Putin said near the beginning of the Special Military Operation, after Ukraine—bowing to Neocon demands—backed out of their deal with Russia, that the longer the conflict lasted the tougher the peace terms would be. Of late we’ve seen increasing indications not only that there won’t be any ceasefire short of Ukrainian capitulation, but that Russia’s territorial demands will be maximalist. The most recent statement comes from Dmitry Medvedev, considered number two to Putin:
This is the first time I’ve heard such a statement from the Russian authorities, albeit from Dmitry Medvedev: “The North Military District will continue until the Nazi Kyiv regime is completely destroyed, and there will be more new regions within Russia.” Do you remember when I said that they will say this sooner or later? Well, that's what they said. Now it remain to move on to action.
There will be more new regions within Russia - Medvedev He also stated that the SMO will continue until the Kiev regime is completely destroyed. First Volodin , followed by Lavrov now Medvedev is saying it. Clear indication that Kremlin made a final decision.
All of this fits in with the continued massive Russian military buildup. That buildup looks to be permanent, in response to the US/NATO war on Russia, but it also suggests a major offensive by Russia in the next few months (yeah, I know). The expanded air strikes, including in Western Ukraine, are another indication that Russia’s side of the war may be near a shifting point.
Judge Nap’s discussion with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern this morning is worthwhile in its entirety, but this snippet is a gem. McGovern is referring to the aftermath of the US backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, so, the Obama years when Brennan still was Director, CIA:
Are CIA and MI6 Inside Russia? Intel Round Table w/Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern
[7:09]
Napolitano: Ray, does the CIA direct or control Ukrainian intelligence?
McGovern: Yeah, of course they do. Zelensky is really in very real term terms a puppet. He doesn't do anything without U.S acquiescence, at least usually, or permission. Now, right after the coup in Kiev, who went to Ukraine to tell the people what to do? John Brennan from the CIA! People don't remember that! He went, and that's when they launched this offensive against the Eastern provinces which didn't want to submit to the coup regime. So the die was cast. The interesting thing was that it was Brennan that gave them the word. And it's the CIA, in cooperation with Blinken and Sullivan, that pretty much run things there in Kiev.
[8:06]
That doesn’t mean that there’s no internal disagreements at CIA, but this is the real bottom line. Keep it in mind when reading what Seymour Hersh’s sources tell him.
On to Slovakia.
The election isn’t being called yet. Early exit polls had the Progressives (PS) winning roughly 23-21 over Fico’s Smer. But the actual tallies tell a different story so far. PS is has a solid lead in the capital city, Bratislava, but overall …
21 minutes ago:
Smer could finish first, analyst says
“Smer’s lead with 40% of votes counted is so big that my guess is that they might finish on the 1st place,” Slovakia expert Milan Nič told the Guardian.
As you can tell from the percentages, finishing first and forming a government are two different propositions. So, now most recently:
Current trends suggest a Smer-Hlas-SNS coalition a distinct possibility in #volby2023
SNS now looking safe (an 80% certainty on current trends). Still plenty can change.
For reference: List of political parties in Slovakia. Now, I don’t know what the rules in Slovakia are for getting seats in their parliament. Prof. Haughton seems to be referring to such rules when he says “SNS [considered far, far right] now looking safe”. I think he means that SNS has an 80% probability of getting seats in parliament by getting past he 5% election threshhold—that’s how I read the rules. That’s why, even though the Smer-Hlas-SNS numbers don’t add up to 50%, they could have enough to form a government in parliament. If the Leftist Smer and Hlas can team up with SNS. Don’t ask me. I don’t know nuthin’ about Slovak politics.
And then there’s this:
Sweden Turns To Military For Help Amid Daily Shootings, Bombings In Migrant Gangland Chaos
Last year Sweden witnessed its highest death toll from shootings on record, at more than 60 killed, with this year on track to possibly surpass that as the country's gang violence continues spiraling out of control.
At a moment scenes of illegal migrants flooding southern Europe from across the Mediterranean continue unabated, even mainstream publications like FT haven't hesitated to identify what's fueling the crime and turning Sweden's streets into war zones: "Police chiefs have said that Sweden is facing its most serious domestic security situation since the second world war as immigrant drug gangs engage in a bloody conflict," FT writes.
And there's even "child soldiers" in the heart of Scandinavian Europe: "Police believe the gangs are increasingly using children to commit the crimes, as those under 18 often go unpunished or receive low sentences from the courts."
Sounds a bit like Chicago. Actually, a lot like Chicago.
So which is it? Brietbart says the funding resolution passed with no Ukrainian aid, TGP
says that McCarthy cut a side deal with Schumer and McConnell to provide more money for the endless Ukrainian war.
Anyone have any insights?
Re who wants war w/ Russia more?
My greatest fear, and its an informed fear, is that we will now double down on war with Russia. The internet, at least the part of it that I read and watch, is buzzing with the opinions of Col Macgregor, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Alexander Mercouris, and many more, that the Ukrainians have lost the war...that there is no way Ukraine can win. And I believe them. Even if Ukraine somehow finds materiel, and men, and technology and tactics, to win a battle or two, it cannot win the war because there is no circumstance where Russia will back away from its clearly stated requirements to end this conflict.
As a handful of readers here know, I have admitted in the past to a now-finished career as a corporate lawyer. During that career I had the occasional opportunity to watch the behavior of men (mostly men) in positions of great power who were accustomed to winning finding themselves in the disconcerting position of losing. I observed an unavoidable tendency among some of these men to reject losing (when losing was inevitable) and double down for the win. Maybe this strategy works in poker (sometimes) but in a quantitative world of men and money and power it often ends in greater disaster. In the case of Ukraine, if doubling down means that the US and the UK formally enter the war, as Grant Shapps suggests, the costs of this war, not only in treasure, but in avoidable human tragedy, and the risks of escalation, will multiply, probably exponentially.
As Sundance said yesterday over on his page, there is a great deal of evidence that doubling down is the West's likely next move. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/09/30/british-defense-secretary-states-they-are-putting-military-troops-into-ukraine/#more-251421. I would say that news from Russia that Putin is mobilizing substantially more troops underscores this growing reality. Russia knows what's likely coming.
I still have some hope that rumblings of discontent in Hungary and Poland and now Slovakia, as well as in the Freedom Caucus of the US House of Representatives, will provide a counter-balance to the double down strategy of the neocons in the UK and the US, but I am not optimistic.
I am afraid they cannot help themselves.