Website voor mensen die niet klagen

An essay on developments 4

This is becoming totally absurd. The Kharkov Oblast was vacated by the Russians, and NATO exploited this as a serious victory. While the Russians admitted they lost the area, but with hardly any losses, except for the terrain, which they didn't want anyway. NATO claiming massive losses on the Russian side, failed to offer proof. No long lines of POW's marching towards busses, like in Marieopol. No massive graveyards of Russian armour, merely some scattered stuff at odd locations. 


Moreover, several commentators who appear to be well informed, even quoting Ukrainian sources in addition to Russian ones, claimed that Kharkov was basically empty by the time the Ukrainians arrived, and that they didn't even check out every village, but hurried instead to reassemble in order to get on the train to the southern front, where they are planning the next phase of their Counter Offensive. Which was why the Russians hit the power stations, not in retaliation, or an upgrade of the war, as some suggested, but to stop the trains and troop movements, creating a 'turkey-shoot' as they hit the stationary trains next, and delaying the formation of an offensive force in the south, using troops which had been chasing their own tail in Kharkov. While they already eliminated a massive amount of troops and stuff involved in the taking of Kharkov.


Both stories cannot be true, but everybody agrees that the Russians withdrew behind the Oskol river, which straightens and shortens the front, with far less troops needed to defend that line. Freeing troops to withstand the upcoming second attack on the southern front, after the first attempt, a little over a week ago, failed miserably, with huge losses on the Ukrainian side. Again, Ukrainian sources confirm this, and several western media reported it, but nowhere near as prominent as the Hosanna-stories about Kharkov. 


We'll know pretty soon whether the Russians 'lost it', or that this entire Kharkov-thing was a costly mistake for Ukraine, losing too many men and stuff they needed elsewhere, and resulting in costly delays, while the Russians reinforced there defensive, and offensive positions in the Luhansk, Donetsk and Kherson areas. To be sure, NATO made the best of the 'free publicity' in order to create tensions in Russia, and boost morale in the NATO-countries, but it was nowhere near enough to topple Putin. Apart from the fact that any successor could be less 'forgiving', which begs the question if NATO really wants to escalate to World War III at a nuclear scale. Medvedev, seen as far more accommodating towards the west than Putin in the past, is now openly warning us that nuclear holocaust is on the horizon if we continue down this path. Is that what we, the people, want?


What exactly is our beef? Friend and foe predict a harsh year ahead, after 'Brussels' succeeded to cut Europe off from Russian 'everything', surrendering to burning coal to save this climate of fear and animosity, while throwing the real climate under the bus, as they did with Ukraine. Not just by burning coal, but also by exploiting this unique opportunity to make Europe dependent on American 'everything', at much higher costs, destroying Europe's wealth, and fanning the flames of war, which could expand to engulf the entire continent as NATO insists on flooding the 'zone' with offensive weapons. The armed conflict in Ukraine is no longer a 'Special Operation', but a real war, between NATO and Russia, on Ukrainian territory. Yet another war.

Go Back