Check out this list of headlines, all from one source only, RT and all from the past week or so:

Some are only “more of the same” (like the Ukronazis making the Aussies ban Russian flags at the Open), some are rather disgusting (like the Ukronazi blogger who wants to exterminate the Russian people), some are revolting (like the French warning 5000 Russian graves that “their concession is expiring”!), some are hilarious (like the idea of bust of “Ze” at the Capitol building), some are outright crazy (like the idea of a “Ukraine peace summit” without Russian participation).  Some are weird but encouraging (like the Kentucky gubernatorial candidate, a Democrat, calling for an impeachment of Biden for war crimes).  But some are very, very serious indeed (like the increase of the size of the Russian military to 1.5M or the fact that both the General Milley and Defense Minister Shoigu visiting their troops at the same time.

One could certainly say that these headlines are “signs of the time” (“but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” Matt 16:2-3), but what does this all mean?

First, these headlines are like a snapshot of the West’s collective insanity.  Please keep in mind that the past week was no more and no less rich in crazy ideas and statements than previous weeks.  This snapshot is what one could call the “West’s homeostasis” or, in other words, that is the norm, the stable mental condition in which the West operates.  Future historians, assuming the AngloZionists freaks in power allow us to have a future other than a nuclear apocalypse, will marvel at the collective insanity which overcame an entire continent.

Second, both the rabid #CancelRussia mass phenomenon and the discussions about sending NATO weapons, including MBTs, fighter aircraft, SAMs and the like are an expression of the same impotent rage felt by the leaders of the West.  And headlines like this one “Russian economy doing much better than expected (…)” The financial results for 2022 have exceeded many forecasts, the president [Putin] says” certainly do not help.

The obvious danger here is that frustrated, hate-filled people are typically not capable of rational decision-making.  Let’s, for example, take the “clever” idea of sending the Ukronazis (well, NATO, really) more tanks or aircraft.  If you look at the numbers discussed, they are so small as to make no difference.  But once you sent them to the Ukraine and they get destroyed by Russian missiles, what do you do next?  Send more?

It took the Russians about one month to basically destroy the (original) Ukrainian armed forces.

Then it has taken Russia about 9 months to destroy most of the hardware former Warsaw Treaty Organization (no, it is *not* called a “Pact” – that is pure propaganda and why not call NATO the Atlantic Pact by the same logic?).  The sad part here is that in the process of destroying all that WTO kit, Russia had not choice but to inflict horrendous casualties with Ukrainian KIA/MIA going well into the several hundred of thousands.  “Ze” sent wave after wave after wave of mobilized men straight into the Russian meat-grinder with no chance of prevail and very little chance of survival.

It might take Russia a year or more to fully destroy all the hardware (and “volunteers”) sent by NATO.  Russia is certainly making plans for a long and major war, hence the re-creation of the Moscow and Leningrad Military Districts (you can think of them as “fronts” once a war starts) or the massive increase in weapons procurement up to and including strategic deterrence forces (nuclear and conventional).

Right now, Russia seems to be focusing on destroying the (comparatively) better trained units of the mixed NATO-Ukronazi forces in the eastern Ukraine.  The Russian strategy is very simple: Russia can kill NATO soldiers and hardware faster than NATO can provide reinforcements.  Obviously, this is only a temporary situation, and there are three groupings of Russian forces (North, East, South) all along the frontlines which can intervene at any time and give Russia something she never had since the initiation of the SMO: a full combined arms offensive and a numerical superiority over the other side.

Most knowledgeable observers, such as Col Maggregor, believe that a Russian offensive is all but certain.  Wars can be very unpredictable, and Putin does have a genius ability to act in unpredictable ways, so I would not say that this offensive is absolutely certain, but I agree that it is highly likely.  However, such an offensive is not risk free.

In purely military terms, there is no force on the European continent which could take on the Russian forces currently aligned along the Ukrainian border.  In political terms, there is a major issue for Russia: any terrain that she liberates will have to be protected.

During the first phase of the SMO, the Russians sent in a comparatively small force, which did great in combat against the Ukronazis, but which did not hold ground (which you never do in economy of force and maneuver warfare), resulting into absolutely awful optics including:

  • The perception that Russia promises to come and protect the people she liberated only to then abandon them.
  • The perception that the Russian retreated because of Ukronazi military successes.

The fact that neither of these statements is quite true does not help as they are “close enough” to the truth to sound convincing.  As a result, the Russian side completely lost control of the narrative, for a while even inside Russia!  It took the appointment of Surovikin to reassure the Russian public that while mistakes were made (including in the early phase of the war or during the mobilization), those mistakes would be addressed and corrected.  Now with the Russian Chief of General Staff in final and personal control of the war, nobody doubts that the Kremlin does mean business.

There is also a small, but noticeable change, in the western propaganda with more and more voices dissenting from the official AngloZionist party line.  Of course,  the economic disaster facing the EU is most helpful in sobering up the Europeans: now that more and more EU citizens have to say “bye bye” to the comforts and jobs they used to enjoy (including first and foremost, dirt cheap energy costs), we can count on an increasingly loud rumble of protests.  Maybe not “pro-Russian” ones, no – most Europeans, especially northern Europeans, *do* hate Russia – but at least anti-Establishment ones.  Having silenced your conscience does not keep you warm or, for that matter, employed.  The EU will now discover the very real costs of rabid russophobia.  And sending tanks to the Ukraine obviously won’t help.  Hence the current strikes and protests in several EU countries.

So when the promised offensive materializes, there will be only two options left: ditch the Ukronazi regime “Kabul style” or full commit NATO (or a subset of NATO states) to invade the western Ukraine.  My money is on the latter option.

Actually, this is not one option, but two very different ones.

  • In the first case, NATO (or a subset) will move in unilaterally hoping that Russia will not strike the occupation force.
  • In the second case, the US and Russia could strike a deal and jointly agree to partition the rump-Ukraine.

Obviously, the second solution in infinitely safer and preferable, but just like Hitler and his goons did not want to negotiate with Russian subhumans, neither do the AngloZionists.

Still, here is a truism which must be always kept in mind:

==>>There is nothing in the Ukraine Russia wants or needs<<==

This was true of the Ukraine before the SMO, and it is even more true today.  Country 404 is basically deindustrialized and a prototypical failed state, while the population has been so brainwashed that it will take years to deprogram them.  Russia only wants two things:

  • Protect the Russian speaking population from genocide
  • Deny NATO the use the Ukraine territory to attack Russia

Notice that neither of these options necessarily requires making major territorial gains.  I would even argue that, with one exception (see below), it would be ideal for Russia to achieve these objectives by liberating as little as possible of the currently Nazi occupied land.  As I have said it many times, the Ukrainians need to clear their own house and not expect Russia to do it for them.  Alas, it will take another generation of Ukrainians to do that, assuming they ever will.  But as long as country 404 is sufficiently demilitarized, Russia can wait for the denazification to seep into the minds of millions of brainwashed Ukrainians.

The first consequence of this, is that the Russians are more than happy not to move forward and have the US push NATO forces into the Russian meat grinder.  True, it is unlikely that Russia will be able to demilitarize and denazify the Ukraine without a major offensive to finish up the Nazi forces.  However, the seizure of land is not the Russian goal, only the means to achieve it.

Then there is the issue of the Nikolaev-Odessa-PMR (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic).

While the Kremlin might have other plans, I personally don’t see any other option than to open a land corridor to PMR.  This would also have the immense benefit of cutting the rump-Banderastan from the Black Sea.  For NATO, however, the loss of Odessa and the Black Sea Coast would be a major setback, both politically and militarily.  There were some really dumb ideas circulated about this in the West,including sending in the 101st as a “tripwire” force.  Why is that dumb?  Simply because *IF* the Russians have concluded that the liberation of the entire Ukrainian coast is vital to the security of Russia, then no “tripwire” force will stop them.  And what will the US do if that tripwire force is attacked?  Launch a fullscale nuclear attack on Russia?

Are the US Neocons willing to lose Washington DC, New York, Miami or Los Angeles over Odessa?  I don’t know, but if they are the typical self-worshiping Nazis (which they are), then a nuclear holocaust might seem preferable to these hate-filled freaks.  Can somebody sane stop them?  I don’t know that either.

The headlines above suggest to me that no real decision has been made and that right now there is a tug of war inside the western ruling elites about what to do when the (almost certainly) inevitable Russian offensive happens.  By the way, this fact by itself might be a good reason for the Russians not to move in too soon.  Yes, it is unlikely that saner voices will prevail, but being a nuclear superpower Russian must act with utmost caution and not listen to the Russian turbopatriots and the western “friends of Russia” would have been advocating for total war for months, if not years.

Maybe the “Georgian model” is what might save the day?

Remember how during the three day war in 08.08.08 Russian forces were closing on Tbilissi with nobody left to defend the Georgian capital?  The Russians decided to call back their forces (no, Russia has no need for either the land or the people of Georgia.  Sounds familiar?) but Saakashvili reinterpreted this withdrawal as “our heroic and invincible forces stopped the Russians”.  And two years before that, Dubya who declared with a straight face that Israel defeated Hezbollah the “Divine Victory” war.  So maybe the AngloZionist can save face by declaring that they “prevented Russian from seizing Lvov or Ivano-Frankovsk”?  And if the Russians decide not to try to liberate Kiev, then NATO will be able to declared that “we stopped Russia from seizing Kiev”.  Yes, that would be a rather transparent lie, at least for those few still capable of critical thought, but I personally much prefer a lie, however, silly, to a fullscale war.

So maybe Russia needs to have a third, unspoken, objective: give the crazies in the West a face-saving “out”, no matter how thin or ridiculous.  In fact, I am pretty confident that there are folks in Russia working on this right now.

Andrei


Source: The Saker