War Roundup: Palestine, Ukraine 6/1/24
I’ll keep this relatively brief.
Yesterday, the news was that Israel had once again threatened Hezbollah and stated that Lebanese civilians would bear the brunt of Israel’s war on southern Lebanon. This came amid Hezbollah’s continued enforcement of a no-go zone in northern Israel that has forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of Israelis. The total number of displaced Israelis is at least 100k, possibly more. Whether in response to the renewed Israeli threats or not, Hezbollah struck back—you can follow the links for brief video footage:
BREAKING:
A very bad day for the Israeli army in the war with Hezbollah Israel's most advanced drone Hermes 900 has been shot down over Lebanon. An Israeli military base was also completely destroyed.
0:02
The Hermes 900 is Israel’s most advanced drone—a high flying, long endurance drone. This is the second Hermes 900 that Hezbollah has downed since mid-May, in addition to the downing two weeks ago of an advanced Israeli surveillance “balloon.” Arab sources claim that the Hermes 900 has been deployed by Israel in response to unsustainable losses to less capable drones.
LEBANESE RESISTANCE: The air defenses of Hezbollah shot down an IOF drone by a surface-to-air missile in the airspace of southern Lebanon. Yesterday, Al-Manar correspondent Ali Shoeib said that after the resistance downed four IOF drones of the Hermes 450 type & one Hermes 900, the enemy is left with no choice but to rely on the latter, which can fly at high altitudes without being heard, in addition to the "Eitan" or "Heron TP" drone, to avoid constant exposure to resistance missiles.
The military analysts I listen to agree that Hezbollah has been quite effective in targeting Israeli ISR assets, which is a big deal. These advanced surveillance assets are the eyes and the brain of modern military operations. They’re technically sophisticated, expensive, and not easily replaced if taken down consistently. The US has, so far, lost six MQ-9 Reapers over Yemen, in the futile attempt to break the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea. The Reapers come at $30 million a crack. Even worse, the last one that was downed appears to have been virtually totally intact, which means that its technical equipment will be closely inspected—probably by non-Yemeni experts.
These are all examples of very expensive Western military equipment being destroyed by presumably cheap non-Western products that can be built, used, and replaced far more rapidly than the Western products. This doesn’t bode well for the Western high tech model of warfare that was previously so effective against tribesmen. Ukraine, of course, has featured the industrial scale destruction of expensive Western equipment by the Russian military—again, the West can’t begin to keep up with Russia’s industrial capacity. It’s all part of the attritional model of warfare that the West is proving unable to handle.
Regarding the Israeli base that was “destroyed,” the attack is said to have utilized “Burkan” ballistic missiles. The variant isn’t specified, but the Burkans are improved versions of the Scud type missiles, with ranges of up to 1000 kilometers. These missiles are more stable and accurate than Scuds and, with a greater terminal velocity, are more difficult to intercept. While the Israeli base was not actually “destroyed,” videos do show extensive damage—which is to be expected from multiple hits from missiles of this type. This may represent an escalation by Hezbollah. Subject to correction, my impression is that Hezbollah’s previous targeting of Israeli ground based ISR and other bases in the north have utilized rockets and anti-tank missiles. While such attacks have been effective, the use of ballistic missiles, which can carry far larger warheads over a much longer range, would appear to up the game.
One way or another, the risk of a regional war appears to be increasing, not decreasing. Meanwhile, the Zhou regime’s new “peace” plan for Gaza appears to be DOA. In related news, polling has Trump leading Zhou by 14% among Arab Americans—who are an important demographic in several swing states.
Two items regarding Ukraine, both picked up via Will Schryver. The first has to do with the destruction of a major logistics hub in Poland. It was used for the transshipment of military supplies to Ukraine:
MD @distant_earth83 
A large logistics hub burned down in Poland this night
According to unconfirmed information, the hub was used as a transshipment point for arms supplies to Ukraine. Source write that the fire covered an area of 6,000 sq.m.
The hub is located in the city of Radom, where the Lucznik plant is located, which purchased equipment for the production of 100 thousand machine guns per year, howitzers and Huta Stalowa Wola armored personnel carriers.
Info: https://t.me/OstashkoNews/137777…
8:18 AM · May 30, 2024
Judging from a Polish language site the phrase “burned down” appears to be accurate. Polish authorities are blaming the event on “fugitive Banderites”, presumably fugitive Ukro-Nazis resisting deportation to Ukraine:
Tonight, as a result of the fire, a large logistics node was destroyed in Radom (ul. Warsaw 168). Military goods were stored here for deliveries to Ukraine.
According to the local fire department, over 6,000 burned square meters. m. The damage caused by the destruction of property exceeded $ 120 million.
The Polish police have already revealed the emerging tendency to intensify Ukrainian crime in the country. According to authoritative Polish analysts, fugitive Banderites are taking revenge on the Polish authorities for tightening the policy towards Ukrainian refugees who are conscripted in their homeland. Currently, the Polish authorities have already deported to Ukraine over 1,500 citizens of Ukraine.
Will Schryver hints at a different explanation for the huge fire:
When it comes to some things in the world today, there are no "accidents".
A six square kilometer fire at a Polish logistics hub used for transshipment of arms to Ukraine is very unlikely to be an "accident".
Hmmm. He may have a point. And I don’t think he’s pointing a finger at “Banderites”.
Lastly, since I’ve been spending a lot of time on the risks of escalation, I want to present Will’s alternative view on this important topic. I tend to disagree with his take. It seems to me that some of the Western actual and threatened escalatory actions are—or are potentially—too serious to take lightly. Nevertheless, Will’s view is worth considering and is typically well reasoned. Basically, he argues that the demilitarization of not only Ukraine but also of NATO is proceeding so well that Russia may want to keep it going, even a the cost of accepting a few strikes:
I am inclined to believe that, in the absence of some truly egregious escalation on the part of the US/NATO, the Russians are more than willing to continue to fight this war on the strategically idiotic terms it has long-since assumed: the west expends its military strength piecemeal into the battle, and the Russians methodically defeat and/or destroy it.
Why should the Russians object if the US/NATO sends more of its scant stockpiles of short-range ballistic and longer-range cruise missiles? The success rates for ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles has been abysmal, and steadily decreases with the passage of time. They are strategically meaningless. And there is effectively zero replenishment capacity!
Why should the Russians object if the US/NATO sends a squadron — or even five — of antiquated F-16s to Ukraine. Yes, of course, they would be piloted by NATO "volunteers", and they might even achieve a handful of overhyped and fleeting "successes" in the early going. But if they actually attempt to mount serious sorties over the Ukraine battlefield, old F-16s with inadequate logistics and sustainment are going to have a life span numbered in mere HOURS.
And why, above all, would the Russians object if the US/NATO sends "ground troops" into Ukraine to face the Russian army?
It simply must be understood that the US/NATO could not assemble, equip, send, and sustain even a dozen competent combat brigades to engage the Russians in Ukraine.
Do you realize what would happen to 50k NATO combat troops — none of whom have EVER experienced high-intensity warfare — if they were suddenly thrust, with necessarily deficient leadership and coordination, into the Ukraine battlefield?
They would be mercilessly slaughtered.
It would be even worse for the NATO forces than it was for the AFU during its catastrophic summer 2023 "counter-offensive".
So, if I'm Gerasimov, I would say, "Bring 'em on!"
At the rate this whole Ukraine debacle is going, essentially all European-based military power — be it indigenous or in the form of American expeditionary forces — is going to be attrited to "combat-ineffective" for at least a decade, and probably more.
If I were the Russians, I would view that objective as the summum bonum to be achieved as a result of this war, and I would be loath to interrupt the Masters of Empire while in the process of handing it to me on a silver platter.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/watch-hezbollah-shoots-down-large-israeli-drone-expanded-fighting
Schryver's always a good read and this is no exception. However, his theory only works, as he himself says, "in the absence of some truly egregious escalation on the part of the US/NATO." The neocons' motto is truly egregious escalation, so the Russian strategy has its risks. Also, the Deep State, once the euphoria of "getting" Trump has died down, are dipping deeper into panic mode about how things are running for them: two out of control wars they have to win, the BRICS getting stronger by the day, and a real possibility of Trump slithering out of their grasp and - theoretically at least - shutting down some of their little games after a November win. So don't rule out some crazy moves by these maniacs.