Ukraine Roundup

This morning Simplicius takes a deep dive into the reported Russian missile strike on the Kiev HQ of the Ukrainian military intelligence department (GUR). Readers will recall that Putin himself casually confirmed the attack as a fact, citing it as an example of Russia’s willingness to target command and control centers at which the Ukrainians receive NATO guidance (i.e., US and UK) for terrorist attacks on Russia. Follow the link for Simplicius sifting through what data we have on the strike, but these quotes work for our purposes:

Putin Strikes Back - Destroys GUR Bunker?

Many are speculating that this is tied to the big ‘earthquake’ in Kiev that was reported days ago. The common consensus is that there were deep underground bunkers beneath the GUR building where NATO intelligence officers were helping to coordinate the war effort with the GUR/SBU and Russia used some sort of powerful ground-penetrating munition—perhaps a Kinzhal with penetrating head—to hit it.

These theories are further supported by various rumors, like that NATO flights were taking off from Reszow, Poland toward an American military hospital in Berlin:

The Polish city in question is Rzeszów, which is located in the SE of Poland, very close to the Ukrainian border. It’s reported to be a command and control center for the US military in support of the war on Russia.

‼️Rybalsky melted in the bloody fog...

My source in Kyiv said that as a result of a strike on a military facility on Rybalsky Island, one of the control centers was hit. With the beginning of the air raid, the personnel of the center descended into the shelter, but the Russian Aerospace starwars Forces used a missile with a penetrating warhead, which pierced through the building, penetrated the foundation and exploded, destroying the shelter, where at that moment there were up to a hundred officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and civilian personnel, including twenty foreign military from the USA and Great Britain, who interacted between the Center and similar Western headquarters. A rescue operation was immediately launched. Its results are unknown, but, according to the call center of the Kyiv "Ambulance", more than ten cars were immediately pulled there and about thirty flights were made. On the same evening, two helicopters urgently took off from Kyiv towards the border with Poland.

Rybar states the following:

The vague statements of the Ukrainian authorities and the very confused attack on Moscow in order to break the news coverage confirm the version about the exact hit of the Russian troops. According to some reports, more than 30 members of the SMM were wounded in varying degrees of severity as a result of the attack.

And that is not all: Yesterday, a C-21A aircraft of the 86th Air Medical Evacuation Squadron of the US Air Force flew to Rzeszow in an emergency from Ramstein Air Base, presumably to evacuate seriously wounded NATO servicemen.

Rybar is referencing the drone attack on Moscow—near Putin’s residence—in the penultimate paragraph. That attack accomplished very little, but it is worth citing the view of Douglas Macgregor. Macgregor explains that the Ukrainians could not have launched this attack on their own. His view (beginning at 3:15 of this video) is that the operation may have been planned and directly supported by the British SAS:

I’m not even sure this was the Ukrainians. There’s some evidence the SAS was involved, penetrating into Russia and launching …

Q: What’s SAS, colonel?

Special Air Services, that’s the British equivalent of Special Operations. They ultimately behind the scenes took credit for the explosion that was an attempt to disable the bridge between Crimea and Russia. They’re very good at this sort of thing. I’m sure that’s a distinct possibility. If [the attackers] were Ukrainian they had someone with them that knew what they were doing. …

[Napolitano raises the possibility that this was an attack at Putin with American knowledge.]

We insist on plausible deniability. You have to be realistic. Everything [the Ukrainians] do is based on data that we provide to them. In other words, overhead surveillance, overhead photography down to the smallest detail. These things [the specific targeting] are not accidental. So the [NATO] intelligence support is absolutely, definitely there. [4:50]

Those considerations, well understood by the Russians, were probably behind Dmitry Medvedev’s pointed warning to UK leaders. Several UK defense leaders have recently defended Ukrainian attacks on targets inside Russia as legitimate defense measures. Medvedev’s rejoinder was a pointed statement that that works both ways. The UK, said Medvedev, is “waging an undeclared war” on Russia. Russia reserves the right to strike at the British planners behind attacks on Russia.

Today the Ukrainian attacks on the Russian border region near Belgorod—basically NE of Kiev—continued. With predictably poor results. Twitter accounts are thin, but commenter Amanda R forwarded the Tass account:

"Russian forces have repelled an attempt by Ukraine to carry out “a terrorist act” against a settlement in Belgorod Region close to the border, the defense ministry has said.

The Russian military, together with border guards and other units of the Federal Security Service (FSB), “thwarted a new attempt by the Kiev regime to carry out a terrorist act against the civilian population of the town of Shebekino,” the ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

At around 3am Moscow time, two Ukrainian motorized infantry companies, reinforced by tanks, tried to cross into Russia near the settlement of Novaya Tavolzhanka and the Shebekino border checkpoint, according to the statement. The attempted incursion followed intensive shelling of the area from the Ukrainian side of the border, it added.

Three attacks by “Ukrainian terrorist groups” were repelled by Russian troops, the ministry said. Kiev’s units “suffered significant losses and were driven back… The violation of the state border was not allowed.”

The Russian Air Force carried out 11 airstrikes, while the artillery performed 77 fire missions against the approaching Ukrainian units. Heavy flamethrower systems were also used on two occasions, according to the statement.

More than 30 Ukrainian “terrorists”, four armored combat vehicles, a Grad multiple rocket launcher, and a pickup truck were destroyed as a result of the failed incursion, the ministry said."

I responded:

Presumably these cross border attacks are intended to distract the Russians from the main direction of the offensive. Good luck with that.

Now, “circling back” to Simplicius, he cites a Rand study that raises a point of great concern for NATO. Russia’s military is proceeding from strength to strength as a result of their experience in Ukraine. This is not only because of the ramped up logistical and manufacturing aspects but because the Russians are getting lots of hands on practice dealing with NATO weapons and NATO C4SIR. NATO’s experience in that regard is far more limited than Russia’s. Russia has been deliberately prosecuting the Special Military Operation with one hand behind its back, giving away as little as possible about its more advanced capabilities. Here Simplicius quotes a Russian account of the Rand study (I’ve edited the translation a bit for readability):

In other news, RAND Corporation released a concerned report that Russia is learning how to fight NATO while modernizing its own army, and NATO is not getting any real, on the ground, hands-on experience themselves, at least nothing comparable to what Russian soldiers are getting through this conflict:

"Noninsider" accidentally found out that there are [signs of alarm] among Western military experts.

Conducting an analysis of the NWO process, they suddenly came to the [realization] that, in fact, there [the Russian army is receiving] constant practical training.

This conclusion follows at least two classified reports made by unrelated think tanks "RAND Corporation" and "Center for a New American Security".

[They came to the realization] that, in combat conditions, Russian troops are practicing the skills of countering Western military equipment, NATO standards of operational control, and military tactics. Logistics is also being improved, and the process of modernizing the [Russian] army has accelerated.

That is, [by] pumping Ukraine with weapons and specialists, [NATO is] teach[ing Russia] to fight [against NATO], but at the same time [NATO] personnel do not receive such experience.

This is a rather weighty fact, which now haunts the military elite of the West, in particular the United States, and gives rise to the demand to "stop training [the] Russians."

Exactly how they should "stop" is not specified.

However, the quotation is from the part of the report that gives the opinion of the Chief of Staff of the US Army, General James McConville.

In addition, the closed report of the "RAND Corporation" emphasizes the danger of high-ranking NATO military advisers falling into Russian captivity, with all the ensuing consequences. In this part there is a reference to "..an incident that occurred earlier..". That is, it is quite possible that [Russia] did [capture] someone [important] from their high command. Unfortunately no details were provided.

We cannot judge what impact the findings of the reports will have, but we fully assume that US national security demands may begin to take precedence in disputes over assistance to Ukraine. Especially on the eve of the presidential elections.

Three observations.

First, the only way to stop providing this incredibly valuable practical training for the Russian military under real life conditions would be to … simply call a halt to the war on Russia. A concept that doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Neocons in charge of the war, but which is sending waves of alarm through the US military. Is it too much to assume that Russia will share at least some significant portion of the lessons they are learning in Ukraine with China? With Iran—another country in Neocon sights?

Second, the reference to "..an incident that occurred earlier.." is likely related to rumors of the capture of both a US and a Canadian general during the battle for Mariupol.

Third, that final paragraph, with the observation by the Russian side that the US Deep State (“US national security demands”) will begin to assert itself against the reckless Neocon war on Russia. That was the point that the two Alexes at The Duran made yesterday, and Mercouris especially strongly. For the US Deep State preserving the current US hegemonic control over NATO must be a far higher priority than the illusive goal of “damaging Russia” with a fool’s war in Ukraine. Mercouris maintained that, when push comes to shove—as it surely will—the US Deep State will opt to cut Ukraine loose to come to terms with a victorious Russia.

The great fear for the US Deep State is that Russia, in addition to imposing its terms on Ukraine, will find itself bordering a greatly weakened NATO and will be able to progressively impose terms on some NATO members as a result of its victory. Consider—how much influence will a defeated NATO have over an independent NATO member such as Turkey? The same may go for other NATO members. It may take some years, but the process is likely to be inexorable, strengthened by the rapidly advancing global economic and monetary realignments, and the prospect of an America that may begin to turn inward to confront its own many problems.