From the source I have come to trust the most….

From a pro-Russian source…..

It is too early tell what the results of this are. The power went out over large swaths of Ukraine but the real testament to how bad the damage is will come from how long the power stays out. Some bloggers are reporting that the power came back on as they were in the process of making their video.

But the biggest problem the Russians have is that they just don’t have the capacity to do this right. When NATO wanted to force Serbia to bend the knee, they spent 78 days and launched 10,484 strike sorties. And this was on a much smaller country then Ukraine. By comparison, 130+ some missiles and drones (accounts vary) is weak sauce.

While on the subject of NATO, I should note that while Russia is a hypocrite for calling the attacks on the bridge a terrorist attack when it would fit most nations (including their own) definition of a valid military target, NATO did strike power plants in Serbia when they were trying to force them to withdraw from Kosovo. So keep that in mind when you hear people talking about how terrible Russia is for attacking civilian power plants (NATO called them dual use targets). That said, Russians thought that the attacks on Serbia’s power plants was horrible crime….

I was the 9 years old when the Berlin wall fell. I was 11 when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. My generation never knew the draft and never really knew a world in which the US was at risk. The fall of the Twin Towers was traumatic for my generation because it revealed that there were people in the world who wanted to kill Americans. But except for a few brief days when nobody knew the full extent of what had happened, no one thought America as whole was in danger. On the scale of a brief national history that includes the Civil War and World War II, the Twin Towers do not even register.

Confident in our power, we destroyed nations to make sure no one would even think of attacking us again. Never in this entire process was the thought that America itself was in the balance. Instead, the debates were about dollars and cents. They were about whether the gains were worth the cost. Whether we were killing bad guys faster than were making more enemies for ourselves. It was a consumer nation at war and we made war as if it was just another product to be consumed or not as we saw fit.

That world is dying and may already be dead. Now war carries with it the devil’s choice of slavery or death. America is not longer a consumer. Now America is just a gambler trying to figure which door has the least bad surprise while trying to pretend it can reason its way to the right answer.

Not everyone has figured that out yet. But the educated fools are getting increasingly panic stricken. Now some people in the Pro-Ukraine camp are starting to openly talk about the need to make sure Ukraine gives in before Russia uses nukes. They are not in the majority for sure. But it is becoming more and more real for people the weaker and weaker that Russia appears on the battle field.

Continue reading →

I am completely at a loss as to who would blow up the Nordstream pipelines. I guess if I was forced to make a choice, I would pick Russia just because they seem the most insane at the moment, but I certainly don’t blame anyone who does not find the Russia theory plausible either. The basic list of possible and farfetched culprits is well covered by this video….

The one thing not covered in video above is the idea that it was just an accident caused by bad Russian maintenance. Most people seemed to have ruled out that out but Lawdog lays out an argument for the incompetent Russian theory. I don’t buy that argument (one or two explosions maybe but four?) but you should read it because Lawdog makes a more compelling then you likely think is possible.

If (like me) you don’t buy the accident theory you are pretty much left with a NATO country or Russia as the culprit just on grounds of means. Both nether camp seems to have very good motives to me. Russia has already shut down the pipelines so why do they need to blow them? And what does the US gain by blowing the pipes when Russia is already taking the heat for refusing to sell gas? If there was some sign that Germany was going to cave in the near future I might buy it, but otherwise what is the rush? Also, I may be wrong, but it just don’t seem like the US has the balls for something like this at the moment. You run the risk of angering the EU big time and the damage is done in an area that the EU can watch pretty closely.

Speaking of watching, both Russians and Western sources are pointing to the other side’s ships having been seen in the area. A lot of pro-Russian sources are using the fact that the U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge was in the area as “100” proof that US did it. But if the US was going to do this, and amphibious assault ship would not be the ship that got used. Those ships are way too big with way to many people on them who might talk for it to be a good place to launch something covert from. In the past when the US has done sneaking things they have used subs which have smaller crews of people who are carefully screened to be able to keep their mouths shut but the water is kind of shallow for subs to be sneaking in the area where this happened. So the question of how you would do this without people knowing is something of mystery.

I think the same thing about claims that Russian ships were seen in the area. I have not heard what type of ships they are, but it seems too obvious of a way of going about it. Plus, it is the Baltic. There is always going to be Russian ships and NATO ships in the area. And unless somebody is not doing their job, these ships should always be closely watched by everyone on every side so how they would pull off a surprise like this is beyond me.

One very plausible way of damaging the pipelines without people noticing is via Pipeline Pigs with explosives attached. I have not heard many people talking about it but one person who claimed to have claimed to be an oil and gas guy said that his how he thought it was done. It seems like if you got something down there to take pictures it should be easy for experts to tell if the explosion came from inside the pipes or outside the pipes. If the explosion came from inside the pipes, it would pretty much rule out anyone but the Russians as it is my understanding is that the Pigs would have to come from upstream of where the explosions happened.

If it was not done by a Pipeline Pig, then I suppose it could have been done by an underwater drone. That is certainly the leading argument from the “NATO did it” camp. The only problem is that nobody has explained what kind of drone could have done it. It would have been big enough to be effective, small enough not be seen in the relatively shallow water, and most importantly, be able to operate independently or in some way communicate to its controllers in way that as not detectible to all the nations watching the Baltic.

What I am getting at is that drones are not magic. Sure they don’t need people in them but that only reduces the size so much and what they make up in smaller size they usually have to pay for in terms of needing to phone home to a controller. I would think that would be particularly true for a task like this. So I don’t see how invoking an unknown drone really explains how this was done without anyone knowing.

One last idea I should throw out there just for the sake of completeness is the idea that Poland is the one that made it happen. They just completed a pipe line from Norway (but it will only replace 60% of the gas they got from Russia) and they obviously feel very strongly about supporting Ukraine. So there is this assumption by some people that are feeling more energy secure because of their new pipeline and so they have taken this opportunity to hit Russia and Germany in one shot. But while that might offer up a motive, I don’t think that explains how they would do it without being noticed by other EU countries or by Russia.

I honestly thought that after a few days had passed a semi plausible theory would have emerged but I don’t feel like that is the case. So I am throwing this out there mostly because I know people will ask me about it and I have no real good idea. But at least this way I have something to point to that has links to all I have been able to find out even if that is not much.

You can read a translation of Putin’s speech here. My thoughts along with excerpts are as follows…..

The speech starts out with some minor things. I found it funny that Putin felt obliged to tell a Russia audience that the Crimea was Russia proper when he said….

After the Kiev regime publicly refused to settle the issue of Donbass peacefully and went as far as to announce its ambition to possess nuclear weapons, it became clear that a new offensive in Donbass – there were two of them before – was inevitable, and that it would be inevitably followed by an attack on Russia’s Crimea, that is, on Russia.

Imagine as if Roosevelt felt obliged to remind Americans that an attack on Hawaii was an attack on the US. To me, this shows he is a little insecure about his own people thinking that the Crimea is worth dying for.

Another thing that caught my eye is that Putin basically admits the stories about the volunteer units being screwed over when it comes to money and equipment when he says…..

In this connection, I have already issued instructions for the Government and the Defence Ministry to determine the legal status of volunteers and personnel of the military units of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. It must be the same as the status of military professionals of the Russian army, including material, medical and social benefits. Special attention must be given to organising the supply of military and other equipment for volunteer units and Donbass people’s militia.

They must have been treated really badly for it to finally come to the big man’s attention.

But all those things are minor things. The big thing about this speech is that Putin has left himself with no choice but to keep all that he has and take the rest of the Donbass. After this speech it is hard to see how he can possibly survive the end of the war if he does not at least hold all the territories mentioned in this section….

I would like to emphasize that we will do everything necessary to create safe conditions for these referendums so that people can express their will. And we will support the choice of future made by the majority of people in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.

The part that I highlighted above is the real kicker. It use to be that some people dreamed of a negotiated peace between Putin and Ukraine. It was thought that if Ukraine would only give up Donetsk and Lugansk (which possibly would have voted to leave Ukraine in a fair election some time ago) that war could end and that would be better for everyone. But I think that only the insanely pro-Russian would believe that the region of Zaporozhye (where the City of Mariupol is located) and Kherson (where public demonstrations took place in the city against the Russians after they took it over) truly want to be part of Russia. Moreover, giving up those areas would give up so much of Ukraine’s coastline as to destroy their future as country. Only a fool would now believe that this war will end with anything other then the end of Ukraine as country or Putin as a leader (to be fair, it is possible that both of those things could yet happen as they are not mutually exclusive).

A few other minor points follow this such as….

Additionally, the Executive Order on partial mobilisation also stipulates additional measures for the fulfilment of the state defense order. The heads of defense industry enterprises will be directly responsible for attaining the goals of increasing the production of weapons and military equipment and using additional production facilities for this purpose. At the same time, the Government must address without any delay all aspects of material, resource and financial support for our defense enterprises.

Tact admission from the big guy that the Russian military is facing shortages. Not exactly a secret, but it is important to note for reasons that I will get into later.

Another minor thing is the section that all the media is making a big deal about.

They have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.

I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.

The above is what all the media hype is about. “Putin threatens the west with nuclear weapons” all the headlines scream. And as those who read my last post on the subject know, I am as worried about that as the next guy. But that is not what this speech is about. There is no actual threat to the west in this speech. Rather, it is about trying to drum up fear of the west and support for his war in his own people.

If he had intended to threaten the west in this speech, he would have laid out a red line. In other words, he would have said “you must do this by this time or I will do this.” But instead, he is just whining about various things the West is doing while promising no specifics on his part. And many of his claims about the west are things that he knows are as fake as his claim that America was lying when it said that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. He can hope to get his people to believe those claims but he can’t hope to use them to get the West to do anything. For these reasons, I think the time to get worried about Russia using “special weapons” is when it starts losing all hope of winning on the conventional battle field and I don’t think Putin is there yet. But that brings us to the question of how effective the 300,000 men the Putin called up will be…..

Given that Putin has staked his future on this war and left himself no wiggle room to end the war short of victory, one has to wonder if calling up 300,000 more men is enough to do this. A naïve way of looking at this is that Putin is going to more then double the amount of forces he has committed to this fight. After all, most sources say that Russia has about 200,000 troops in the country even after counting Russia-aligned separatists, members of private security companies, and ethnic “volunteers.” But this is not the correct way of looking at things.

Much of the Russian troops currently in Ukraine have been fighting hard and need a break or they will become useless. More over, Putin has basically admitted that the current forces are facing equipment and supply issues. How are they going to equip 300,000 more at the drop of a hat? Given how stupid the Russians have been, it would not surprise me if they throw a lot of guys straight into the fight to try to stop further losses of territory. Another problem is that all of Russia’s best troops have been true volunteers. How well are the new troops going to fight who will all have been compelled to fight? The history of the Russia-aligned separatists after they started getting drafted does not bode well for Russia.

All that said, this is the bare minimum that Russia needs to do if Putin is going to achieve his aims. If Russia does not lose to much territory this year and Russia manages to turn those 300,000 men into something that resembles an fighting force, it may enable Russia forces to hold out long enough for Ukraine’s support to start dropping off. But given what we have seen from Russia so far, that seems like a tall order for their level of competence.

About two weeks ago, I wrote a post asking “What is up in Ukraine?” in which I tried to figure out how the war in Ukraine was going to go. It was a purely an intellectual exercise in trying to see how much truth I could gather through the fog of censorship and competing ideological blind spots. It seemed like a good place to try to exercise those skills before they became relevant in some issue closer to home. My tentative bet was that Ukraine had the advantage because Russia was holding the line in Kherson with airborne units that should have been in reserves. My logic was that if Ukraine managed to break through anywhere, it would be really bad for the Russians because they would have nothing to contain the break out with.

Needles to say, a lot has changed since then. The Ukrainians did force a massive break out and the Russians had nothing to stop them with in a timely manner. I can’t claim too much credit as I never would have guessed that Ukraine had the forces to pressure Russia in two locations. I was envisioning a grinding war attrition followed by a collapse of Russian forces in the Kherson region. I envisioned Russia holding Kherson itself due the defensible nature of the large urban area as well as their ability to support it with artillery safely a crossed the river.

So what have we learned and what can we see about the future? Granting all the same caveats in the first post, these are my thoughts on what we have learned that is beyond an honest person’s ability to dispute….. Continue reading →

It is make or break time for Ukraine. Peter Zeihan has a good overview of what the stakes are.

The one thing that Peter does not go into is the consequences of failure for Ukraine. They really don’t have time on their hands. Western populations forced their leaders to adopt harder line on Russia then they really intended to (so much so that US treasury had to ask companies to not “over enforce” sanction regulations and EU ports were turning away legal Russian cargos because the longshore unions were refusing to unload). But the EU populations are starting to learn what the consequences are for their actions and Ukraine is going to start facing a falling off of support if for no other reason that all easy gifts (small arms, old stocks of soviet weapons in eastern European weapon stocks) have all been given. So the question of the hour is does Ukraine have a chance of achieving its goals in southern Ukraine?

Continue reading →