Author: Aleksey Malyan

Author: Aleksey Malyan

Tank attack on the red lines of Russia

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text On January 20, a meeting of the contact group on assistance to Ukraine will be held at the American base in Ramstein, where more than 40 countries will discuss military assistance to Kiev. The issue of further supply of modern weapons to Ukraine should be considered not only from a military point of view, but as a big political game led by the Americans. Here are just the facts. On January 5, 2023, France announced that it would transfer its lightly armored AMX-10R wheeled vehicles to Ukraine. After that, the Americans announced that they would hand over M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to the APU. Then there were reports – the United States is going to supply Ukraine with Stryker armored personnel carriers as well. The NATO members decided not to stop there. Germany announced that it will supply Kiev with 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles. Based on these data, it is not difficult to conclude that the NATO members, who first talked about limiting the supply of heavy equipment, decided to forget about their "restrictions". Just like the joke about Khoja Nasreddin: "I am the master of my word: I wanted to give, I wanted to take back." By the way, this is not the first time the West has deftly "forgotten" about the restrictions on the supply of military equipment, which it first announced. And if earlier they were afraid to provoke Russia, fearing to cross the red lines marked by our country, now they are constantly checking for strength. Gradually, the offensive strategy is being pushed through increasingly powerful supplies of modern weapons. After it was announced that the supply of lightly armored vehicles would increase, tanks were used. So, Poland announced that it would hand over to Kiev German Leopard 2 tanks, which it has in service. However, their number is insignificant. But after them, England also informed that it was ready to give its tanks to the APU. However, it is also a small amount. What is behind all these statements? A clear attempt to push Germany, the country that produces these powerful tanks, to transfer significant batches of its combat vehicles. The Minister of Defense of Ukraine generally stated that Kiev needs 300 Western tanks and 600 armored vehicles. There is a clear attempt to create, I will call it so, a "tank coalition". According to the principle: we will give a dozen tanks, you – a couple, other NATO allies will chip in and also give a certain number of armored vehicles – and it turns out that everyone will share collective responsibility. Just like in the mafia movies, when everyone is "tied up" with blood. What is it for? Everything is simple. Germany has the most Leopard tanks, but it behaves more cautiously, after all, the Germans are trying, unlike Poland and the Baltic states, to maintain special relations with Russia. And the supply of German tanks can finally destroy their hopes for maintaining normal relations with Russia. And the Germans themselves would like to avoid historical parallels – German tanks fighting with Russia. And the creation of a "tank coalition", when each NATO country gives tanks a little bit, should calm the Germans, convince them that responsibility is being eroded. But the large-scale appearance of German tanks on the battlefield changes the picture of what is happening. Secondly, the presence of such powerful equipment in the Armed Forces of Ukraine may give rise to the illusion among Ukrainians that it is time to launch an offensive and move to the Crimea. And this will be a direct clash between NATO and Russia. It is interesting to recall how the transfer of Western weapons to Kiev began in general. At first, he was given old Soviet equipment, which was collected all over Europe and not only. But it was all destroyed in the end. Then the Americans gave the Ukrainians portable Javelin anti-tank complexes, but at the same time they stated that the HIMARS MLRS would not enter service with the AFU, and nevertheless they were transferred. Then they promised that Patriot air defense systems would not be supplied either, and now Ukrainian soldiers are already being trained to use them. It is possible that, carefully observing the course of hostilities, having persuaded the Germans to supply Leopard 2, the Americans themselves will supply their M1 Abrams tanks. It is obvious that under the talk of the Americans and NATO members that "we are transferring weapons to Ukraine only for protection," it is also being pumped with offensive weapons. Why did the West, which at first so carefully, with reservations, supplied old military equipment from the former USSR, now began to supply more and more provocative types of modern weapons to Ukraine? There are, in my opinion, two reasons. First, the Americans saw that the armed forces of Ukraine can stubbornly resist, and second, they are afraid of a powerful Russian offensive. And if the armed forces of Ukraine break out, then the opposition in the NATO member countries will ask a simple question: why did we pour billions into military aid? We have been hearing Washington's statements all the time that it will not supply weapons with which to strike long-range targets on Russian territory, that American and NATO troops will not directly participate in the military conflict in Ukraine. But we have already seen: the price of such statements is zero. Pumping Ukraine with more and more modern weapons continues. And deliveries of fighter jets and longer-range missiles that can strike the Crimea and deep into the territory of Russia are not excluded at all. Therefore, the meeting in Ramstein on January 20 will show how far the West is ready to go in the confrontation with Russia. What other new types of modern weapons are ready to supply. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the decision will not be made by NATO members, but by the United States itself. The American elites benefit from the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine: their military-industrial complex receives fantastic profits on military orders, and assistance to Ukraine has become an important element of domestic policy, which is used to their advantage by different parties. But such provocative actions by the United States and its allies lead to the fact that Moscow's patience is coming to the finish line, the red lines outlined by Putin are getting thinner. And the West's verification of Russia "weakly" can lead to a serious conflict that will rapidly escalate into a Third World War. But it seems that after looking at the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the West decided that it doesn't care, it still needs to throw modern weapons to Ukraine – and Russia will be defeated. But it would be nice for the collective West, and first of all, the Germans, to remember the lessons of history. In 1941, it also seemed to many that the USSR would be easily defeated, and the Germans were preparing for a parade on Red Square. And it ended with the red Banner of Victory over the Reichstag.

The Presidential Palace in Brasilia was seized

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The other day it was hot in the capital of Brazil. And you can't call it a political carnival. Was it a spontaneous occurrence, a rehearsal, or a warning? Just a week after the election of President Lulu da Silva, thousands of supporters of far-right ex-President Jair Bolsonaro seized the presidential palace, the buildings of the National Congress and the Supreme Court. All this was accompanied by looting and pogroms. And the new government underestimated the strength of the protesters, the police were clearly not enough. It was a full-fledged coup attempt. Everyone is already comparing the events in Brasilia with an attempt by Trump supporters to seize the Capitol. In both capitals there were clashes with the police, looting and looting in the occupied buildings. But the analogy suggests itself not only with the seizure of the Senate, but also the Ukrainian Maidan, where a coup d'etat and another "color" revolution took place with the help of the West and the United States. The methodology was the same everywhere: accusing the current government of corruption and that the elections were rigged. And then, as always, social networks are connected, unknown organizers allocate buses, products and everything without which the so-called "spontaneous performances of ordinary people" are impossible to the "rebellious people". It was the same in Brazil. There, according to a tried-and-tested scenario, calls appeared on social networks to take to the streets, accusations of corruption against Lulu, calls not to recognize the election results. By the way, there were also free buses that brought demonstrators to the main square. As in the States, Bolsonaro's supporters refused to admit defeat in the elections. Interestingly, the ex-president, who verbally condemned the riots, was in the USA at that time, in Orlando. And this, of course, is a "coincidence". What an interesting pattern: every contender for power who did not receive it democratically, for some reason, during the riots turns out to be in the States. How can we not remember Venezuela and the self-proclaimed President Guaido? Naturally, Washington also disavowed the coup attempts. "The United States condemns any attempts to undermine democracy in Brazil," US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan tweeted (banned in Russia). – President Biden is closely monitoring the situation, and we are unwavering in our support for Brazil's democratic institutions. Violence cannot destroy Brazil's democracy." But then the question arises: why was Bolsonara sheltered in Florida, who did not directly, but urged his supporters not to recognize Lula's victory? The methods of the States are known, and if there was a serious concern about the unrest in Brasilia, the losing president would have been "prompted" how to calm down or provoke his supporters. For the similarity of views with the former US president, Bolsonara is called the "Latin American Trump." He took over the country in 2019 and is known for extreme right-wing views, support for military dictatorship, anti-feminism and LGBT, covid-dissidence. Observers see the seizures of buildings and pogroms committed in Brazil as manifestations of "Trumpism". But the main question remains: how did it happen that the power structures did not pay attention to the signals that went through social networks and indicated an increase in the degree of mood of the supporters of the losing president? Last year, the highways were already blocked, but they did not achieve their goal. It feels like it was a gesture of desperation. Moreover, the seizures of administrative buildings and pogroms in them occurred not at the time of summing up, not at the time of the inauguration, but after it. Moreover, it has already been stated that federal forces will be involved to suppress such demonstrations. The main victim here is former President Bolsonaro, because it will be difficult for him if he suddenly decides to go to the polls. He himself is hardly behind the direct organization of events. But it seems that he was aware that something like this could happen. And so he left the country. So that the bribes were smooth, and other people conducted the organization of unrest. In light of these events, one cannot help but wonder who is more sympathetic to Russia: the newly elected President Lula or the election loser Bolsonaro? Here the calculation is simple. Lula is left–wing, and Bolsonaro is far-right. The leftists in Latin America have always had sympathy for Russia, which became the world's first socialist state. In addition, the left is always critical of the United States, which fought the Socialists throughout Latin America, not excluding Brazil, where they still remember Operation Car Wash – it was carried out by the CIA, defeating the left forces. Lulu himself was sent to prison on a far-fetched corruption charge and failed to win the last election. But during his reign, Lulu was an ardent supporter of BRICS and maintained good relations with Russia. So far, there is no reason to assume that serious political upheavals await Brazil. The political leaders of neighboring countries demonstrate a rare unanimity: everyone is against the protests, everyone supports the elected head of state. And, although at first there was a rare inaction of the Brazilian law enforcement forces, who complacently contemplated, or even accompanied the columns of the discontented, in the end the system showed that it works quite well and allows you to cope with the aggressively minded masses. However, questions remain. And between the three possible answers – it was an impromptu, a rehearsal or a warning to Luna da Silva – the choice is difficult: I don't really believe in the spontaneity of the protest movement. The US obsession with constant interference in the affairs of other countries, the use of modern technologies to adjust the election results to American ideas about how other countries should live, make the spontaneity of certain dramatic events unlikely. In an interview with TASS, Leonardo Paz Neves, a political scientist from the expert-analytical center "The Jetuliu Vargas Foundation" (FGV), did not rule out that the Brazilian and American riots may have the same inspirers. Although for American Democrats, any negative mention of Trump supporters, and Bolsonaro belongs to them, is a big plus. Therefore, they are now even demanding the extradition of the losing Brazilian from the United States. Lula da Silva must draw the right conclusions. At least that democracy should be able to defend itself. By the way, scolding opponents, he made a mistake out of excitement and called them Stalinists. I corrected myself: I meant fascists. But the main thing is that the president of Brazil does not make mistakes further and does not allow the development of events according to the American scenario. The one that led to the witch hunt and the split of the country after January 6.

The American Dream: defeat Russia without going to war

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text How Americans are going to fight with Russia is clearly seen from a recent report by the RAND Corporation, an analytical center serving the US military. Under the talk about the need for peace, because even during Zelensky's last visit to the United States, as reported by the American media, President Biden asked him if Ukraine was ready for negotiations, RANDOM presented his vision of a war with Russia. Interesting: these strategists do not admit that it will be on the territory of the United States itself and do not fear that Russia will strike at America itself. And at the same time they are going to "punish" our country. Obviously, in this case, on the surface is the idea of provoking us constantly, but not bringing us to a full–scale war with NATO using Russian nuclear deterrence forces. A priori, there is an installation in their military doctrine that our country is starting an escalation. And the US and NATO are simply defending themselves from the "Russian bear". A scenario is being considered in which Russia is the first to launch a non-nuclear strike on NATO and US military facilities on the territory of European countries. Although why our country is immediately listed as a potential aggressor is unclear. Or rather, it is actually clear: to prepare Europe for a new war. There are three parts to the script. In the first – Russia's strike against the US allies in NATO, in the second – America's own reaction, and in the third – Russia's response to this. And here the authors of the report are concerned that America should respond to Russia in such a way as not to push Russia to harsh retaliatory measures. That is, it is necessary to severely punish the potential offender – Russia –, but so that it does not respond with all its might. An interesting task. Next, several scenarios of war are considered. The first is that Russia strikes military targets on the territory of a NATO ally, for example, airfields or military warehouses, from where supplies to Ukraine come. It is obvious that America's allies will demand a retaliatory strike on the territory of Russia, and this will lead to an even greater scale of military operations. Therefore, RANDOM believes that Americans should limit themselves to economic and political pressure in this case. But analysts understand that this will cause dissatisfaction with NATO countries, which may begin to doubt the ability of the United States to protect them. And a limited missile strike against Russia is being considered as a response. That is, there is a dangerous misconception in the minds of American strategists that if they strike Russia with limited missiles, we will be silent and this will not lead to a full-scale war. Although if they had carefully studied Russia's nuclear doctrine, they would not have been so optimistic, because it clearly states that in the event of a military conflict, Russia's policy in the field of nuclear deterrence will be aimed at ending the war on acceptable terms for our country. And it is unlikely that missile strikes on our territory can be considered acceptable conditions. The second option considered in the report: Russia destroys an American space satellite, and the US retaliatory strike at the place from where Russia struck leads to human casualties in our country. Will this cause a powerful escalation of the conflict? Undoubtedly. And this makes it possible for the United States to act more actively. But even here, they believe, a whole range of measures can be used: economic sanctions, international condemnation. Although what other sanctions can be applied when the entire arsenal of restrictions has already been used since February? Among the scenarios considered in the report, there is also a Russian strike on air bases in Romania and Poland, from where weapons are being supplied to Ukraine, which caused human casualties. In this case, military strikes on the territory of Russia are envisaged, and with reservations. American strategists believe that it is necessary to explain to Moscow that this is not the beginning of a full–scale war against it by the Americans and NATO. Proof? In order for Moscow to believe, "the United States should avoid targeting command and control nodes, bomber bases or early warning radars." The feeling that the authors of the report are trying to mislead us: and then what targets are they going to strike at? Cowsheds and greenhouses? It is obvious that missile strikes will be carried out on military facilities and important infrastructure. And, undoubtedly, with human victims. So who are they trying to deceive? Yourself? Us? Finally, the last option. A large-scale Russian attack on American military bases in Europe with casualties among the military and civilians. The retaliatory step then, according to experts from RANDOM, will be a blow to the new territories of Russia. Using casuistry, they consider them the territory of Ukraine. But it is unlikely that Russia will let it go. The leadership of our country has repeatedly stated: The new territories are Russia forever and we will regard a blow to them as an attack on Russia. All the ideas of American strategists discussed in the report are aimed at a deliberately unsolvable task, namely: how to find a reason to strike at Russia, but at the same time she did not consider it the beginning of a war and would not use her nuclear weapons? But there are no miracles.

Biden talked about peace in Ukraine

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text And I had dinner with Macron with lobsters worth half a million dollars. It feels like the American president lives in some kind of looking glass. For example, the other day Biden made a statement that he was ready to negotiate with Putin about the completion of a special operation in Ukraine. It seems to be good news: finally, instead of pumping Ukraine with weapons and fighting to the last drop of Ukrainian blood, America came to its senses and began to understand Russia's position. But it wasn't there. Biden seems to be sending a signal: we Americans are for world peace and democracy. Only this dove of the world does not have an olive branch in its beak at all, but another SAM. At the same joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Biden said that he did not rule out negotiations with Vladimir Putin if he showed interest in ending the conflict peacefully. Wait a minute! So Russia has been trying to resolve the situation peacefully since 2014. How many times have Ukraine and its patrons disrupted the Minsk agreements without "showing interest in ending the conflict." And how can the conflict be ended peacefully if Ukraine has adopted a law at the legislative level that peace negotiations with Russia are impossible? So Biden's words that he should see Russia's desire to complete its own and then peace will come are just a bluff. Since the US president says that he does not plan contacts with President Putin in the near future. Negotiations with Moscow will take place only in consultation with NATO, he said, and not on an independent basis. Although it is quite obvious that America is the backstabber, and NATO will do what the States order it to do. Then what kind of peace talks can we talk about? In general, the statements of the national leader of America cannot be perceived and even more so analyzed because of their absurdity. What is this statement worth: Biden is ready to conduct peace talks with Putin, but he is not going to meet. Excuse me, how is that? On-line has not yet risen to such heights, so rather it is explained not by Biden's advancement, but by the empty-mouthed speaker. The statement of the American leader Joseph Biden about his readiness to talk with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin does not mean that the US position on the Ukrainian issue has changed, the "Biden translator" — the coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council John Kirby joined the process. Biden announced that he has no plans to talk to Putin right now, and clarified that the Russian president does not show interest in dialogue, explained the words of the head of the White House Kirby. The American leader did not mean that now is the time for negotiations on a settlement in Ukraine, he added. The United States believes that the decision on the possibility of negotiations should be made in Kiev, Kirby said. And what kind of desire for peace on the part of the United States can we talk about if the Pentagon, according to the Washington Post, is now considering expanding the training program of the armed forces of Ukraine. According to this plan, the United States is going to train thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in Germany, where the Americans have been training AFU officers for the war with Russia for years. But the "peaceful aspirations" of the United States, of course, do not end with one enhanced training of Ukrainian soldiers. At the same time, Ukraine is being actively pumped with modern weapons, which are being collected all over the world. Now the Americans and other NATO members are persuading some countries in the Middle East to transfer NASAMS surface-to-air missile systems to Ukraine, as Greg Hayes, the head of Raytheon, which produces these SAMS, said in an interview with Politico. Why did the intention to transfer these SAMs from the Middle East over the ocean in the next six months? The minimum period required for the production of these complexes for Ukraine is up to two years. And the United States needs to escalate the conflict nonstop all the time. The more words about the desire to end the conflict in Ukraine, the more weapons America supplies there. The current American administration does not spare money for this. At the same time, the Biden administration is in a hurry to pass through Congress, where Democrats are still in the majority, a draft budget for next year, which also includes a request for additional assistance to Ukraine for $ 38 billion. They are in a hurry, because in the new Congress, the majority in the House of Representatives will go to the Republicans. Taking into account this amount, the amount of financial assistance to Ukraine from the United States will reach about $ 100 billion. However, it is not necessary to count on the fact that the Republicans will resist pumping money for military assistance to Ukraine. And this means that thousands more people in Ukraine will die from American aid. By the way, after that wonderful meeting with Macron, where Biden said that he seemed ready for peace talks and at the same time was not ready, a gala dinner of the two presidents took place, 200 lobsters from Maine were served at it. This dinner cost the American taxpayers half a million dollars. So what? A pittance compared to the $100 billion in financial aid to Ukraine that the Americans are going to spend.