ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread

Abert

Veteran Member
Though the RN Tridents are a question mark since that last test, the MN M51s aren't.
Bit of background -
Yes GB appears to be having a bit of a problem "getting it up"
The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site, according to the Sun, which first reported the malfunction.

The French did get their new M51 off - but not from a SUB

The French military announced it successfully test-fired a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on 18 November 2023, from a land-based test facility. This was first ever launch of the M51.3 SLBM.
 

Abert

Veteran Member
Military aid approved by the US Congress, the supply of which is desperately awaited in Ukraine, is not enough to reverse the deterioration of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' position on the battlefield, says retired US Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.

the war has unmasked a major problem in war-fighting logistics. Even if the supplemental had been passed in October of last year, we now know that the U.S. military production base — and that of its European allies — is too small to support even a mid-sized conventional war like Ukraine. A second war would be disastrous.


Bottom line - MORE of the same - more weapons and money - but what is missing is how to address the shortage of troops - while it is called out he offers no practical answer.

The Biden administration must remind the American people, at every opportunity, of the costs of failure in Ukraine. And that focus must also include a major information campaign to address the serious imbalance in manpower in this war — Russia currently has a three-to-one advantage in available military manpower. So, while Ukrainians know they face an existential threat, Russia faces no such dilemma.

So what is he suggesting - getting the population ready for a draft - US troops?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Bit of background -
Yes GB appears to be having a bit of a problem "getting it up"
The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site, according to the Sun, which first reported the malfunction.

The French did get their new M51 off - but not from a SUB

The French military announced it successfully test-fired a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on 18 November 2023, from a land-based test facility. This was first ever launch of the M51.3 SLBM.

The M51.3 is the newest version. The M51.2 is what's loaded on the MN's 4 SSBNs now (16 per boat). Those have an 8000 to 10,000 km range throwing 6 to 10 MIRVs.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use......

Russia hints at lowering threshold for using nuclear weapons​

By Joel Gehrke

May 9, 2024 4:56 pm

Russia is “constantly” analyzing the threshold for using nuclear weapons, according to a top foreign ministry official.

“At the moment, nothing has changed in this regard, but the situation itself is changing,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Thursday, per a state media translation. “As a result, the way basic documents in this field relate to the needs of maintaining our security is constantly analyzed.”

Ryabkov acknowledged the possibility of lowering the bar for nuclear weapons usage just days after Russian defense officials announced a military drill involving those weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin has used nuclear saber-rattling as a method to constrain Western assistance to Ukraine over the last two years.

“Russia will do utmost to avoid a global confrontation, but it will not allow itself to be threatened,” Putin said Thursday during an event marking the anniversary of the Allies’ victory over Nazi Germany during the Second World War. “Our strategic forces are always in combat readiness.”

The efficacy of Russia’s nuclear threats has eroded over the last two years as Western governments gradually have stepped up the quality and quantity of the military equipment they send to Ukraine. And some NATO allies are chafing at the idea of deferring to Putin’s nuclear threats given the negative consequences for Ukraine and the trans-Atlantic alliance if the war ends with a Russian victory.

If we just thought about the Russian response, then we could not send anything,” Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte told the Financial Times this week. “Every second week, you hear that somebody will be nuked.”

Simonyte and some other NATO members have begun to speak of upgrading their support for Ukraine in part due to a growing anxiety that the protracted lapse in U.S. aid to Ukraine has raised the specter of a crisis on the battlefield.

“If the Russians were to break through the front lines, if there were a Ukrainian request, which is not the case today, we would legitimately have to ask ourselves this question,” French President Emmanuel Macron told the Economist in a recent interview. “It would be wrong in terms of credibility and deterrence vis-a-vis the Russians to rule it out. I note, by the way, that the aggressiveness of the Russian response to what I said showed that this was having the desired effect, which was to say: Don’t think that we will stop here if you don’t stop.”

Russian officials responded by announcing snap drills involving their so-called low-yield nuclear forces. Those military exercises involve the weapons that Western officials perceive as most likely to be used if the Kremlin decides to use nuclear weapons in an offensive military campaign.

“We warn our opponents that their course towards escalation will, of course, prompt the need for us to take steps that actually mean enhancing deterrence measures,” Ryabkov said. “The drills of practicing the skills of employing nonstrategic nuclear weapons are an element of these efforts.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use......

Minsk Confirms Deployment of Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Belarus​

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 21 Issue: 72​

By: Alexander Taranov

May 9, 2024 04:52 PM Age: 2 hours

Executive Summary:

  • At the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly in April, Belarusian officials confirmed that Russian tactical nuclear weapons had been deployed in Belarus.
  • The new military doctrine of Belarus declares the role of Russian TNWs as an essential component of preventive deterrence against unfriendly states.
  • The Belarusian military-political leadership does not have a complete picture of the protocols and procedures for the use of Russian TNWs, and much may depend on personal consultations between Lukashenka and Putin.

The new military doctrine of Belarus, which includes a provision on Russian nuclear weapons, was adopted by the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly (ABPA) during its recent session on April 24 and 25 in Minsk (see EDM, May 2). The text, however, did not clarify the role and status of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW). The document only declared what many already knew in advance (see EDM, March 12). According to the new doctrine, the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory is considered an essential component of deterrence for Minsk. It is also a forced reaction to the failure of Western guarantor countries to comply with the terms of the Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with the accession of the Republic of Belarus to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Budapest Memorandum (Pravo.by, April 25). Last year, Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka confirmed that he was discussing the deployment of Russian strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus with President Vladimir Putin and even started to prepare old Soviet launching pads for Topol-M mobile ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (President of Belarus, March 31, 2023; see EDM, April 4, 2023; T.me/modmilby, April 22, 2023). At the ABPA, Lukashenka and Belarusian Minister of Defense Viktor Khrenin confirmed the deployment of Russian TNWs in Belarus. Against the backdrop of Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling during his inauguration speech, the presence of Russian nukes on Belarusian territory has elevated fears of their possible use in Ukraine and/or the wider region (Kremlin.ru, May 7).

Khrenin argued that the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons is not blackmail or intimidation but an opportunity to protect the state and ensure peace for Belarusians. According to him, Belarus was one of the first countries that voluntarily renounced the deployment of nuclear weapons in exchange for international recognition of independence and sovereignty, as well as non-use of economic coercion by outside powers. The defense minister, however, contends that the West broke its promises, and Minsk was forced to react. Khrenin emphasized that deploying TNWs is an effective response to the aggressive policy of unfriendly states and a way to prevent them from escalating the situation around Belarus. He concluded that, after receiving the TNWs, Belarus now has a full arsenal to inflict unacceptable damage on a potential aggressor (Belta, April 25).

On the sidelines of the ABPA, Lukashenka told reporters that the mechanism for using nuclear weapons is not spelled out in the new military doctrine as it is the subject of consultations between him and Putin. He confirmed, however, the existence of a document that “describes the formula for the use of both tactical missile nuclear weapons and nuclear aerial bombs that are set up under the aircraft” (TASS, April 24).

During the ABPA, Lukashenka said that he did not understand the indignation of foreign politicians over the Russian TNWs deployed on Belarusian territory. According to him, these are the same weapons the United States is actively modernizing and storing at the air bases of some European countries, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Lukashenka clarified that there is a difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. He claimed that, from the military perspective, TNWs have strike and offensive capabilities, not defensive (YouTube, April 24). Lukashenka failed to mention that, in contrast to the United States and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, Russia has been pre-deploying TNWs to Belarus at the repair and technical bases near NATO’s eastern flank per the Soviet manuals (see EDM, April 30). This could indicate preparations for offensive operations with the use of TNWs. Lukashenka believes that NATO’s first strike would be on Belarus in the event of a military conflict with Russia. He links complaints from Western countries about the deployment of Russian TNWs as evidence of these intentions (President of Belarus, April 25).

Lukashenka believes all this indicates that the West considers Eastern Europe a potential theater of military operations, where the enemy—Russia and Belarus—has already been identified. The Belarusian ruler noted that Moscow has deployed several dozen nuclear warheads in Belarus and that Minsk is determined to oppose any aggressor and inflict unacceptable damage. He emphasized that the West should understand that their capitals are a legitimate target for tactical nuclear strikes in the event of aggression against Belarus. Lukashenka added that he had learned well and mastered the lessons of the Great Patriotic War, especially the initial stage when the Soviet Union tried to appease Nazi Germany and again hinted at the preventive capabilities of TNWs (EDM, March 13). The Russian and Belarusian militaries have already begun preparations for such a strike through command and staff exercises (see EDM, March 13, April 30).

Even so, on May 7, Lukashenka disavowed his statements about the offensive and strike capabilities of Russian TNWs. He once again repeated that the non-strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus are for deterrence and defense. Simultaneously, he stated that the world has never been as close to nuclear war as it is now, noting that the statements of Western politicians (including the French President Emmanuel Macron) have escalated tensions not only in Europe but throughout the world (President of Belarus, May 7).

Lukashenka also announced his intentions to discuss with Putin the joint coordination and use of Russian-Belarusian regional troops groupings equipped with TNWs. He claimed a final decision on those procedures would be made during his visit to Moscow on May 8 (TASS, May 7). Thus, despite official statements, the new military doctrine, and Lukashenka’s secret decrees on the use of TNW carriers, the Belarusian military-political leadership still do not have the whole picture.

Lukashenka’s statement came after the announcement of a surprise inspection of non-strategic nuclear weapons carriers for the Belarusian Armed Forces. According to the State Secretary of the Belarusian Security Council Alexander Volfovich, this check was synchronized with the activities carried out by the Russian Armed Forces since May 6 on the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons (Belta.by May 7). The placement of Russian TNWs in Belarus demonstrates a readiness for escalation on the part of both Moscow and Minsk against the West in the case of a spilling over of hostilities from Ukraine or a NATO strike on either country.
 

Cedar Lake

Connecticut Yankee
If one actually believes that the "Rah! Rah! - our stuff blows up their stuff better" . . .
If you actually believe that, then one would have to arrive at the conclusion
that NATO fully intended to kill off the Ukraine population.
Yup, at the end of the day, just more dead Slavs to the Neo-Cons. And Old Europe.
Just ask Senator Lindsey Graham.
 
Last edited:

Abert

Veteran Member

Russia Remembers, The United States Forgets​

Today, May 9, marks the 79th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany aka Victory in Europe day and the Russian people held massive marches and commemorations — not just in Russia — but in countries around the world where Russian expats live. But in the United States, where the mythology persists that the United States defeated the Nazis, there were crickets. Nothing. Why the difference?

It is a simple matter of numbers.

The Soviet Union is estimated to have suffered the highest number of WWII casualties. As many as 27 million Soviets lost their lives, with as many as 11.4 million military deaths joined by up to 10 million civilian deaths due to military activity and an additional 8 million to 9 million deaths due to famine and disease. Those totals do not include the more than 14 million Soviet soldiers who were wounded during the war. Among the Soviet Union’s 15 republics, Russia withstood the highest number of casualties, with 6,750,000 military deaths and 7,200,000 civilian deaths. Ukraine tallied the second-highest casualties, with 1,650,000 military deaths and 5,200,000 civilian deaths.

The estimated population of the Soviet Union in 1940 was 170 million. In other words, 16% of Soviet citizens died as a consequence of the Great Patriotic War. That does not begin to take into account the number of wounded, which probably represented an additional 20 million people.

Compare that with the United States. There are conflicting estimates, ranging from 183,500 up to 276,655 US Army KIA in Europe/North Africa. Let’s go with the higher number. According to the 1940 Census, there were 132,164,569 Americans. That ratio of U.S. KIA in the European/North African theater compared to total population is 0.2%. In other words, far less than 1% of the U.S. population died at the hands of the Nazis.

The staggering scale of Soviet losses is beyond the comprehension of most Americans. The Soviets tripled all American losses in the European theater in just one battle — Stalingrad.
 

Tristan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
If one actually believes that the "Rah! Rah! - our stuff blows up their stuff better" . . .
If you actually believe that, then one would have to arrive at the conclusion
that NATO fully intended to kill off the Ukraine population.

I've considered that a possible scenario for quite a while, now.

"To the last Ukranian".

The World is basically run by Psychopaths.



(SPIT!)
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
You mean "Best money we ever spent!" Graham?

That Graham?


:kk2:
Kind of sounds like Madame Half-bright’s thinking about civilian losses from our invasions in the Middle East: those are acceptable losses...

between Deagle.com’s predictions of massive de-population of the US and Western Europe by 2025, I am starting to think that “those are acceptable losses” in Pentagon thinking in order to ensure a New World Order, because there was a line of thinking back in the Nineties (Bush and Clinton era) that the West and the East needed to be “melded“ together to save the world from WW3. Starting to look like that last scene in the last Act is coming fast where - as the Q thread predicts - there will be a “nuclear scare” necessary to get everyone thinking that a compromise will come out of the scare, but maybe a considerable loss of the life in the West in particular to achieve their desired aims. Maybe that’s why they have opened the gates at the southern border to fill up the target areas in the America and Europe to “take out” the “useless eaters” in just a few minutes.
very efficient...and evening up the losses that Russia suffered during the last War, compared to our losses, so suck it up America. I guess that sounds fair to the NWO elites in their underground bunkers.

I am starting to think that the “soft landing” we have often heard about over the years when the inevitable economic crash of our global fiat US “Reserve Dollar” finally occurs will involve the factoid that we have already run out of sufficient “runway” to set down this underpowered, over-populated “Beast of a Federal Reserve System” somewhere safely. And now we know that they already know that they can achieve the same ends merely by hacking our highly digital nations with hacking and localized EMP-causing devices, and still achieve the Great De-Population. I wonder if their AI is predicting “acceptable“ odds of non-radiated continents versus fully-radiated continents, and they are betting that chances are acceptable for the “mostly” non-radiated version...
 
Last edited:

Abert

Veteran Member
Yup, at the end of the day, just more dead Slavs to the Neo-Cons. And Old Europe.
Just ask Senator Lindsey Graham.
More dead Slavs - you can go back to General George S. Patton

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese and, from what I’ve seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all out son of a bitch, a barbarian, and a chronic drunk.
 

Abert

Veteran Member
Interesting article you will NOT see in MSM - something similar happened during the Great Depression.

The American Men Seeking the American Dream—in Russia​

Once, they put their hopes in Donald Trump. Now they’re looking to Putin. ‘I often say it feels like our positive vision of 1950s America.’

Related YouTube
 

wait-n-see

Veteran Member

Putin's Radar-Evading Missiles Spook US, Russia Warns It's Picking Sites For Pre-Emptive Deployment​

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wOUaz_xelU

Run time - 7:19
May 10, 2024

Russia is pre-emptively planning deployment sites of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. The plans are in response to a potential US move to deploy such weapons, according to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. Ryabkov also warned that while Moscow's nuclear war policy hasn't changed, the situation is fluid. Ryabkov’s warning comes days after Russia’s defence ministry said it had launched preparations for a nuclear weapons drills in southern Russia. This comes as the commander of the US Northern Command said Russia has expanded its inventory of radar-evading ICBM*s over the past year. According to General Gregory Guillot, the ICBMs are armed with a hypersonic glide vehicle that is capable of evading radars. Watch the video to find out more.

0:00 - INTRODUCTION

1:46 - TIMING OF THE COMMENT

2:38 - US CLAIMS RUSSIA IS EXPANDING ITS ICBM FORCE

4:46 - IS RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR WAR POLICY CHANGING?

5:58 - RUSSIA PLANNING NUCLEAR DRILLS
 

wait-n-see

Veteran Member

Rus Kharkov Advance, US Passes Ukr Project NATO, Desperate Zelensky Exiles Zaluzhny, Fires Security​

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0erKQkDVcQ

Run time - 1:17:32
May 10, 2024

@pp-8829

09:42 Russian offensive in Kharkov region confirmed by Zelensky

19:24 Russian forces have captured Umansk with Ukrainian troops retreating, signaling a dire situation on the front lines.

29:06 Russian advance threatens critical Ukrainian supply lines and fortified positions

38:48 Russian forces are stretching Ukrainian defense lines

48:30 Russian advance in central Donbass and political developments in the US

58:12 NATO to rule out boots on ground in Ukraine, arms transfers under NATO supervision

1:07:54 Transfer of responsibility of weapons transfers from Washington to NATO

1:17:33 Russian government's attempt to undermine Ukrainian government's legitimacy and reluctance to negotiate with Zelensky

Crafted by Merlin AI.
 

jward

passin' thru
The UK should not rule out sending troops to Ukraine – despite Putin’s nuclear threats


The Kremlin has responded with predictable theatre to comments from foreign secretary David Cameron, after he said Ukraine is free to use weapons supplied by Britain to launch strikes inside Russia.

That theatre was both diplomatic, with the British ambassador summoned to the foreign ministry in Russia on Monday to warn of retaliation, and nuclear: Moscow announced it would be holding exercises involving tactical nuclear weapons in the near future to remind the world yet again that it has them.

The UK position is a sharp contrast to that of the US, which has consistently forbidden Ukraine from using the weapons it supplies to hit targets in Russia. The US has even discouraged Kyiv from doing so using its own home-grown capabilities.
Deployments to Ukraine

Britain has repeatedly taken the lead in supplying weapons systems such as long-range missiles or main battle tanks to Ukraine. In the process it has shown that fears of ‘escalation’ in Washington and Berlin stem from a highly successful Russian con trick.

But the UK’s moral authority has been shaken over recent months by its reluctance to re-equip its own armed forces in the way it is urging other European states to do: grand announcements of defence investment have turned out on closer inspection to be inadequate.

Cameron has also suggested that Britain’s long-term commitment to supporting Ukraine would now be largely financial, since ‘we’ve just really emptied all we can in terms of giving equipment’.

And sadly, he immediately undermined the effect even of that commitment by once again ruling out the presence of Western troops in Ukraine.

French president Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly warned that European troops could be forced to intervene if Ukraine is unable to halt Russia’s aggression. It’s vital that Russia understands that, since the last thing Moscow wants is a direct military clash with NATO countries.

And yet, other European leaders have reacted with horror to the suggestion. ‘I don’t think it is right to have NATO soldiers killing Russian soldiers,’ Cameron said at the end of his visit to Ukraine. That may be true today, but as Russia’s ambitions have grown more apparent, it’s served as a reminder that the purpose of NATO should be to stop Russian soldiers being where they have no right to be.

Publicly ruling out a Western troop presence in Ukraine makes no sense, whether or not it’s a realistic proposition for some NATO countries.

In any case, publicly ruling out a Western troop presence in Ukraine makes no sense, whether or not it’s a realistic proposition for some NATO countries. Just the possibility is one of the Kremlin’s greatest fears.

When Cameron and others publicly bar that option, all it does is reassure Putin he can continue the war with much less concern for the possible consequences.

Instead, more European leaders – and the UK – should follow Macron’s lead and preserve ‘strategic ambiguity’ (that is, not telling your adversary what you’re not going to do).
Russia stepping up aggression

Over the course of the last two weeks, Europe as a whole has woken up to the campaign of sabotage and disruption that Russia has been waging across the continent. There’s no doubt Russia could step this up still further. Moscow’s war on the West is now barely hidden, and for as long as the West does not respond, there are few downsides for Russia in waging it.

The West should expect proxy attacks against the UK and across Europe to continue.

Using an extended network of proxies means the Kremlin’s intelligence chiefs won’t be too concerned if they are caught in the act. The crooks and patsies it recruits abroad will be considered even more disposable than its own personnel. And since Russia is already overtly acting as a rogue state, there’s no damage to reputation or relationships to be concerned about.

The West should expect proxy attacks against the UK and across Europe to continue. As well as hampering support to Ukraine, they have another useful purpose for Moscow. Whether or not they succeed, they’re useful for gathering information on a country’s will and capacity to prevent and respond to sabotage.

There’s one traditional way of hurting the West that Russia may not yet have employed. Throughout the Cold War and even in tsarist times, Moscow poured effort and resources into sponsoring terrorist groups to carry out attacks against European cities. That would be a more random campaign of violence than the targeting of European logistics and supporters of Ukraine that we see now. It would also have much greater impact.

Europe must not be just a passive victim. At the beginning of this year, I wrote about the West’s under-used ability to influence Russia’s choices.

The UK made its deliveries of Storm Shadow an explicit consequence of specific Russian actions. Now, it seems, the US has done the same with its long-awaited supply of longer-range ATACMs missiles.

To nobody’s surprise, except perhaps in the White House, the sky has not fallen.

Britain’s explicit endorsement of strikes into Russia could also have been presented as a consequence for Russia’s attacks against Europe, and with a promise that more would follow. What’s more, explicitly allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with British weapons as well as its own opens up other possibilities for targeting Russia’s ability to wage war.
 

jward

passin' thru

Suspected Russian sabotage: The great return of Kremlin agents to Europe?​



Amid fresh intelligence warnings that Russia is preparing “violent acts of sabotage” targeting Europe and NATO member states, security experts tell FRANCE 24 that they have already noted a significant uptick in what appear to be covert Russian sabotage operations.
In a May 5 exclusive, the Financial Times reported that intelligence services from three different European countries have warned their governments that Russian agents are in the midst of plotting a series of bombing, arson and infrastructure attacks on European soil.

“We assess the risk of [Russian] state-controlled acts of sabotage to be significantly increased,” Thomas Haldenwang, the head of German domestic intelligence, told a security conference in April, noting that the attacks would come with “a high potential for damage”.

Arson and sabotage​

NATO is also on alert, a senior European government official told the paper, saying the alliance’s security services have brought to the table “clear and convincing information on Russian mischief”.
The Kremlin scoffed at the claims, rejecting them as “unfounded” and “not serious”.
But the warnings are not all that easy to dismiss. Especially as they have come amid of spate of sabotage attacks in both Europe and the United States in recent months with suspected links to Russian intelligence services. And the list of incidents continues to grow.

A London warehouse containing aid shipments to Ukraine was destroyed in a fire on March 21, for example. Then, on April 15, an American artillery shell factory that ships some of its products to Ukraine went up in flames. Two days later, on April 17, an explosion rocked British defence contractor BAE Systems’ factory in Wales. The factory also manufactures weapons for Ukraine.

And on April 18 a man linked to the Russian intelligence services was arrested in Poland after trying to collect information about security at the country’s Rzeszow airport. That same day, Germany arrested two German-Russian nationals suspected of plotting sabotage attacks in the country, including on US military facilities.

Targeting Europe's railway network​

Jenny Mathers, a specialist in Russian intelligence services at Aberystwyth University in Wales, said there has been a notable increase in the number and intensity of Russia-linked incidents for the past year, adding that “we are likely to see an acceleration of this trend".
Larger infrastructure networks have been targeted too. Last month, Czech authorities accused Russia of having made “thousands” of hacking attempts to sabotage European railway systems and their ability to transport Western arms and material to Ukraine. According to the country’s transport minister, the campaign began shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and has included attacks on signalling and ticketing systems.

Kevin Riehle, an intelligence and security expert at Brunel University in London, said that one of the reasons for the presumed Russian sabotage is that Moscow already sees itself as being at war with the West.
President Vladimir Putin made this fairly clear on March 28 when he said that any Western military bases hosting F-16 fighter jets destined for Ukraine would be considered “legitimate targets” for the Russian army.

Mark Galeotti, director of the London-based think tank Mayak Intelligence and author of “Putin’s Wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine”, said that as the West continues to pile pressure on Russia, “we should not be surprised by a pushback”.
Galeotti added that the increase in sabotage operations also comes as Ukraine has intensified its attacks on Russian soil and that they can be viewed as a sort of payback. “As far as Putin is concerned, Ukraine does what it is told. When he sees Russian factories being attacked, he sees the hands of the CIA, of NATO," he said.

Perfect timing​

Daniel Lomas, an expert in intelligence services at the University of Nottingham, said the timing for Russia to put pressure on the West in this manner is opportune too, especially as a certain war fatigue – evident in the US's long-delayed aid package for Ukraine earlier this year – has begun to set in. On top of that, Russian attacks on European soil are “an opportunity to sow more divisions” in the West, he said.

The attacks also serve a strategic purpose in Ukraine, in the sense that Russia is trying to coordinate the wider sabotage campaign with its push on the ground in a bid to create a greater military advantage, Mathers said.
“There is a psychological impact [on the West], but also a material one [for Ukraine],” she said, referring to the fact that most of the targets are either ammunition depots intended for the Ukrainian army or infrastructures in the supply and delivery chain, such as rail networks or airports.

Lomas agreed. "One of their key priorities is to stop the flow of weapons to Ukraine."

‘Just below the threshold’​

While the Financial Times warned that the attacks Russia is preparing will be carried out “with little concern for civilian fatalities”, the experts FRANCE 24 spoke with do not seem quite as worried.
Riehle of Brunel University noted that the main purpose of the Russian intelligence services has always been to “reduce their adversaries' ability to conduct war” rather than to rack up collateral victims.

This does not mean casualties do not happen, Lomas said, and pointed to the 2018 Sergei Skripal case in Britain where a woman died after accidentally being exposed to the nerve agent that Russia used to target a former double agent.
Galeotti said the Russians also seem careful to avoid crossing any red line. “Not killing people and going after infrastructure facilities show they still have political limits, for the moment. Even if Putin speaks of a war against the West, in reality he doesn't want an open conflict. So Russia is using operations that remain just below the threshold."
And, Lomas said, if Russia wants to target NATO countries without actually triggering a NATO response then it has no other choice but to use its intelligence services to conduct sabotage operations.

But to do so efficiently, it needs to have a large network of agents in place. In the weeks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe dealt a huge blow to that network by expelling hundreds of Russian intelligence officers who were operating out of embassies across the continent.

The fact that the sabotage campaigns are intensifying, however, could mean that Russian intelligence services may have recovered from the worst of these losses, Riehle said.

But for now, Russia’s sabotage operations have mostly been restricted to arson here, attempted railway attacks there, and dual nationals who have been arrested before they can cause any real damage. In other words, Russia’s European network of agents is likely still quite fragile. And this is probably why the European intelligence warnings have been issued now – while there is still time to prevent Europe from once again becoming a nest for Russian agents who could ruin the Ukrainian supply chain for good.
This article was adapted from the original in French.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
The UK should not rule out sending troops to Ukraine – despite Putin’s nuclear threats


The Kremlin has responded with predictable theatre to comments from foreign secretary David Cameron, after he said Ukraine is free to use weapons supplied by Britain to launch strikes inside Russia.

That theatre was both diplomatic, with the British ambassador summoned to the foreign ministry in Russia on Monday to warn of retaliation, and nuclear: Moscow announced it would be holding exercises involving tactical nuclear weapons in the near future to remind the world yet again that it has them.

The UK position is a sharp contrast to that of the US, which has consistently forbidden Ukraine from using the weapons it supplies to hit targets in Russia. The US has even discouraged Kyiv from doing so using its own home-grown capabilities.
Deployments to Ukraine

Britain has repeatedly taken the lead in supplying weapons systems such as long-range missiles or main battle tanks to Ukraine. In the process it has shown that fears of ‘escalation’ in Washington and Berlin stem from a highly successful Russian con trick.

But the UK’s moral authority has been shaken over recent months by its reluctance to re-equip its own armed forces in the way it is urging other European states to do: grand announcements of defence investment have turned out on closer inspection to be inadequate.

Cameron has also suggested that Britain’s long-term commitment to supporting Ukraine would now be largely financial, since ‘we’ve just really emptied all we can in terms of giving equipment’.

And sadly, he immediately undermined the effect even of that commitment by once again ruling out the presence of Western troops in Ukraine.

French president Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly warned that European troops could be forced to intervene if Ukraine is unable to halt Russia’s aggression. It’s vital that Russia understands that, since the last thing Moscow wants is a direct military clash with NATO countries.

And yet, other European leaders have reacted with horror to the suggestion. ‘I don’t think it is right to have NATO soldiers killing Russian soldiers,’ Cameron said at the end of his visit to Ukraine. That may be true today, but as Russia’s ambitions have grown more apparent, it’s served as a reminder that the purpose of NATO should be to stop Russian soldiers being where they have no right to be.

Publicly ruling out a Western troop presence in Ukraine makes no sense, whether or not it’s a realistic proposition for some NATO countries.

In any case, publicly ruling out a Western troop presence in Ukraine makes no sense, whether or not it’s a realistic proposition for some NATO countries. Just the possibility is one of the Kremlin’s greatest fears.

When Cameron and others publicly bar that option, all it does is reassure Putin he can continue the war with much less concern for the possible consequences.

Instead, more European leaders – and the UK – should follow Macron’s lead and preserve ‘strategic ambiguity’ (that is, not telling your adversary what you’re not going to do).
Russia stepping up aggression

Over the course of the last two weeks, Europe as a whole has woken up to the campaign of sabotage and disruption that Russia has been waging across the continent. There’s no doubt Russia could step this up still further. Moscow’s war on the West is now barely hidden, and for as long as the West does not respond, there are few downsides for Russia in waging it.

The West should expect proxy attacks against the UK and across Europe to continue.

Using an extended network of proxies means the Kremlin’s intelligence chiefs won’t be too concerned if they are caught in the act. The crooks and patsies it recruits abroad will be considered even more disposable than its own personnel. And since Russia is already overtly acting as a rogue state, there’s no damage to reputation or relationships to be concerned about.

The West should expect proxy attacks against the UK and across Europe to continue. As well as hampering support to Ukraine, they have another useful purpose for Moscow. Whether or not they succeed, they’re useful for gathering information on a country’s will and capacity to prevent and respond to sabotage.

There’s one traditional way of hurting the West that Russia may not yet have employed. Throughout the Cold War and even in tsarist times, Moscow poured effort and resources into sponsoring terrorist groups to carry out attacks against European cities. That would be a more random campaign of violence than the targeting of European logistics and supporters of Ukraine that we see now. It would also have much greater impact.

Europe must not be just a passive victim. At the beginning of this year, I wrote about the West’s under-used ability to influence Russia’s choices.

The UK made its deliveries of Storm Shadow an explicit consequence of specific Russian actions. Now, it seems, the US has done the same with its long-awaited supply of longer-range ATACMs missiles.

To nobody’s surprise, except perhaps in the White House, the sky has not fallen.

Britain’s explicit endorsement of strikes into Russia could also have been presented as a consequence for Russia’s attacks against Europe, and with a promise that more would follow. What’s more, explicitly allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with British weapons as well as its own opens up other possibilities for targeting Russia’s ability to wage war.

Likely as not, those threats by the Russians are going to encourage exactly what they're trying to stop with those very threats.
 

jward

passin' thru

jward

passin' thru
OSINTdefender
@sentdefender

Ukrainian Sources are claiming that Russian Mechanized-Infantry Elements have managed to “Deepen their Bridgehead” into the Kharkiv Region of Northwestern Ukraine over the last 24 Hours; with Fighting now reportedly near the Town of Hlyboke which over 3.5 Miles from the Border with the Belgorod Region of Western Russia, as well as on the Outskirts of Lukiantsi just to the South of Pylna. In addition to this Advance roughly 20 Miles to the Northeast of Kharkiv City, it’s also reported that Russian Elements have now Crossed the Ukrainian Border to the North of Vovchansk, having Captured the Towns of Natyshche and Pletenivka in what appears to be the Establishment of another Bridgehead for further Large-Scale Offensive Operations.
View: https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1789125542819549394
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
gr_kharkiv.png



3eb59bb031f24145a25d111c84d6ace4


22a5a151404eea63140882a0376f9aa0

 

Abert

Veteran Member

Suspected Russian sabotage: The great return of Kremlin agents to Europe?​



Amid fresh intelligence warnings that Russia is preparing “violent acts of sabotage” targeting Europe and NATO member states, security experts tell FRANCE 24 that they have already noted a significant uptick in what appear to be covert Russian sabotage operations.
In a May 5 exclusive, the Financial Times reported that intelligence services from three different European countries have warned their governments that Russian agents are in the midst of plotting a series of bombing, arson and infrastructure attacks on European soil.

“We assess the risk of [Russian] state-controlled acts of sabotage to be significantly increased,” Thomas Haldenwang, the head of German domestic intelligence, told a security conference in April, noting that the attacks would come with “a high potential for damage”.

Arson and sabotage​

NATO is also on alert, a senior European government official told the paper, saying the alliance’s security services have brought to the table “clear and convincing information on Russian mischief”.
The Kremlin scoffed at the claims, rejecting them as “unfounded” and “not serious”.
But the warnings are not all that easy to dismiss. Especially as they have come amid of spate of sabotage attacks in both Europe and the United States in recent months with suspected links to Russian intelligence services. And the list of incidents continues to grow.

A London warehouse containing aid shipments to Ukraine was destroyed in a fire on March 21, for example. Then, on April 15, an American artillery shell factory that ships some of its products to Ukraine went up in flames. Two days later, on April 17, an explosion rocked British defence contractor BAE Systems’ factory in Wales. The factory also manufactures weapons for Ukraine.

And on April 18 a man linked to the Russian intelligence services was arrested in Poland after trying to collect information about security at the country’s Rzeszow airport. That same day, Germany arrested two German-Russian nationals suspected of plotting sabotage attacks in the country, including on US military facilities.

Targeting Europe's railway network​

Jenny Mathers, a specialist in Russian intelligence services at Aberystwyth University in Wales, said there has been a notable increase in the number and intensity of Russia-linked incidents for the past year, adding that “we are likely to see an acceleration of this trend".
Larger infrastructure networks have been targeted too. Last month, Czech authorities accused Russia of having made “thousands” of hacking attempts to sabotage European railway systems and their ability to transport Western arms and material to Ukraine. According to the country’s transport minister, the campaign began shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and has included attacks on signalling and ticketing systems.

Kevin Riehle, an intelligence and security expert at Brunel University in London, said that one of the reasons for the presumed Russian sabotage is that Moscow already sees itself as being at war with the West.
President Vladimir Putin made this fairly clear on March 28 when he said that any Western military bases hosting F-16 fighter jets destined for Ukraine would be considered “legitimate targets” for the Russian army.

Mark Galeotti, director of the London-based think tank Mayak Intelligence and author of “Putin’s Wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine”, said that as the West continues to pile pressure on Russia, “we should not be surprised by a pushback”.
Galeotti added that the increase in sabotage operations also comes as Ukraine has intensified its attacks on Russian soil and that they can be viewed as a sort of payback. “As far as Putin is concerned, Ukraine does what it is told. When he sees Russian factories being attacked, he sees the hands of the CIA, of NATO," he said.

Perfect timing​

Daniel Lomas, an expert in intelligence services at the University of Nottingham, said the timing for Russia to put pressure on the West in this manner is opportune too, especially as a certain war fatigue – evident in the US's long-delayed aid package for Ukraine earlier this year – has begun to set in. On top of that, Russian attacks on European soil are “an opportunity to sow more divisions” in the West, he said.

The attacks also serve a strategic purpose in Ukraine, in the sense that Russia is trying to coordinate the wider sabotage campaign with its push on the ground in a bid to create a greater military advantage, Mathers said.
“There is a psychological impact [on the West], but also a material one [for Ukraine],” she said, referring to the fact that most of the targets are either ammunition depots intended for the Ukrainian army or infrastructures in the supply and delivery chain, such as rail networks or airports.

Lomas agreed. "One of their key priorities is to stop the flow of weapons to Ukraine."

‘Just below the threshold’​

While the Financial Times warned that the attacks Russia is preparing will be carried out “with little concern for civilian fatalities”, the experts FRANCE 24 spoke with do not seem quite as worried.
Riehle of Brunel University noted that the main purpose of the Russian intelligence services has always been to “reduce their adversaries' ability to conduct war” rather than to rack up collateral victims.

This does not mean casualties do not happen, Lomas said, and pointed to the 2018 Sergei Skripal case in Britain where a woman died after accidentally being exposed to the nerve agent that Russia used to target a former double agent.
Galeotti said the Russians also seem careful to avoid crossing any red line. “Not killing people and going after infrastructure facilities show they still have political limits, for the moment. Even if Putin speaks of a war against the West, in reality he doesn't want an open conflict. So Russia is using operations that remain just below the threshold."
And, Lomas said, if Russia wants to target NATO countries without actually triggering a NATO response then it has no other choice but to use its intelligence services to conduct sabotage operations.

But to do so efficiently, it needs to have a large network of agents in place. In the weeks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe dealt a huge blow to that network by expelling hundreds of Russian intelligence officers who were operating out of embassies across the continent.

The fact that the sabotage campaigns are intensifying, however, could mean that Russian intelligence services may have recovered from the worst of these losses, Riehle said.

But for now, Russia’s sabotage operations have mostly been restricted to arson here, attempted railway attacks there, and dual nationals who have been arrested before they can cause any real damage. In other words, Russia’s European network of agents is likely still quite fragile. And this is probably why the European intelligence warnings have been issued now – while there is still time to prevent Europe from once again becoming a nest for Russian agents who could ruin the Ukrainian supply chain for good.
This article was adapted from the original in French.
With several MILLION Ukrainians in Europe - and Ukraine's desperate need for EU to send troops - what are the odds of Ukrainian False Flag actions with the required dropped Russian passports - just to make it clear.

As they say - who benefits - there is ZERO benefit for Russia - attacks in Europe have no impact on the front line conflict and they get no benefit from the negative press. Ukraine on the other hand has been doing everything possible to drag the EU directly into this conflict - who benefits?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
With several MILLION Ukrainians in Europe - and Ukraine's desperate need for EU to send troops - what are the odds of Ukrainian False Flag actions with the required dropped Russian passports - just to make it clear.

As they say - who benefits - there is ZERO benefit for Russia - attacks in Europe have no impact on the front line conflict and they get no benefit from the negative press. Ukraine on the other hand has been doing everything possible to drag the EU directly into this conflict - who benefits?

Remember with the current world situation possible culprits include domestic political activists of various stripes and jihadis. Not everything has to do directly with the Russo-Ukrainian War. That being said nothing is happening in a vacuum either.
 

Abert

Veteran Member
Remember with the current world situation possible culprits include domestic political activists of various stripes and jihadis. Not everything has to do directly with the Russo-Ukrainian War. That being said nothing is happening in a vacuum either.
True lots of players and angles - but the last 2 weeks or so there has been this full court press on how RUSSIA is planning attacks - talk about salting the mine - set the narrative so when / if anything happens - well we all expected them to do something. The timing is just about right to influence in the upcoming NATO meeting in July.

Projecting Much ?

May 2, 2024:

NATO members ‘deeply concerned’ by activities such as sabotage on alliance soil. They blame Russia​


 

raven

TB Fanatic
Ukraine was not a Warsaw Pact country. It WAS the Soviet Union.
It was the founding member of the Soviet Union.

Somehow, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia and Belorussia remained commie and Ukraine became the democratic and capitalist. Oh yeah! Ukraine was always democratic and capitalist.
No it wasn't. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainian.

This idea that somehow the Ukrainians are innocent little Hobbits in a land of Orcs is propaganda. There were commie for 80 years before the dissolution of the Soviet State. That shit does not just wash out.
 

Roger Thornhill

Some irascible old curmudgeon
The Soviet Union no longer exists, and has been gone for decades. Modern-day Russia is a completely different animal.

And yes, we sent a LOT of materiel to the Soviet Union. We provided hardware, they provided lives.
We lost less than one-half percent of our military-aged population; they lost 16%.

Who sacrificed more to stem the rise of National Socialism?
 

von Koehler

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The Soviet Union no longer exists, and has been gone for decades. Modern-day Russia is a completely different animal.

And yes, we sent a LOT of materiel to the Soviet Union. We provided hardware, they provided lives.
We lost less than one-half percent of our military-aged population; they lost 16%.

Who sacrificed more to stem the rise of National Socialism?

Germany probably would have beaten the Soviet Union if it wasn't for American aid to Stalin.

Putin constantly refers to the old Soviet Union. Russian personal losses were high due to their "meat wave" tactics; the exact same tactic Russia uses today.

Putin will fight to the last Russian conscript.
 
Last edited:

jward

passin' thru

raven

TB Fanatic
OMG!
If America had joined Hitler and become Nazi we could have nuked Moscow in 1945 and defeated Russia.

Why didn't I think of that??

Wait a second . . . we could have nuked Moscow in 1945 right after we defeated Nazi Germany . . . because we had the nukes and they didn't.
We did not need to join up with Germany to do that.
 
Last edited:
Top