 2024.

---