How To Assess Recent Events In Ukraine?

There has been very limited commentary on the recent military events in Ukraine:

1. The enormous explosion of the munitions depot at Khmelnitsky in Western Ukraine as the result of a Russian strike (Ukraine says drones, but I wonder about that …). This may reflect growing Russian anger at provision of large amounts of munitions of a more advanced nature. Very real possibility of significant NATO casualties at this site.

2. The provision of Storm Shadow air launched cruise missiles to Ukraine by Britain—and their use against Russian territory in the Donbass. This likely took place some time ago but is just now going operational. These missiles have greater range than previously provided HIMARS systems.

3. The ambush of a Russian Special Air Group 50 kilometers inside Russia—loss of four aircraft and 9 airmen. This attack appears by most accounts to be beyond the capabilities of Ukraine and almost certainly represents a NATO strike on a Russian target within Russian air space. Retaliation for #1?

4. Resumption of British ISR flights over the Black Sea—with Tornado escorts.

5. Zelensky has remained outside Ukraine—to the best of my knowledge—since the drone attack on the Kremlin. He has claimed that there would be “surprises” for Russia. It now looks like those surprises are not ground offensives but these new NATO weapons. He has also hinted that new attacks would include attacks in the Black Sea, presumably against assets of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, but perhaps including Crimean land targets and infrastructure (Kerch Bridge?).

6. Provision of HIMARS missiles to Poland, which has stationed them 80 kilometers from the border of Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast.

7. All the above signal what appears to be a serious escalation by the West.

The commentary I’ve seen so far that attempts to assess the wider implications going forward is from Larry Johnson this morning—brief but very much to the point—referring to #2-3:

This is clearly a tactical black eye for the Russians. It does not change the trajectory of Ukraine’s ultimate defeat, but it is likely to lead to a significant escalation in Russian attacks on NATO ISR assets at a minimum. Until now, the Russians largely have avoided attacking U.S./NATO targets. I think that is now at an end.

It is not just the attack on the “Special Air Group.” The Ukrainians also launched two British Storm Shadow cruise missiles on civilian targets in Luhansk. I think the combination of these two events will lead to a change in Russian tactics. Patience in responding to Western-backed terrorist attacks is likely at an end.

The Russian response to the NATO-backed escalation carries a significant risk of widening the war into a full blown war with NATO.

I would add that, increasingly, the rest of the world—the world outside the collective West of NATO—has the ability to also create proxy problems for the US with willing, not disinformed, participants. WW3 is increasingly seen as a struggle to put an end to the West’s neocolonialist hegemony.

But the question arises, what’s the purpose of this crazy spiral of escalation—driven by the US/UK controlled NATO? Here’s a suggestion. This looks like it could be a very high stakes bid to force Russia to back down from defending its sovereignty by bluffing Putin into believing that the Neocons are crazy enough to go right over the edge into a global holocaust. Having lost the sanctions war, lost the diplomatic and dollar wars, and seeing its Ukro-Nazi proxy regime destroyed militarily, this is the only option left.

Another part of this ploy could be to use it to declare some sort of national security emergency to provide cover for crushing all domestic dissent in America. Perhaps by resurrecting the Russia Hoax and linking it to dissent—aka White Supremacy. After all, we seem to see the Deep State preparing for just that eventuality in a variety of ways, even though it would be a desperate measure:

Bill Barr predicts 'horror show' if Trump re-elected, warns he will deliver chaos

@rawsalerts

#BREAKING: A group called the Patriot Front are currently marching towards U.S. Capitol

#Washington l #DC

Currently approximately 150-200 individuals, identified as the "Patriot Front" and recognized as a right-wing organization, is advancing towards the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., via the National Mall. Numerous Metro DC police officers escorting them as they are working to maintain a separation between this group and any counter-protesters.

2:22 PM · May 13, 2023

Yes, it’s a pretty obvious astroturf job, but …

They left aboard a fleet of rented U-Haul vans. Uh … not really “patriot” style?

Homeland Security listed pro-life moms as ‘radicalization suspects’ docs reveal

WHY IS THE DOJ LYING ABOUT JACK TEIXEIRA?

These are just a few examples. Many more could be cited.

But we interrupt our warning on the domestic front to return to WW3.

Since Britain is, in a stunning spasm of wilfull self delusion, immersing itself so deeply in its war on Russia, I’ll quote at some length from a fascinating article from the New Statesman—at some length, but it’s still just a small excerpt. Follow the link for a worthwhile read. Even when you disagree, you won’t regret it:

Simon McDonald: “It’s the end of the game for Britain”

The former head of the Foreign Office on the UK’s decline, why we should not “make an enemy” of China and how he brought down Boris Johnson.

“The game”? I wonder, does he realize how that sounds to, like, normal people. Elsewhere, in an unexcerpted portion, he does verbally shake his head over the countless lost lives as a result of the Neocon war on the Middle East, but … “the game”?

Simon McDonald spent 40 years in the Foreign Office, but he will be publicly remembered for one act: helping to bring down Boris Johnson.

In speaking out, McDonald went against an unwritten code that constrains former officials, but he felt he had to act. “The truth matters, and No 10 had forgotten that.”

I had come to meet McDonald to discuss British grand strategy, expecting a bullish view of our place in the world. Instead, I encountered a man who could uncharitably be described as being resigned to British irrelevance.

"America's streetwalker"--isn't that how Bill Haydon put it?

The UK’s fading position in the world has deeper causes than its recent foreign secretaries. Britain’s global decline has been “both absolute and relative. India, China, Japan, Brazil, Australia – they all count for more than they did 20 years ago.”

To a lesser degree, this also goes for the US. But in the US the Neocons appear to believe that the only factor that matters for our position in the world--and now, especially, with King Dollar's influence obviously waning--is military muscle. Nukes are US. But even the value of our military currency is on the wane, as countries we thought we had under our thumb increasingly push back against bullying. It’s not a question of oblivion on the world stage, but it is a matter of accurately reassessing our position in a changing world.

“We can still be a player, but I think we are mostly a soft power player.” The problem is that Britain is “still trying to play a hard power game, but we don’t have the resources to back that up any more”.

British foreign policy since has been defined by the UK’s eagerness to act in America’s slipstream.

For decades, that approach was balanced by the UK’s role in Europe. Now, ... Other strategic avenues are either undesired (“we don’t want to become China’s chief partner in Europe”) or insignificant (“getting together with Australia, Canada and New Zealand is nice, and we can agree violently on everything, but it’s not going to make the international weather”).

He believes Britain has no business sending aircraft carriers halfway across the world in a bid to be a player in the Indo-Pacific.

McDonald attended the Bucharest summit in 2008 at which Nato membership action plans were drawn up, at US insistence, for Ukraine and Georgia. McDonald sympathises with the German chancellor Angela Merkel’s rejection of those plans. ... “Nobody had the resources [to make further NATO expansion stick].”

And, problematically, Russia now does have the resources to put a definitive stop to these Neocon fantasies of enslaving Eurasia.

I asked if this was the end of the great game for Britain, in its wider sense. “Yes,” he said, falling silent for a beat.

For McDonald, Taiwan should be the test of the UK’s new worldview. Britain, he argued, should not “make an enemy of China”. ...

The world has come a long way since the Opium Wars.

For now McDonald is confident that the US itself will not go to war with China. He thinks that its security leaders, such as Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, and Bill Burns, the director of the CIA, know that would be “a strategic disaster” – although, he pointed out as I left, “Bill Burns is not going to be there forever”.

Speaking of Imperial overreach, did you hear this one? You thought a two front war—war on Russia and China—might be a bridge too far? How about a third continental front?

US Plans Hybrid War vs Wagner In Africa

Politico published a very detailed piece on Sunday about how “To counter Russia in Africa, Biden deploys a favored strategy”, which cites four unnamed US officials with knowledge of their country’s plan for waging Hybrid War against Wagner in Africa. Just like the French one that was reported by Axios last October, which was analyzed at the time here, the US’ also focuses a lot on information warfare. Taken together, they prove that the West intends to turn Africa into a major battleground in the New Cold War.

According to Politico’s sources, “The aim (of the latest effort) is to highlight for African officials how working with Wagner is likely to sow chaos in the long term despite its promises to bring peace and security to countries facing political turmoil and violence…it underscores the degree to which the Biden administration believes Wagner — and the Kremlin — pose a long term threat to U.S. interests on the continent.”

In other words, it builds upon the French’s fearmongering about Wagner’s “Democratic Security” services (counter-Hybrid War tactics and strategies that were earlier elaborated upon here), but openly acknowledges that these narratives are being spread in pursuit of the US’ own interests. …

The only terrorists “created” in those countries after their cooperation with Wagner are the ones clandestinely armed by America and France on the pretext of them supposedly being ‘freedom fighters’, but who in reality function as the West’s anti-Russian proxies there. ...

This curious question is answered when it’s later revealed in the article that “The idea is that if Wagner is seen as disrupting the flow of trade and investment, it could drive a wedge between Beijing, a long-time investor in Africa, and Moscow — an alliance that has only strengthened in recent months and continues to concern Washington.” Of relevance, the West ridiculously claimed in late March that Wagner allegedly slaughtered Chinese miners in the CAR, which was analyzed here right after it started circulating.

This adds crucial context to the US’ Hybrid War on Wagner in Africa since it shows that disinformation is being relied upon in a desperate attempt to divide the Sino-Russo Entente. That’s a wishful thinking fantasy if there ever was one …

You get the picture. There’s lots more at the link. The general ideas is that lots more dead Africans could serve “the US’s own interests”. And we’ll use disinformation to get Africans killing each other. For our interests. Is it any wonder that the US is shedding friendships and strategic relationships around the world at a head spinning pace? Well played, Neocons!