Russian military progress in Ukraine
Some observers of the events in Ukraine have understood correctly that the US/UK has constructed strawman objectives by which Russian efforts in their Special Military Operation in the Donbas can be said to have failed. Lately, one of these is centred around Russian commemorations of World War II focused on 9th May, in that Russia – for a propaganda effect – either wanted to declare victory to coincide with the date, or is going to declare war proper on Ukraine. In reality, Russia has never stated how long its operation would take, nor expressly defined what it would comprise of at any of its stages, and quite contrarily to the notion that Russia might be running behind schedule according to a time framework asserted by the US/UK, there have been frequent statements from Russian officials about the operation going according to their expectations.
Of course, installing expectations about Russian performance so that they can be dashed is something that big name alternative-media so-called geopolitical experts also seem be able to do with impunity (i.e. without condemnation and rejection from their huge, undiscerning audiences), and this site has been railing against one of these charlatans for doing exactly this, as well as for disseminating US/UK propaganda to a pro-Russian audience baited with exaggerated good news from the battlefield.
Indeed, a “9th May declaration of war” prediction very much resembles the idea of a heavy, blitzkrieg-like offensive that big name alternative-media so-called geopolitical experts have been characterising as a so-called “Phase 2” of the Russian police action – one that, as of yet, fails to materialise. And of course, because no such sort of “Phase 2” has happened after so much excitement caused about it, there has been the seeding of grounds for a plague of defeatism that one sees all too plentifully expressed in the comments sections of said alternative media. The author, in another place at this site, explained why such material in such places was an important feature of US/UK information warfare.
So, all of this is to remind, then, that it is not the obvious US/UK military-intelligence media complex alone which constructs the strawmen by which Russia can be adjudged to have failed, but also in its outlets that are yet imagined by their pro-Russian audiences to be on their same side.
As for the coverage provided by this site (and a fuller appraisal can be found in the article, Comprehensive Russian Ministry Of Defence Briefing Provides Vindication), a consistent analysis can be summarised as saying that Russia wages war in Ukraine only where it is necessary to its objectives. Moreover, it has been said hereabouts more than once that if we were only to pay attention, we could readily understand that from the start of the “special operation” those objectives primarily were the expulsion of Ukrainian forces from a region that comprises the Novorossiyan separatist states of Donetsk and Luhansk – with an expectation that other Novorossiyan territory along the coast of the Black Sea would also secede from Ukraine. Indeed, the prosecution of Russia’s “special military operation”, as it has developed, has revealed that much of the mission is far from being military and has been about installing Russian-oriented civil governance in territories that are never again going to come under the jurisdiction of Kiev (and there’s nothing that the US/UK can do about it).
That being said, the military aspect continues, and it progresses at a steady pace. However, it is the imagined slow progress of this (set against the fantastical expectations installed by the US/UK [Anglo-globalist] military intelligence media complex, corporate and alternative alike), that is exploited in the psychological operation to cause dismay in anyone who supports Russia and who has access to the doom-mongering.
The reality, however, is far from the situation portrayed by Anglo-globalist propagandists – and this is as easy to demonstrate as producing a number of maps.
The first two are to be compared against each other (both stolen from Southfront – click to enlarge). What is shown even in the first alone (dated 27th February) is a rapid advance by the Russians to places on the all important Novorossiyan front from whence the operation could develop (as explained in the FBEL article, The Russian Way Of Warfare). The second is dated 5th May, so in the contrast between the two, one can clearly see the least extent of territory that it looks like Ukraine is going to lose when the dust settles. Additionally, the large Ukrainian nest from the prong at Izium all the way due south to where it meets Russian controlled territory west of Donetsk is going to be conquered as a matter of destroying Ukrainian military capability, and – again – the expectation is that the Russians will capture the Mykolaiv and Odessa oblasts, although it must be stressed that it’s quite possible that there will be peaceful transference of this territory away from Kiev’s control coming from a simple inability to impose it. At a very rough estimate, Russia has denied to Kiev something approaching 20-30 thousand square miles of territory in a little over two months – the reader can judge for himself is this has been, as of yet, slow-going.
The third map shows recent changes in the Donbas, and was created from two graphics that were retweeted by a Tom Fowdy (after original publication by a Twitter user called SilksworthPost) with the comments:
How territory in Donbass has changed Image one: April 16th Image two: May 8th This is visual evidence of how organizations such as the ISW [Institute for the Study of War?] deceive the public by claiming “Russia made no significant gains” or has “stalled” every single day.
What is shown in the image presented here is the May 8th map with the frontline of April 16th superimposed* on it in blue. Russian gains are self-evident. Indeed, the developing pincers at Izium, Lyman, and Popasna are not insignificant by any means, and by accounts the author has seen, represent the overcoming of some of the most heavily defended positions that the Ukrainians have had to offer. It is unlikely, by the way, that the Russians are in any danger of encirclement at Izium because of the new depth of their positions (present and projected) to the east of that place; it could be that any Ukrainians in that pocket to the north have been drawn there for their own encirclement and defeat.
*As best as it could be drawn with a selection tool in Gimp.
given that bbc media action have almost exclusive reign over the media output from ukraine -having spent several years ‘training’ them ‘how to do it’ -it’s not surprising that the stories are 100% propaganda – any analysis has to bear that in mind – whatever this distraction is really about – oil, gas, money, great reset – there’s no doubt somebody’s up to no good and the ukrainian people will be impoverished as a result, much like libya, syria and iraq – the pro-ukraine idiots in the wet don’t help but then they have no idea what this is all about even if they can place ukraine on a map!!!
This comment is being published as an example – otherwise it would have been binned.
Commenter “bob” leaves a comment at 11.41, 11th May on the article, Predictably, Crude Perception Management Portrays Labour Triumph At Local Elections, Yet Starmer Project Continues To Falter . Commenter “keith” leaves this comment 17 minutes later. “bob” and “keith” posted their comments each from a host on the same network. Therefore, this is not organic contribution, rather it is a campaign (so, note that the talking point about to be discussed is a campaigned one).
In his comment, “keith” is disrupting this article because, although there is nothing about it in the body of the piece, he introduces the talking point of the Ukrainian conflict as distraction, and provides explanation regarding some real cause: “oil, gas, money, great reset”.
On the contrary, the frequently expressed consistent viewpoint at this site is that the Ukrainian conflict is essentially about Russia relieving pressure from NATO aggression, denying territory by which US/UK could undermine Russia’s missile defences, and most of all (I think) denying prized Black Sea ports to the US/UK. Moreover, it is held that the talking point of a real motive of “oil, gas, money, great reset”, incorporating Russia as agent for Klaus Schwab types, is a device for introducing scope to promote the idea of make-believe war, which is for denying the reality of abject US/UK military weakness (and therefore the declining power of the City of London).
So, it seems that a comment like this is meant to do a number of things, depending on the reader; i) interrupt between headline and comments section, for people who arrive at a page, and scroll to its foot; ii) to reinterpret the body of the work, for people who will use comments as summarisation and reinforcement of what they think they’ve learnt by the main body; and iii) invite readership to believe that the message is approved by the site publisher by dint of its being published.
Here’s the point: this is the last time I publish anything that has the slightest whiff of being the work of public relations. Sure, to look at it one way, it will deny the FBEL audience the spectacle of being targeted for evidently being considered a threat, but in the end, it’s only a pain in the arse, and one that’s simple to make stop.