Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇷🇺⚔️ 🇺🇦 "Ukraine has no chance of defeating Russia," - U.S. presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. in an interview with Lex Fridman
Kennedy said that Ukrainians are suffering colossal losses on the front lines at a ratio of 7:1.
"My son fought there and told me about the artillery. He said that most of the battles involved artillery fire and that the Russians currently outnumber NATO forces in artillery by 10:1. They are killing at a horrifying rate," said Kennedy.
🔴 @DDGeopolitics
Kennedy said that Ukrainians are suffering colossal losses on the front lines at a ratio of 7:1.
"My son fought there and told me about the artillery. He said that most of the battles involved artillery fire and that the Russians currently outnumber NATO forces in artillery by 10:1. They are killing at a horrifying rate," said Kennedy.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇫🇷❌ 🇯🇵 French President Emmanuel Macron has informed NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg of his opposition to plans to set up a liaison office in Japan.
An official at France's presidential office told reporters on Friday that the "NA" of NATO stands for "North Atlantic".
The official noted that the articles of the alliance specify the geographical scope, which is the North Atlantic.
The official said France is not in favor of the idea for reasons of principle, and that Macron clearly expressed his opposition to Stoltenberg.
The official also said - “Regarding the office, the Japanese authorities have told us themselves that they are not very attached to it."
In an interview with a US TV station in May, Stoltenberg had revealed that NATO had been negotiating the setting up of a liaison office with the Japanese government.
NHK World - Japan
🔴 @DDGeopolitics
An official at France's presidential office told reporters on Friday that the "NA" of NATO stands for "North Atlantic".
The official noted that the articles of the alliance specify the geographical scope, which is the North Atlantic.
The official said France is not in favor of the idea for reasons of principle, and that Macron clearly expressed his opposition to Stoltenberg.
The official also said - “Regarding the office, the Japanese authorities have told us themselves that they are not very attached to it."
In an interview with a US TV station in May, Stoltenberg had revealed that NATO had been negotiating the setting up of a liaison office with the Japanese government.
NHK World - Japan
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇩🇪❌ 🇺🇦 Germany is set to insist on delaying Ukraine’s accession to Nato over fears the move could take the alliance to war with Russia - The Telegraph
An alliance source said Berlin would use the annual Nato summit in Vilnius, Lithuania this week to urge others to focus on security assurances, rather than membership proposals, to help Ukraine defend itself in the absence of accession.
“Berlin is stand-offish at the prospect of offering immediate membership,” the source told The Telegraph. “It wants a process and time to develop guarantees to essentially block membership.”
“Berlin doesn’t want to see Vladimir Putin potentially test Article 5.”
Under NATO’s alliance’s Article 5 clause, any member state attacked by an outside aggressor has the right to request military intervention from the rest of the allies.
Appearing to echo German concerns Joe Biden said he wanted to avoid a situation where “we’re all in the war, we’re in a war with Russia.”
🔴 @DDGeopolitics
An alliance source said Berlin would use the annual Nato summit in Vilnius, Lithuania this week to urge others to focus on security assurances, rather than membership proposals, to help Ukraine defend itself in the absence of accession.
“Berlin is stand-offish at the prospect of offering immediate membership,” the source told The Telegraph. “It wants a process and time to develop guarantees to essentially block membership.”
“Berlin doesn’t want to see Vladimir Putin potentially test Article 5.”
Under NATO’s alliance’s Article 5 clause, any member state attacked by an outside aggressor has the right to request military intervention from the rest of the allies.
Appearing to echo German concerns Joe Biden said he wanted to avoid a situation where “we’re all in the war, we’re in a war with Russia.”
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
🇩🇪❌🇺🇦🤡 Ukraine continues to make new friends…
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry responded in typical Ukrainian fashion to a German deputy to criticism of the supply of cluster munitions.
“Go to hell with your advice, Mr. Ralf Stegner and others. You have no idea what you are talking about,” Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andriy Melnyk wrote on Twitter.
Bundestag deputy Ralph Stegner criticized the US decision to supply Kiev with cluster munitions, pointing out that their use could lead to the death of civilians.
@DDGeopolitics
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry responded in typical Ukrainian fashion to a German deputy to criticism of the supply of cluster munitions.
“Go to hell with your advice, Mr. Ralf Stegner and others. You have no idea what you are talking about,” Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andriy Melnyk wrote on Twitter.
Bundestag deputy Ralph Stegner criticized the US decision to supply Kiev with cluster munitions, pointing out that their use could lead to the death of civilians.
@DDGeopolitics
❤1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇺🇦🇺🇸 This has got to be the laziest piece of propaganda produced. This is how dumb they think you are...
From CNN: "Ukrainian fighters who shot down a Russian hypersonic missile using a US-supplied Patriot air defense system speak to CNN's ErinBurnett about their experiences."
Of course CNN is getting roasted in the comment section of their Twitter post.
🔴 @DDGeopolitics
From CNN: "Ukrainian fighters who shot down a Russian hypersonic missile using a US-supplied Patriot air defense system speak to CNN's ErinBurnett about their experiences."
Of course CNN is getting roasted in the comment section of their Twitter post.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Identity Redacted
Slow time for news, enjoy Ritter explaining why Russia is winning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgXgq8zTMGo
🇺🇦🏁 Ever wondered how NAFO trolls look like in real life? When not hiding behind a cartoon dog profile picture...
Well... they look just like you imagined they'd look like.
A few pictures from the "NAFO Summit" today. (First picture is the founder of NAFO)
🔴 @DDGeopolitics
Well... they look just like you imagined they'd look like.
A few pictures from the "NAFO Summit" today. (First picture is the founder of NAFO)
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from China and Geopolitics with Danny Haiphong
Partied a bit in Shanghai with a US-born Shanghai resident of 25 years. When in China…
Forwarded from Rise of the Global South
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
A shirtless Joe Biden enjoys a another relaxing day at the beach
Ol’ Joe has spent 353 days - 39.2% of his presidency - on vacation.
@RiseGS
Ol’ Joe has spent 353 days - 39.2% of his presidency - on vacation.
@RiseGS
Forwarded from Vampire Six (Armchair Warlord)
The Sword of Damocles - the Russian Army's force buildup through mid-2023 and what it means for the war going forward.
One of the biggest - and certainly the most consequential - question marks in the world right now is the current status of the Russian Army. Some particularly dim Western commentators and even senior officials have claimed recently that the Russians have lost half or more of their combat power from the date of their initial invasion in February 2022 and are now weaker than the Ukrainians overall. These claims have so many problems they're barely worth discussing and should simply be dismissed out of hand. Let's work through a real analysis instead.
Claims the Russians had a "million-man army" prewar are simply false - that was the total number of people in the entire Russian Armed Forces. The Russian "Army" (between the Army proper, the Naval Infantry, and the VDV) was only some 350,000 personnel, of whom approximately 100,000 were conscripts. This manning level supported some 183 combined-arms battalion task forces under the now-deprecated Battalion Tactical Group organizational scheme, meaning that for every 1900 soldiers in the overall force the Russians would get one maneuver battalion with appropriate supporting arms.
This can be immediately sanity-checked by comparison to the United States Army. In 2018 the active-duty US Army had 31 Brigade Combat Teams, each of which had four maneuver* battalions for a total of 124 appropriately-supported battalions on an end strength of 483,500. When accounting for the fact that Russian units are about 2/3 the size of their Western counterparts (31 versus 44 tanks in a battalion, for instance), this means that the two armies had close to exactly the same number of battalion task forces available and the Russians are about 30% more efficient at converting end strength to combat power. This is to be expected given Russia's relative lack of logistical overhead without global commitments.
* I am including the BCT's organic cavalry squadron as a maneuver battalion because it is frequently tasked as such operationally and has the capability to perform maneuver tasks.
Now to the war. The Russians began recruiting volunteers quite early in the war, but more significant in the early stages of the war was industrial mobilization. As early as March 2022 Russian military industry began hiring huge numbers of personnel and ramping up production of war materiel across the board. Part of this was to replace equipment lost in combat but much of it was, I now have reason to believe, the leading edge of a deliberate plan to build out the Russian Army in the coming months. Mobilization of personnel was to come later, first with small-scale recruitment of volunteers over the Spring and Summer of 2022 and then with formal mobilization in Fall 2022.
Russian mobilization came in two waves. First there was an announced increase in the Russian military's end strength of 137,000 in August 2022, exactly the number of conscripts then in service. This suggests strongly that the 2021-2022 conscript class was simply retained in service for the duration. The second wave was the "partial mobilization" of 300,000 in September 2022, which was subsequently converted into another increase in the Russian Army's authorized strength. This gives us a current strength of the Russian Army as some 750,000 soldiers, more than double its strength in February 2022 and - highly significantly - with 650,000 instead of 250,000 soldiers deployable as either "contract" or "mobilized" soldiers.
One of the biggest - and certainly the most consequential - question marks in the world right now is the current status of the Russian Army. Some particularly dim Western commentators and even senior officials have claimed recently that the Russians have lost half or more of their combat power from the date of their initial invasion in February 2022 and are now weaker than the Ukrainians overall. These claims have so many problems they're barely worth discussing and should simply be dismissed out of hand. Let's work through a real analysis instead.
Claims the Russians had a "million-man army" prewar are simply false - that was the total number of people in the entire Russian Armed Forces. The Russian "Army" (between the Army proper, the Naval Infantry, and the VDV) was only some 350,000 personnel, of whom approximately 100,000 were conscripts. This manning level supported some 183 combined-arms battalion task forces under the now-deprecated Battalion Tactical Group organizational scheme, meaning that for every 1900 soldiers in the overall force the Russians would get one maneuver battalion with appropriate supporting arms.
This can be immediately sanity-checked by comparison to the United States Army. In 2018 the active-duty US Army had 31 Brigade Combat Teams, each of which had four maneuver* battalions for a total of 124 appropriately-supported battalions on an end strength of 483,500. When accounting for the fact that Russian units are about 2/3 the size of their Western counterparts (31 versus 44 tanks in a battalion, for instance), this means that the two armies had close to exactly the same number of battalion task forces available and the Russians are about 30% more efficient at converting end strength to combat power. This is to be expected given Russia's relative lack of logistical overhead without global commitments.
* I am including the BCT's organic cavalry squadron as a maneuver battalion because it is frequently tasked as such operationally and has the capability to perform maneuver tasks.
Now to the war. The Russians began recruiting volunteers quite early in the war, but more significant in the early stages of the war was industrial mobilization. As early as March 2022 Russian military industry began hiring huge numbers of personnel and ramping up production of war materiel across the board. Part of this was to replace equipment lost in combat but much of it was, I now have reason to believe, the leading edge of a deliberate plan to build out the Russian Army in the coming months. Mobilization of personnel was to come later, first with small-scale recruitment of volunteers over the Spring and Summer of 2022 and then with formal mobilization in Fall 2022.
Russian mobilization came in two waves. First there was an announced increase in the Russian military's end strength of 137,000 in August 2022, exactly the number of conscripts then in service. This suggests strongly that the 2021-2022 conscript class was simply retained in service for the duration. The second wave was the "partial mobilization" of 300,000 in September 2022, which was subsequently converted into another increase in the Russian Army's authorized strength. This gives us a current strength of the Russian Army as some 750,000 soldiers, more than double its strength in February 2022 and - highly significantly - with 650,000 instead of 250,000 soldiers deployable as either "contract" or "mobilized" soldiers.
Forwarded from Vampire Six (Armchair Warlord)
Applying our ratio from earlier (1900 troops to generate one battalion task force) we get a post-mobilization Russian force of some 395 maneuver battalions with enablers. This is an enormous force that could easily secure Russia's borders (particularly its now very-hostile western borders) while simultaneously overwhelming the battered Ukrainian military. Should NATO intervene directly, this force would be able to quickly overrun the Baltic States and defeat any expeditionary force that could realistically be sent into Ukraine.
But Armchair "Vampire Six" Warlord, you say, the Russians are running out of troops and tanks - all the Twitter blue checks are telling me this! What evidence do you have? Well, I have a few data points in support of my theory.
1. Russia recently withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. The CFE treaty, originally signed in 1990 and adapted in 1999 to post-Cold War realities, sought to place national ceilings on conventional arms stationed in Europe and at first served to place a cap on the amount of hardware the Warsaw Pact could flood across the North German Plain on short notice. Serious Russia observers have long noted that, far from his characterization in the West as an unhinged autocrat, Vladimir Putin is a boring neoliberal with a highly legalistic approach to governance. Although the Russians suspended their participation in the treaty in 2007, their recent denunciation is, I believe, highly significant.
Under the treaty the Russian Federation was allowed to station some 6,350 tanks, 11,280 APCs (including 7,030 IFVs) and 6,315 artillery pieces west of the Urals. A force of some 350 BTG-equivalents deployed west would consist of approximately 4,000 tanks and some 10,000 infantry carriers as well as 6,300 artillery pieces. This strongly suggests to me that the Russians denounced the treaty because some dimension of their force build, likely either artillery pieces or infantry carriers, violated its limitations.
This is, by the way, an enormous army and explains the "all of the above" approach the Russians have taken to procuring war materiel lately. They wouldn't be simultaneously rolling large numbers of T-90Ms and T-80BVMs off the assembly lines while also doing deep modernizations of their T-62 fleet for use as frontline tanks unless they had a real need for a genuinely enormous tank fleet in the near term. Same story with APCs and artillery.
2. Contrary to what certain pro-Western analysts and officials have asserted, the Russian side of the northeastern Ukrainian border (the "non-active" front line on the prewar border) is packed with troops. What immediately struck me during the abortive Ukrainian raids on Belgorod Oblast earlier this year was the size, speed and ferocity of the Russian counterattack, with multiple Russian battalions quickly mobilizing to throw back the attackers. Russian forces responding to the attacks were often apparently from different brigades or even divisions, with different equipment sets and distinct tactical signs, and they arrived and deployed for combat in large, intact units with fresh equipment.
This same region would be the simplest area for the Russians to concentrate forces in without disturbing logistical efforts for the "active" front line to the east and south, and a large offensive from this direction would quickly carve through the thin screen of Territorial Defense units covering the border, turn the main Ukrainian army deployed in the Donbass, and lead to a rapid collapse of the Ukrainian position east of the Dniper.
But Armchair "Vampire Six" Warlord, you say, the Russians are running out of troops and tanks - all the Twitter blue checks are telling me this! What evidence do you have? Well, I have a few data points in support of my theory.
1. Russia recently withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. The CFE treaty, originally signed in 1990 and adapted in 1999 to post-Cold War realities, sought to place national ceilings on conventional arms stationed in Europe and at first served to place a cap on the amount of hardware the Warsaw Pact could flood across the North German Plain on short notice. Serious Russia observers have long noted that, far from his characterization in the West as an unhinged autocrat, Vladimir Putin is a boring neoliberal with a highly legalistic approach to governance. Although the Russians suspended their participation in the treaty in 2007, their recent denunciation is, I believe, highly significant.
Under the treaty the Russian Federation was allowed to station some 6,350 tanks, 11,280 APCs (including 7,030 IFVs) and 6,315 artillery pieces west of the Urals. A force of some 350 BTG-equivalents deployed west would consist of approximately 4,000 tanks and some 10,000 infantry carriers as well as 6,300 artillery pieces. This strongly suggests to me that the Russians denounced the treaty because some dimension of their force build, likely either artillery pieces or infantry carriers, violated its limitations.
This is, by the way, an enormous army and explains the "all of the above" approach the Russians have taken to procuring war materiel lately. They wouldn't be simultaneously rolling large numbers of T-90Ms and T-80BVMs off the assembly lines while also doing deep modernizations of their T-62 fleet for use as frontline tanks unless they had a real need for a genuinely enormous tank fleet in the near term. Same story with APCs and artillery.
2. Contrary to what certain pro-Western analysts and officials have asserted, the Russian side of the northeastern Ukrainian border (the "non-active" front line on the prewar border) is packed with troops. What immediately struck me during the abortive Ukrainian raids on Belgorod Oblast earlier this year was the size, speed and ferocity of the Russian counterattack, with multiple Russian battalions quickly mobilizing to throw back the attackers. Russian forces responding to the attacks were often apparently from different brigades or even divisions, with different equipment sets and distinct tactical signs, and they arrived and deployed for combat in large, intact units with fresh equipment.
This same region would be the simplest area for the Russians to concentrate forces in without disturbing logistical efforts for the "active" front line to the east and south, and a large offensive from this direction would quickly carve through the thin screen of Territorial Defense units covering the border, turn the main Ukrainian army deployed in the Donbass, and lead to a rapid collapse of the Ukrainian position east of the Dniper.
Forwarded from Vampire Six (Armchair Warlord)
3. Last month, the Russians announced the actual units they intend to create as a result of this force buildout. The new ground force units announced were one Combined Arms Army (a corps-sized formation), one new Army corps, five new divisions, and 26 new brigades. It is unclear whether these units are entirely separate or whether they are intended to nest within each other matryoshka-style, but this would either be 78 new BTG-equivalents (if the units above brigade level are just new headquarters) or a whopping 177, very much in line with my calculations above (if all of these are complete units).
We haven't seen this "doom army" yet because the Russians are still pursuing their Fabian strategy of letting the Ukrainians and their NATO sponsors beat themselves bloody against their defensive line in the Donbass. The Russians can now be expected to launch a large-scale offensive at a time, place, and in circumstances of their choosing - given present circumstances at the front with a weakening AFU and wobbling Western sponsorship I would expect this move to come fairly soon.
We haven't seen this "doom army" yet because the Russians are still pursuing their Fabian strategy of letting the Ukrainians and their NATO sponsors beat themselves bloody against their defensive line in the Donbass. The Russians can now be expected to launch a large-scale offensive at a time, place, and in circumstances of their choosing - given present circumstances at the front with a weakening AFU and wobbling Western sponsorship I would expect this move to come fairly soon.
Per multiple sources the Ukrainians made an attempt to strike the Kerch bridge during daytime hours (thus with a lot of civilian traffic on it) with British/French made Storm Shadow missiles. So far all missiles have been intercepted and the bridge has not been hit.
UPDATES:
The work of the Crimean bridge, stopped after the missile attack, was resumed, said the Minister of Transport of Crimea.
In the Kerch area, a cruise missile was shot down by air defense forces, there were no casualties, the head of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov said in his Telegram channel.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM