- Russian Ambassador: UK 'too deep' in Ukraine War
Russian Ambassador Andrei Kelin has told Sky News that the UK is "too deep" in the Ukraine war. Mr Kelin also admitted that Russian President Vladimir Putin is looking for a way out of the conflict.
Printable View
- Russian Ambassador: UK 'too deep' in Ukraine War
Russian Ambassador Andrei Kelin has told Sky News that the UK is "too deep" in the Ukraine war. Mr Kelin also admitted that Russian President Vladimir Putin is looking for a way out of the conflict.
Thank you but that video was presented here on this thread on November 4, see link,Quote:
Posted by ExomatrixTV
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1526072
https://sputniknews.com/20221109/sco...medium=twitter
Scott Ritter Explains Why Russia's Kherson Withdrawal is a Pyrrhic Ukrainian Victory
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has ordered the withdrawal of Russian troops from parts of Kherson to form defensive positions on the left bank of the Dnepr River, after commander of all Russian forces in Ukraine Sergei Surovikin warned of Kiev's plans to launch a massive missile attack on a local dam and indiscriminate strikes on civilians.
Speaking with Sputnik, Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, has explained why the decision to relocate Russian troops to the left bank of the Dnepr River shouldn't be viewed as a "Russian defeat," but rather as a "pyrrhic Ukrainian victory."
Sputnik: What are the main reasons for the Russian withdrawal from parts of Kherson? Is this a reasonable move, given circumstances such as the approaching winter?
Scott Ritter: I think the decision was made irregardless of the weather. This is a decision that seemed to focus on preserving the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers over holding on to territory which has no intrinsic value in the short term. I think it was a just decision, one that was made based upon purely military objectives. I think the decision had been made because it was too difficult to reliably supply the Russian troops stationed on the right bank of the river in the vicinity of Kherson with the materiel necessary to ensure their victory over attacking Ukrainian forces and that ultimately these lives could be saved by going back to the left bank, securing their defensive positions and then holding off the Ukrainians, until such time Russia was able to accumulate sufficient offensive military power necessary to retake Kherson, reoccupy the right bank and possibly advance further into Ukraine.
Sputnik: What does Ukraine win and lose by occupying the right bank?
Ritter: First and foremost, this will be a very big political victory for Ukraine. There should be no doubt about this. Ukraine will be capturing or recapturing from their perspective the only major administrative center that had been captured by the Russians in their special military operation. The recapture of Kherson has been a strategic objective of the Zelensky government and the Ukrainian military from the start of their major counter-offensive in September. And if they are able to put troops in Kherson, raise the Ukrainian flag over the administrative buildings of Kherson, this will be seen as an extraordinarily important political victory for them, one which will be able to be used to argue for continued military and financial support from NATO, from the United States and from other nations.
But it's a political victory only because unless the Ukrainian occupation of Kherson occured in partnership with a larger peace agreement that guaranteed them possession of Kherson in perpetuity, this is, I believe, simply a temporary state of affairs that ultimately, once Russia is able to assemble the totality of the 300,000 men that were mobilized and then carry out combat operations reflective of this new military capacity, that Russia will recapture Kherson, reoccupy the right bank of the Dnepr River and as I said before, have the possibility of advancing further into Ukraine up to and including the capture of the city of Odessa.
Sputnik: In his report to the defense minister, commander of Russian forces in Ukraine Surovikin pointed out that Ukraine’s losses are 7-8 times greater than Russia’s. Can Ukraine really continue to rely on rapid advances?
Ritter: This is ultimately the military math that must be considered by everybody who is assessing the situation. The fact of the matter is, Ukraine cannot continue to operate under conditions where it's suffering seven to eight times casualties as their Russian opponents and expect to emerge from this conflict victorious. The casualty rate is too high. It's unsustainable, and ultimately, if it continues, will lead to the strategic defeat of Ukraine.
This is why the Kherson operation must be viewed not as a Russians defeat, but as a pyrrhic Ukrainian victory, that means that Ukraine may have achieved a political victory, but the military cost that they take was too high, unsustainable and ultimately will lead to the defeat of Ukraine.
Sputnik: What does this move say about the Russian strategy? Is Moscow playing the long game in Ukraine? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy?
Ritter: First and foremost, this should demonstrate to the Russian mothers, wives and daughters that the Russian government takes the lives of their loved ones, the men who have been sent into combat very seriously and is not willing to sacrifice them needlessly. That's an extraordinarily important statement being made by the Russian government, where they are willing to accept short-term embarassment in exchange for preserving the lives of Russia's most precious asset, which is its human resources, in this case, the men who wear the uniform of the Russian army.
It also shows that Russia is in no hurry to get this conflict over with, that Russia is willing to consolidate its defenses in order to preserve life potentially extending the conflict, but in a manner which allows Russia to gain the advantage at a time and place that's more beneficial to Russia, so that not only will Russia ultimately achieve the military victory it seeks, but it will do so without needlessly sacrificing thousands of Russian military lives.
https://sputniknews.com/20221109/3-r...medium=twitter
3 Reasons Russia is Withdrawing From Part of Kherson
General Sergei Surovikin announced Wednesday that Russian forces are withdrawing from the right bank of the Dnepr River and forming defensive positions on its left bank. What motivated the Russian military’s decision? Sputnik provides a few possible reasons.
Russian General Sergei Surovikin never made any secret of the “very difficult” situation that had developed on the front in Kherson. On October 18, only 10 days after being appointed commander of all Russian forces in Ukraine, the officer stressed that the NATO puppet masters pulling the Ukrainian Army’s strings had long demanded “offensive operations in the Kherson direction” to push Russian forces from Kherson’s right bank, “without any regard for casualties, both among the Armed Forces of Ukraine and among the civilian population.”
The commander pointed out that HIMARS strikes had already damaged the Antonovsky Bridge linking Kherson’s left and right banks across the Dnepr, as well as the nearby Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station, complicating the transport situation and causing problems with food and electricity deliveries. On top of that, Surovikin said, Moscow had intelligence that Kiev was planning to launch a massive missile attack on the Kakhovskaya Dam, and indiscriminate missile and artillery strikes against the city of Kherson and its population of 180,000+ residents.
“Our further plans and actions regarding the city of Kherson will depend on the emerging military-tactical situation,” Surovikin said at the time, emphasizing that Russia’s strategy would proceed from the need to preserve the lives of both civilians and Russian military personnel. He did not rule out “difficult decisions.”
Tactical Necessity
On Wednesday, the moment for such a decision came. Speaking to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and once again reiterating the threat of a Ukrainian attack on the Kakhovskaya Dam, Surovikin warned that “there will be an additional threat to the civilian population and of the complete isolation of our group of forces on the right bank of the Dnepr. Under these conditions, the most appropriate option will be to establish defense along the barrier line of the Dnepr River.”
“Most importantly, we will save the lives of our servicemen and, in general, the combat capability of our group of forces” in a situation where “keeping them on the Right Bank within a limited area would be futile,” Surovikin stressed.
Shoigu agreed with Surovikin’s assessment, reiterating the importance of preserving the lives of both military personnel and noncombatants.
Threat to Civilians
Surovikin’s concerns about the danger posed to Kherson’s civilian population are not academic. In the opening stages of Russia’s military operation this spring, thousands were killed or injured in Mariupol, Popasnaya, Volnovakha and other urban locations after Ukrainian forces and neo-Nazi battalions dug in, often deliberately in civilian areas, hiding in or near apartment blocks, shopping centers, schools, kindergartens, and even hospitals, to lure Russian forces into bloody street battles, and receive a convenient pretext to accuse Moscow of war crimes anytime a civilian building was damaged or destroyed.
By withdrawing forces from the right bank of the Dnepr, Russian forces have signaled their rejection of this costly and bloody strategy. Over the past three weeks, as Ukrainian forces amassed troops near Kherson and intensified shelling of the city, a large-scale evacuation of civilians was kicked off. In his remarks Wednesday, Surovikin reported that over 115,000 people had been evacuated, taken to Crimea and other areas deeper inside Russia.
The military’s strategy of evacuation and the creation of a defensive line that can be easily secured appears to be aimed at showing that Russia is not interested in "pyrrhic victories," and that Moscow will not succumb to efforts by NATO and its clients in Kiev to drown the region in blood, kill tens of thousands, and trap Russia in a hopeless strategic and tactical situation from which it would be nearly impossible to escape.
In the run-up to Wednesday’s announcement, Ukrainian commanders made no secret of their assessment of the situation. On October 29, Ukrainian military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov predicted that amid the concentration of Ukrainian forces, NATO mercs, and heavy weapons near Kherson, the “liberation” of the city wouldn’t take place “without a fight,” but be preceded by the cordoning off of the city and the isolation of Russian forces, followed by battles to gradually grind them down. The strategy is familiar to historians of the Second World War on the Eastern Front, which featured the heavy use of pincers to encircle troops, leave them without supplies, and gradually close the noose to eliminate them or take them prisoner.
In his remarks last month, Budanov even suggested that Russia might sabotage the Kakhovskaya Dam to try to slow down Ukrainian forces, apparently forgetting that terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure was more Kiev and the West’s forte (the recent attacks on Nord Stream, the Crimean Bridge, and Sevastopol Bay serving as but a few examples).
Russia’s Strategy in Historical Context
The Russian military’s decision was obviously a “difficult,” forced measure, as Surovikin openly stated in his remarks Wednesday.
In both the strategic and historical contexts, the pullout to the left bank of the Dnepr River could be said to be based on a broader interest – winning the "proxy war" that the West has declared on Russia, not winning a single battle. During the Great Northern War against Sweden of 1700-1721, the French invasion of Russia in 1812, and the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, commanders pulled back forces dozens or even hundreds of kilometers when necessary, but never lost sight of the strategic goal.
In the Ukrainian security crisis, unleashed by the US and the EU in 2014, time appears to be on Russia’s side, with Kiev and its Western backers facing an increasingly grim series of economic and energy crises, and Western capitals from Washington to Berlin signaling exhaustion with Kiev, and expressing growing hesitation to support the bottomless pit of weapons and cash that Ukraine has become.
US and European media have issued report after report detailing how NATO is literally running out of weapons to send to Ukraine. Meanwhile, capitals across Europe, including economic and political powerhouse Germany, have been overrun with cost of living protests sparked largely by Brussels’ move to slap restrictions on Russian energy.
The US, which has committed $60 billion of the estimated $100 billion in military and economic support sent to Kiev over the past eight months, just held its most highly-contested midterm elections in decades, with Republicans poised to take the House, and wrangling with Democrats for control of the Senate. Last month, Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy warned that there would be no “blank check” for Ukraine in a GOP-controlled House.
The Trump wing of the GOP has been even more adamant, with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene stressing last week that “not another penny will go to Ukraine” under the Republicans, who will instead focus Washington’s energy and resources on the US’ porous border with Mexico. Only time will tell whether the politicians will make good on their promises, or even be allowed to do so by America's powerful deep state interests.
Whatever happens, in a situation where Russia has the energy and food resources to survive the coming winter, and a seemingly better chance to preserve the political wherewithal to ride out the crisis, it will ultimately be up to Kiev's Western sponsors to decide whether to continue the strategy of exchanging tactical gains for strategic losses, or to finally push its clients to come to the negotiating table and address Russia's fundamental security concerns.
“Nothing is accomplished in haste. It’s not difficult to take a fortress, but difficult to win a campaign. And for this you need not to storm and attack, but patience and time,” Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov said in the Leo Tolstoy classic "War and Peace."
More than 150 years after being written, these words have not lost their relevance.
https://tass.com/politics/1534513
Putin awards a posthumous Order of Courage on Kherson Region deputy governor — decree
Stremousov, the deputy chief of the civil and military administration of the Kherson Region, shall be awarded the Order of Courage posthumously
MOSCOW, November 9. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin has awarded a posthumous Order of Courage to Kherson Region Deputy Governor Kirill Stremousov, who was killed in a car crash on Wednesday.
"For courage and valor displayed in the line of duty, Kirill Sergeyevich Stremousov, the deputy chief of the civil and military administration of the Kherson Region, shall be awarded the Order of Courage (posthumously)," says the decree published on Wednesday.
https://tass.com/politics/1534501
Russia urges IAEA to continue ‘dirty bomb’-related inspections — mission to UN
It is stressed that Kiev has the necessary production base and research potential to create a ‘dirty bomb’
UNITED NATIONS, November 9. /TASS/. Russia hopes that the IAEA will continue its inspections in Ukraine in order to prevent developing a "dirty bomb" at other facilities besides the ones the agency has already inspected, Alexander Shevchenko, a Russian delegate to the UN General Assembly session on the IAEA annual report, said on Wednesday.
"We took into account the IAEA’s inspections of these facilities. We treat the professional approach of the IAEA leadership with respect and note that the analysis of the obtained materials continues. That said, we would like to stress that Kiev has the necessary production base and research potential to create a ‘dirty bomb’ and they are not limited to the inspected facilities. We proceed from the premise that such inspections are only the beginning and the agency will continue to monitor as closely as possible any possible signs of Kiev deviating from implementing its agreements on guarantees with the agency," he said.
"We are urging the IAEA to pay the closest attention to any information on possible provocations by the Kiev regime with the use of a ‘dirty bomb’," the diplomat added.
https://twitter.com/tassagency_en/st...04032396509184
Here’s the video, of that, :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:Quote:
Posted by JackMcThorn
https://twitter.com/Ukraine66251776/...30105569476609
Photos of the alleged car crash of deputy governor Kirill Stremousov
https://twitter.com/mdfzeh/status/1590436083606880256
Quote:
Posted by ExomatrixTV
There was a Grayzone article about a week ago you all probably saw. It was on the background of the truck bombing at the Crimean bridge:
These blueprints were produced by a military veteran named Hugh Ward, at the request of Chris Donnelly, a British military-intelligence operative best known for hatching the covert, Foreign Office-funded Integrity Initiative information warfare program.
It's quite long with examples of a few intercepted emails and so forth, but instead of posting the whole thing, I believe I can summarize the role of these men in the world:
Give me a large sum of money.
An act of violence will result.
In other words, it is sheer opportunism, there was no plan, they have no clue what they're doing, they just "sell insurgency". They just gather money and supplies, and this truck bomb came out like a random result. Dedicated to carnage for its own sake.
By contrast, massing one's troops on just a single side of a large river is probably a wise and conservative choice.
France at least just admitted they cannot field an army whatsoever. Neither can the UK, but they still seem to be quite good at "always there" to use a weapon for a lost cause.
Quote:
Posted by Ravenlocke
Brian Berletic ("The New Atlas"), agrees. (And, for whatever it may be worth! So do I. :) )Quote:
Posted by Ravenlocke
This is a short 9-minute video. Key points:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O_DeH3-H4SQ
- The Russian priority is always to save Russian lives.
- Their withdrawal to the east bank of the Dnieper river means the Russian position is much easier to defend.
- It actually means the end of the Ukrainian offensive.
- It could also be a Russian trap (to lure Ukrainian forces into far greater danger), though Berletic doubts this.
- Russia will retake Kherson pretty soon. Remember, this is now constitutionally part of Russia.
- The western media will be cheerleading this, but as Scott Ritter says: a Pyrrhic Victory means a false, illusory one. ("A very costly victory, wherein the considerable losses outweigh the gain, so as to render the struggle not worth the cost.")
-------------------------"It's a normal cemetery. I went there yesterday. No security stopped me, no security there. Do you think if there was some mass burial site random people like me & my taxi driver could just walk around, as we did?
This is the Manhush/Mangush hoax all over again." - Eva Bartlett
More lies from western media exposed here by Eva.
If I have time later this evening I'll try and access Telegram and download any video and photographic evidence that she's sure to post up, if she hasn't already - Eva is likely to focus more on Telegram than Twitter for the foreseeable future.
Source: https://twitter.com/EvaKBartlett/sta...23436740567040
wow - It depends on how you read this - but an oscar for best actor 'on lease' to Zelenski for his role in this theater of war... really? Zelenski looked confused - makes me very curious about the documentary Penn was (is??) making about this conflict.Quote:
....continued....
Source: https://twitter.com/EvaKBartlett/sta...47465111588866
Finding the cemetery in Vynohradne took some doing, but my driver & I did.
There, we saw a much smaller cemetery where, likewise, new graves that could be marked with name, birth date & date of death were, those which couldn't were numbered.
To the genius troll (blocked), no, these aren't all new graves, most are from prior to 2022. For example:
https://www.rt.com/russia/566243-pul...on-save-lives/
Pulling back ‘to save lives’: Key points from top Russian commander’s Kherson speech
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has ordered Russian forces to pull back from the city of Kherson and establish a new defense line along the Dnieper River. The minister made the decision on Wednesday following a report by Army General Sergey Surovikin, the commander of the country’s military operation in Ukraine.
One of the stated goals is to assume better positions and save the lives of soldiers and civilians. Here are the key points of Surovikin’s televised speech to the top military brass on the latest developments in the conflict.
Kiev’s forces are targeting civilians
Ukrainian troops have been launching “indiscriminate strikes” against the city of Kherson, hitting schools and hospitals in particular, Surovikin said during his remarks on Wednesday. “People’s lives are in constant danger due to shelling,” he emphasized. Humanitarian aid centers and routes used by civilians for relocation across the Dnieper River are being struck as well, the general added.
Reasons for the pullout
Continued Ukrainian missile strikes on the Kakhovka hydroelectric dam located near Kherson also pose a serious risk to both the military and civilians on the right bank of the Dnieper, according to Surovikin. The dam has already been damaged in Ukrainian attacks, and another “devastating” blow could lead to “large areas” being flooded. It would also lead to massive civilian casualties and leave the Russian troops in the area cut off from the rest of the forces, the general argued as he suggested a pullout. Shoigu said he “agreed” with Surovikin’s arguments and ordered a regrouping of forces to the left bank of the Dnieper.
Successful defense and counter-offensives
Russian troops had earlier been able to successfully repel Ukrainian advances both in Kherson Region and in Donbass, Surovikin said. In particular, they managed to stop an offensive from the city of Kupyansk, which was seized by Kiev in September, into the Lugansk People’s Republic, he noted. The general said that a similar advance was prevented in the highly contested Krasny Liman area in Donbass. In some areas, Russian troops have launched counter-offensives, according to Surovikin.
Russian and Ukrainian losses
Ukrainian troops have suffered heavy losses in their attacks in recent months, according to Surovikin. Kiev’s forces are estimated to have lost more than 12,000 soldiers in October alone, along with more than 200 tanks and 800 other armored vehicles, as well as 18 combat planes. The general said that Russian losses were “seven to eight times lower.” Between August and October, Ukrainian attacks in Kherson Region alone cost Kiev more than 9,500 casualties, Surovikin said.
Relocation of civilians from Kherson
Russian forces have helped all civilians willing to leave the city of Kherson to relocate to the left bank of the Dnieper, the general said. More than 115,000 people had moved out of the city in recent weeks, he told Shoigu. “We have done everything possible to ensure their safety,” Surovikin said, adding that some civilians had moved to Crimea.
Situation on the frontlines
Russian troops have managed to “stabilize” the situation on the frontlines despite the continued Ukrainian attacks, Surovikin said. The general also stated that the partial mobilization carried out in Russia between late September and early November allowed Russian forces to build up reserves and greatly enhance combat capabilities. Troops that will be pulled out from the right bank of the Dnieper could also be sent to support offensive operations in other parts of the front, he added.
https://twitter.com/colonelhomsi/sta...98400281108481