Published On: Mon, Mar 21st, 2022

The attack on the Yavorov International Peacekeeping and Security Centre; Part Two: making waste of US/UK “capabilities”

Last week, Priti Patel, the UK Government apparatchik fronting its City-controlled court system and military intelligence led domestic enforcement division (appearing to the public  to be the Home Office), spoke of a new kind of terrorist threat whereby Russian women posing as Ukraine refugees could launch Salisbury-style poison attacks in the UK. It was, of course, a ploy to further demonise Russia as that country foils UK Government machinations in and through Ukraine. In actual fact, it described new scope for the people who really do commit the “terrorist” atrocities in Britain – meaning, UK military, military intelligence and attached civilian or foreign agencies and agents – to conduct future operations, and was intended therefore to manage the public’s expectations in these respects.

This weekend, the UK Ministry of Defence – a construct, like the Home Office, but to create the illusion of civilian management of the UK’s military (which is a mercenary force operated by the City of London) – gave a briefing (as reported by CNN, in this case), and declared that even after three weeks of the Special Operation in the Donbas, Russian forces has not obtained air supremacy in Ukraine, and that there was a reliance on stand-off weapons, “launched from the relative safety of Russian airspace to strike targets within Ukraine.” In reality, of course, March has seen Russia repeatedly make significant strikes, targeting well in front of its lines to disrupt Ukrainian resupply (and for other reasons that observers will not be privy to) precisely because Ukrainian forces – or, indeed, their US/UK military master – cannot defend their air space.

With two issues of UK Government mendacity in direct relation to the ongoing Russian military mission in Ukraine then raised, please allow the author to declare his interest. UK Government is a scourge on the people of Britain, but remains able to squat in its misrule by the art of government-by-hoax, where everything is done at all times to deceive otherwise lawfully unobligated people to volunteer into being governed in such a way that is detrimental to them, but beneficial to a criminal oligarchy. As such, if the Russians kill UK agents of tyranny – Krypteia – in Ukraine, it potentially translates to lessening of function to control Britons in their own country, and it is self-evidently a matter of supreme interest to a community that looks to be rid of such a blight. Warfare is such that it has a power to uncloak propaganda when a battle is won and the dust settles, and if the Russians open UK military intelligence and its media front up on that level to be revealed as the liars that they are, it constitutes evidence of the sort that would be presented in the course of this site’s usual functioning, again because of interest in exposing UK government-by-hoax so that it can be discovered, by as many people as possible, to be undesirable and a thing to be rid of.

In these respects, the two aspects of Ukrainian defence against Russia that come together most significantly at this juncture in the conflict is the ability of the US/UK to resupply and reinforce Ukrainian forces, which means having personnel on the ground in key locations, where there will be transit of men and materiel, because the former need to be directed, and the latter distributed. Making this such a radical challenge is Russian “stand-off” missile strikes, and so it is no wonder that the UK MoD would want to belittle them as a kind of a lesser option arising because of some other deficiency. In fact, they are important as a kind of spanner in the motivator of the Ukrainian defence, which is the “capabilities” – blood and treasure – of the sort that Assad declared that the Syrians would make the US/UK waste in their equivalent struggle with the same military machine after it found itself being repulsed from areas that would return to government control.

Consider the writing of a research fellow for the London-based think tank, the European Security at the Royal United Services Institute, Ed Fellows, whose thoughts given at interview have been put to print by DW.com (dated 1st March). Arnold says that he thinks the Russians had not been targeting Western resupply out of Poland and possibly Romania because they were wary of the risk of escalation because “you would be targeting Western resupply”. Of course, that Russia does not have this wariness has been demonstrated by the attack on Yavarov, and indeed other places, in what is becoming an almost daily phenomenon. The truth of US/UK impotence, which some of us who don’t get paid to think about it know all about, would have been factored in by the Russians even as they were assembling options for a way to deal with the US/UK radicalisation of Ukraine.

Arnold expresses surprise that Russia had not moved boots on the ground to interdict the flow of resupply, but perhaps he should consider that Russia didn’t need to. If we understand that Ukraine already had been stocked to the gills with weapons, plus the fact that the Russians did surprise the US/UK on the launch of their operation, it’s quite possible that the necessity of resupply was something that was not a contingency, until the initial Russian assault changed all of that. This operation would then need to be organised, taking into account it would be done in conditions where conflict was now ongoing, and politicians and military commanders of NATO would have to consider the risks that they would engender by aiding Russia’s wartime enemy. Potentially, there would be time needed for decision making.  We note, for instance, that the UK Government didn’t announce a shipment of anti-tank weapons, further to a pre-conflict consignment, until March 9th.

As it happens, on the first day of March, Arnold thought that the Ukrainians were already running out of time for reinforcements to get to “Kyiv and Kharkiv” in particular:

“Ukrainian forces on the eastern line of contact… are potentially going to be cut off if they don’t move to the west of the Dnieper River soon. They will need to resupply because they’re doing the heaviest fighting and they are the best Ukrainian troops from the 95th Air Assault Brigade.”

As has been argued in these pages before, it looks as if the Ukrainians have been pinned to areas of Russian advance (or the threat of them, in the case of Odessa) so that they have not been able to move around the battle field as they would possibly have liked. Reinforcement by a foreign element, therefore, could be about introducing liberty to do so (within whatever limits imposed by the reality of Russian dominance in the air) – and in the situation that is developing, to allow the Ukrainians to fall back to new defensive positions, as Arnold realises they must.

But Arnold also recognises that the foreign element could be a means, albeit a limited one, to transport a resupply of weapons too:

“Ukrainian or foreign fighters could pick things up in Poland and then move over the border, but that’s not in great numbers… [and] There’s maybe five days left of ammo for the heavier systems the Ukrainians have. The other option they have is to capture Russian abandoned weapons, which will sustain them for a little while, but not a huge amount of time.”

Again, it is not clear if Arnold is propagandising, or if he just doesn’t listen to himself, when he indicates that he thinks an army that needs to retreat is going to capture sufficient materiel from the enemy. That aside, the analysis is useful, because it suggests that if the US/UK were going to rely on a foreign element to bolster Ukrainian defences, it was perhaps all too optimistic from its conception. That was before the Russians started to hit places where the foreign element have been concentrated, and we should notice, with Yavorov being the first strike against the target of this kind, it roughly coincides (within a week) with Arnold’s idea about when this deployment needed to start happening.

It can be surmised, then, that the US/UK effort is too little too late, especially under the pressure of Russian stand-off disruption, the particular success of which we are now going to construe by looking at some examples we know about.

According to some reports, the March 13th attack on Yavorov killed more than 200 personnel stationed at the base.  While Mi7 gave out that 35 had been killed, the Russians said that it was more like 180 – and eventually this version did see the light of day in some UK corporate-media. On the other hand, news that so-called ex-special forces from the UK were amongst the dead was something that found no delay in being released. At the same time, there was no shyness in referring to the Ukrainian Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, who seemed to imply that foreign instructors were at the base at the time, despite official US/UK declarations that all of their troops had been withdrawn. Yavorov, it turns out, had been hosting 30 UK paratroopers or rangers in order to instruct on the NLAW anti-tank weapon which the UK Government had previously supplied (in January 2022) to the tune of 2,000 units at £20,000 each, because throwing good money after bad like this should be a matter of public outrage.  Additionally, 100 UK troops in total were supposed to have been at this same base before the start of the conflict (according to none other than The Times).

No doubt a decision had been made to dump the information about British casualties early and cleanly so as not to cause suspicion, in the hope that the audience could not put two and two together, even after the Daily Mirror made a point of saying that the three individuals known about were not part of the “foreign legion” being trained at the base. This suggests that they might have been instructing, but in any case, they were individuals who had been trained enough and were in place as attachments to Ukrainian forces, and very likely integral to what was happening at the base.

New information that has emerged in the intervening period after the attack tells of the possibility of the Russians targeting the base because they were able to detect the presence of Britons. On 19th March, The Telegraph reported that “12 to 14 phone numbers starting with +44 were visible to surveillance equipment in the area in the hours before the missile strike”. Now, don’t be tempted to think that the professional British Army could not be so stupid as to be caught like this, because it certainly is arrogant enough. If the story makes it look as though the Britons at the base had to be the sort of untrained wannabe that we are led to believe is conscripting into an irregular Ukrainian foreign legion, then that’s a good reason to suspect it to be a cover story. That Mi7 is absolutely quiet on the subject of “heroic” civilian wannabes from the UK being dead and injured from this attack, despite it being a great propaganda opportunity, points to the British victims being serving military.

The latest such like attack on a gathering of “foreign mercenaries” (at the time of writing) happened overnight into 21st March.  More than 80 foreigners and “nationalists” – which is what the Russians seem to call the extremist praetorian element of the Ukrainian armed forces – were killed, as reckoned by the Russian Armed Forces. This was at a so-called combined-arms training ground at Nova Lyubomyrka in the Rivine region. This place is not far from Lutsk and the region is quite thick with connectivity by road to Poland.

Incidentally, this attack is not covered very much in corporate-media, which chose to fantasise about an attack on civilians which actually was one on self-propelled rocket launchers being hidden in a Kiev shopping mall – now destroyed, along with a supply dump located there. The author has seen the place also called a “troop gathering centre”.

On the 20th, it was being reported that over 100 “Ukrainian covert op troops and foreign mercenaries” had been killed near Ovruch, in the Zhitomir region. At the same time, according to Igor Konashenkov, in the regular Russian Defence Ministry briefing, there was the destruction of one of Ukraine’s major fuel bases. Other equipment was being stored at that place too.  Evidently, the Russians used the hypersonic Kinzhal weapon – and one must wonder if this is because this was to beat air defence at the target, meaning that it was possibly a high value one. Indeed, it doesn’t make sense that raw wannabes would be integrated with Ukraine’s own special forces.

Ovruch is much further east than Rivine, but is still west of Kiev, and in the very north of Ukraine. It does connect to the E37 road that comes directly from Poland, and it also reachable from the E40 that goes to Rivine.  We should also note that Mi7 (i.e. UK’s corporate-media) left this incident largely unreported (according to the author’s cursory search), especially relative to the attention received when at least 50 Ukrainians of that country’s 79th Air Assault Brigade were killed when Kalibr missiles rained down on their base in Mykolaiv – an attack probably more locally to do with the situation at Kherson.

In any case, the point is that here, in Nova Lyubomyrka and Ovruch, are two candidates for attacks involving the same circumstances as existed at Yavorov, with plenty of reasons to be suspicious regarding the type of military being housed there. Not only it is evidence of failure for the US/UK’s plan to reinforce and resupply, but it means actual losses of US/UK capability even if that only extends to weaponry, although in fact, we should suspect that there has also been loss of in-service manpower.

But to draw this subject matter wider, as this article also comes to an end, into providing some balance against the outright and obvious lying by the UK Ministry of Defence, let us consider the reports from the Russians, delivered by Igor Konashenkov, about Ukrainian losses by attack from the air in recent days.

On 18th March, the Russians reported hitting “81 military assets” by “operational-tactical and army aviation”. These targets included “4 multiple launch rocket system, 3 command posts, 8 ammunition depots and 28 areas of military equipment concentration.”

19th March: “operational-tactical, army and UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] aviation hit 69 military assets of the Ukrainian Armed Forces”, including “4 command posts, including the brigade command post in Zabuyanye, 4 anti-aircraft missile systems, of which 3 S-300 and 1 Buk-M1, 1 radar guiding and targeting station, 3 multiple launch rocket systems, 12 missile and artillery weapons depots and 43 areas of military equipment concentration.”

20th March: “62 military assets of the Ukrainian Armed Forces” were hit, including “3 command posts, 1 multiple launch rocket system, 2 missile and artillery weapons depots and 1 fuel depot, as well as 52 areas of military equipment concentration”.

21st March: “44 military assets”, including “: 4 command posts, 2 multiple launch rocket systems near Nalivaykovka and Zolocheva, 6 Buk M-1 anti-aircraft missile systems, 3 artillery mounts near Vyshgorod, 4 missile and artillery weapons depots, as well as 23 areas of military equipment concentration”.

Now, the question is, who to believe? Is it the UK Ministry of Defence, which in recent years lied all the way through its invasions of Libya and Syria, and in the past, lied about German bombing raids where – it can be seriously argued – most British citizens were actually being killed by shells fired by British Army artillery?

Pointing to numerous examples, some of which are too significant not to be reported in the UK, the Russians claim they are wreaking havoc from the air in Ukraine, while at the same time the UK Government says that Russia is afraid of the skies, and implies that Russia is losing in that respect. Whose word are you going to take as being more credible?

(Insertion of links to sources to follow)

 

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 4 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Ken Michael says:

    Contrary to western propaganda, Russian forces are NOT / have NOT been trying to overrun Kiev but are content (for now) to block the Ukrainian military units they’ve trapped in Kiev from reinforcing / relieving / resupplying the two-thirds (+/-90k) of total Ukrainian forces (including Ukraine’s best units) being extirpated in cauldrons across the eastern interior.

    It’s relatively easy for Russia to track & target foreign reinforcements / arms shipments / related logistics centres – the pinging clusters of non-Ukrainian phones are a dead give-away.

    The analyses of virtually all Western military ‘experts’ / pundits are so naive / so bad they make ‘The Expendables’ look sophisticated.

    Xi repeatedly tells Biden that China blames the US for the Ukraine crisis, by expanding NATO threatening Russian security, ergo forcing Putin to enter Ukraine to protect itself, but this gets met with derision as Biden / NATO continue to expand / extend & threaten China’s security by mirroring similar tactics to those pursued in the European theatre in the Far East… Expecting a different result – or the same result – Taiwan?! Meanwhile a trillion dollars gets spent by Taiwan, Australia et al on US-made sophisticated weaponry when all China needs to do (when Xi is ready to incorporate Taiwan) is to use an old-fashioned blockade to starve the islanders into submission while starving the rest of the world of semiconductors… Or is ‘NATO’ intent on a full-scale war with China?

    If there was a half-decent, sane, potentially unifying senior Democrat in the US Presidential hierarchy, I’d expect the American off-ramp to be rapid replacement of Biden on grounds of ill-health & abandonment of current foreign policies, blaming Biden & co, in time to salvage something from the midterms. The next two in line are just as bad as Biden but presumably they would follow any new script of their behind-the-scenes-puppetmasters… Or will Hillary & co launch a coup and go to war with Russia in an attempt to protect against exposure by Putin of their Ukrainian evil? [There being 2 camps – incumbent is more anti-China / other, fronted by Clinton-mafia, is more anti-Russia.]

    • P W Laurie says:

      Also, there needs to be wider awareness of Russian artillery doctrine, and its focus on destroying the integrity of the enemy from afar, which explains everything we see happening in Ukraine, but gives the US/UK intelligence media complex a lot to misrepresent. An article is being planned.

      • Ken Michael says:

        Your Q: “Now, the question is, who to believe?”…

        My A: Methinks best to get verification from trusted independent sources before inclining to believe ANY propaganda – especially during pre-prepared propaganda blitzes released in sync with international leaders’ meetings, as per current blitz.

        What worries me most is how the bourgeoisie are going to deal with the threat (to them) when it becomes apparent to them that maintaining credibility of their Ukraine agitprop is about to become unsustainable… What crisis will they initiate next to cover their Ukraine lies / terrify their proletariats? War with Russia? Release of nuclear radiation? Release more bio-weapons…?

        In Ukraine, Zelensky has banned all opposition and taken control of all broadcast media in order to bombard the population with 24/7 fear & war agitprop, however there are now so many Telegram channels posting videos of Ukrainian civilians being tortured in public by Zelensky’s SS (to keep the civilian population in line – caution: often too horrific to watch), it’s hard to believe it will take too long before Zelensky & his SS get ‘cancelled’.

        The ‘empire’ is bankrupt – morally & financially – and its ability to bully the rest of the world into submitting to their will seems to finally be coming to an end.

        • P W Laurie says:

          A trusted source? Alternative media is controlled, so I don’t know where people find such a thing.

          So, I was talking in terms of a particular subject, and how it was being represented by one side, which always lies, and by another, who probably aren’t lying if their opposition mostly have to corroborate.

          As for further crises. They (that’s a class of Masonic would-be-gods [in their fantasy], and I don’t know what “bourgeoisie” has got to do with it) always do crises*. One after another. It’s why I call it government-by-hoax. Apparently, this goes over heads, if the written English is understood, if it is indeed read in the first place.

          Speaking of which, I already ruled out the Anglo-globalists going to direct war with Russia, pointing to US/UK weakness in one article after another. If you want to speculate about doomsday scenarios, do it somewhere else – perhaps at Off-Guardian, which has a decidedly Aaangirfan-esque comments section that would suit.

          * I should point out, it’s rare that they are not at the helm of one, although in that case they’ll still find a way to hurt their governed, evidently.

T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image