Russia’s weakness invites more Empire’s aggression and thereby bleeding Russia’s resources and will. Weakening Russia and overthrowing Putin were the imperial goals and they still remain. Empire cares about no people; Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed. Why should Empire agree to armistice or peace? That can only happen if Empire believes it has achieved its objectives. I don’t believe Empire is willing to stop as long as Ukrainians are willing to die. Russia made a strategic error by not providing a critical mass of force to achieve its objectives. It had no real good alternative to a total victory. Now it will suffer the consequences of its errors. Kherson is likely just a beginning of this process.
Everything that Russia has done in Ukraine makes perfect sense - once you understand that the purpose of the invasion of Ukraine was to provide the globalist cabal with the pretext for sanctions whose true purpose was to drive energy prices in (particularly) Europe through the ceiling to trash Europe's industries, living standards and industrial competitiveness in the world by forcing European countries to switch to permanently buying their gas from the US at three times the price of Russian gas, and to be permanently dependent on the US for energy, and thereby, to be politically dependent on the US.
Putin & Co. work for the global cabal - and the Ukraine war was never anything more than the pretext for the global cabal to move towards permanent high energy costs - which is an essential part of the installation of the Great Reset.
Putin was ordered to invade Ukraine to provide this pretext.. and then to mess around there for a while, not threatening any of the globalists' money-laundering operations, nor to threaten the capital - but to give the Ukrainians some 'victories' so that the billions would keep flowing in from the West, to be re-routed out again to the secret bank accounts of Western and Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians.
"Surovikin Yields to Reality That Putin Lost Kherson Months Ago"
That is speculative take. There is another take, where the military presented some 20 - 30 % possibility of Kherson falling and Putin simply shitted himself, greenlighting the withdrawal.
"Russia could take half of the left bank (highly unlikely with the present posture) and without Odessa it will be a pyrrhic victory. "
That's questionable, since most of Ukr economy and natural resources are in Eastern Ukraine, and it would mean Kiev being under fire control.. But i do not believe that Russia under Putin can take Eastern Ukraine.
"Surovikin explains that he has to fall back because his supplies are shot"
I believe that it was technically possible to supply Kherson since the USSR (even 80 years ago) managed to supply millions of people and half a million troops in besieged Leningrad in harsher conditions, for several years, with more primitive supply technology. A large civilian evac from Kherson and then 30k troops staying there can be managed from a supply point of view, imo. That's just 2-3 % of those involved in Leningrad.
There is also long term stockpiling, there is air bridge if necessary, there are barges for river crossings. Leningrad was supplied on 90 % with barges during some seasons, and that effort was under attack by the Luftwaffe.
Plus Ukraine lacked the 3 to 1 offensive ratio there.
Its not without risks, but the new mobiks could have reinforced them and allowed for some increase in the security bubble around Kherson.
"That he permitted even a retreat from Kherson which would have been invaluable to a spring push toward Odessa is telling."
Well you are overdramatic here. A push on Odessa was technically impossible in the near term, considering the supply issues just mentioned. How do you imagine supplying at least 150k - 200k offensive troops from there, in the spring? Not to mention all the rivers involved on the path to Odessa.
The Kherson bridgehead was important for a push towards Odessa in the more distant future, but not before Ukraine was sufficiently weakened, the bridgehead largely and sufficiently expanded , including the taking of Nikolaev, with all the supply issues fixed. That could have taken years.
"Tens of thousands of pro-Russians of Kherson who welcomed the Russians are now made homeless"
Russia is giving them free housing, actually.
Overall, though, i agree that the loss of Kherson was a very bad thing.
Try to see this in the context of the WEF WHO and NWO.It fits perfectly as Putin has ensured the virual collapse of the economy of Europe which has always been a part of The Great Reset.He is a part of the Cabal and playing it
well.To understand this investigate how the Kremlin is dealing with the Covid situation vaccinations smart cities etc.
If Russia holds on to what it has, it is technically a victory. If Russia sets up deep fortifications along whole border, there will be a stalemate like Iran-Iraq war, maybe with periodic missile attacks.
This war is simply confirming the existing western narratives about Russia as having a dysfunctional, corrupt leadership & military the kind of things we see in Hollywood movies but of course this is real now.
This silence you speak about is deep & cultural and exists even in western pro-Russian blogs.
Post anything on The Saker or Andrei Martyanov blogs that expresses concern that things maybe are not going Russia`s way and it will be deleted within minutes or you`ll be shouted down as an agent of enemy propaganda.
This is odd really since Russians living in Russia (the main target) don’t even read these blogs so nobody in any western troll farm is going to waste time posting anything there that has a mostly western political right audience.
German journalist and Great Reset/WEF student Ernst Wolff has been saying the same from day one of the SMO. I am starting to think he (you) might be right.
A great post that sums it all up perfectly! The Russian political leadership, Putin and those he has surrounded himself with, have and are inflicting a total disaster on their country. I can understand why some believe he is secretly working for the WEF, though I personally see it as rather far fetched. The personality theory (that he is weak, indecisive, and does as little as possible for as long as possible) - well that certainly is true, but can it explain it all? I wonder. Has he enough personal power to push through such obviously disastrous policies? If so, that means the entire political leadership and possibly military as well, must be so subservient and corrupt that it boggles the mind.
What is clear, and maybe this is easier for an outsider to see, is that Putin and the Russian leadership have to go if much is to be salvaged from this operation, and failure here will have larger very negative geopolitical consequences. Unfortunately is seems unlikely. Reading some blogposts (even western ones) it is amazing to see how many still insist that its all going to plan - "he knows what he is doing", "there is a plan" etc. It reminds me of those true believers who are fully vaxed and boossted and will still insist after multiple severe illnesses that it would have been much worse without the vax. And still wearing masks.
Hey, I just revisited your post of 3 October ("If Putin Was a 5th Column Traitor, What Would He Be Doing Any Differently?"). Your column didn't actually cover that in detail it was just some reflections on the topic and you then suggested you might write such a column sometime. Maybe it's time.
Some things that occur to me just off the cuff are -- Ukraine in 2014 when Putin had a golden opportunity to intervene to support a legitimately elected president who would have had the full support of the east of a big chunk of the Ukrainian army, and ended up taking Crimea but selling the Donbass down the river. The crazy decision to invade Ukraine instead of waiting for them to attack Donbass, where an intervention would have been much more justifiable. And to do it in February with attacks on Kiev when it was all mud and his forces stuck on main road and easy targets. And engaging in pointless negotiations in Istanbul after a history of NATO and Ukraine reneging on agreements and guarantees. And his excessively conservative economic policies that hampered diversification of the Russian economy away from resources only. Good grief - I could go on all day.
And contrast Putin's crisis management with Medvedev who when he was president intervened immediately and decisively in Georgia (I believe without consulting Putin) and it was all over in weeks. Yes, the situation was different - Georgia is smaller and weaker than Ukraine and there were Russian peacekeepers on the ground - but what would Putin have done? My guess he would have hesitated, prevaricated - consulted Xi, consulted Erdogan, sought negotiations with the US, sounded out Merkel and Macron, and by the time he eventually realized something needed to be done, the Georgians would have been in full control of the disputed territories, and have received substantial US aid. He would then have sent in a small force which the Georgians would have held off.. and so on ... and so on ... and the whole affair would have dragged on disastrously for many months, maybe longer, and he would have ended up making a very bad deal.
If he had resigned in 2013 he would have been remembered as a great leader who saved his country. Today ....?
Russia’s weakness invites more Empire’s aggression and thereby bleeding Russia’s resources and will. Weakening Russia and overthrowing Putin were the imperial goals and they still remain. Empire cares about no people; Ukrainians will continue to be sacrificed. Why should Empire agree to armistice or peace? That can only happen if Empire believes it has achieved its objectives. I don’t believe Empire is willing to stop as long as Ukrainians are willing to die. Russia made a strategic error by not providing a critical mass of force to achieve its objectives. It had no real good alternative to a total victory. Now it will suffer the consequences of its errors. Kherson is likely just a beginning of this process.
Everything that Russia has done in Ukraine makes perfect sense - once you understand that the purpose of the invasion of Ukraine was to provide the globalist cabal with the pretext for sanctions whose true purpose was to drive energy prices in (particularly) Europe through the ceiling to trash Europe's industries, living standards and industrial competitiveness in the world by forcing European countries to switch to permanently buying their gas from the US at three times the price of Russian gas, and to be permanently dependent on the US for energy, and thereby, to be politically dependent on the US.
Putin & Co. work for the global cabal - and the Ukraine war was never anything more than the pretext for the global cabal to move towards permanent high energy costs - which is an essential part of the installation of the Great Reset.
Putin was ordered to invade Ukraine to provide this pretext.. and then to mess around there for a while, not threatening any of the globalists' money-laundering operations, nor to threaten the capital - but to give the Ukrainians some 'victories' so that the billions would keep flowing in from the West, to be re-routed out again to the secret bank accounts of Western and Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians.
"Surovikin Yields to Reality That Putin Lost Kherson Months Ago"
That is speculative take. There is another take, where the military presented some 20 - 30 % possibility of Kherson falling and Putin simply shitted himself, greenlighting the withdrawal.
"Russia could take half of the left bank (highly unlikely with the present posture) and without Odessa it will be a pyrrhic victory. "
That's questionable, since most of Ukr economy and natural resources are in Eastern Ukraine, and it would mean Kiev being under fire control.. But i do not believe that Russia under Putin can take Eastern Ukraine.
"Surovikin explains that he has to fall back because his supplies are shot"
I believe that it was technically possible to supply Kherson since the USSR (even 80 years ago) managed to supply millions of people and half a million troops in besieged Leningrad in harsher conditions, for several years, with more primitive supply technology. A large civilian evac from Kherson and then 30k troops staying there can be managed from a supply point of view, imo. That's just 2-3 % of those involved in Leningrad.
There is also long term stockpiling, there is air bridge if necessary, there are barges for river crossings. Leningrad was supplied on 90 % with barges during some seasons, and that effort was under attack by the Luftwaffe.
Plus Ukraine lacked the 3 to 1 offensive ratio there.
Its not without risks, but the new mobiks could have reinforced them and allowed for some increase in the security bubble around Kherson.
"That he permitted even a retreat from Kherson which would have been invaluable to a spring push toward Odessa is telling."
Well you are overdramatic here. A push on Odessa was technically impossible in the near term, considering the supply issues just mentioned. How do you imagine supplying at least 150k - 200k offensive troops from there, in the spring? Not to mention all the rivers involved on the path to Odessa.
The Kherson bridgehead was important for a push towards Odessa in the more distant future, but not before Ukraine was sufficiently weakened, the bridgehead largely and sufficiently expanded , including the taking of Nikolaev, with all the supply issues fixed. That could have taken years.
"Tens of thousands of pro-Russians of Kherson who welcomed the Russians are now made homeless"
Russia is giving them free housing, actually.
Overall, though, i agree that the loss of Kherson was a very bad thing.
Try to see this in the context of the WEF WHO and NWO.It fits perfectly as Putin has ensured the virual collapse of the economy of Europe which has always been a part of The Great Reset.He is a part of the Cabal and playing it
well.To understand this investigate how the Kremlin is dealing with the Covid situation vaccinations smart cities etc.
If Russia holds on to what it has, it is technically a victory. If Russia sets up deep fortifications along whole border, there will be a stalemate like Iran-Iraq war, maybe with periodic missile attacks.
This war is simply confirming the existing western narratives about Russia as having a dysfunctional, corrupt leadership & military the kind of things we see in Hollywood movies but of course this is real now.
This silence you speak about is deep & cultural and exists even in western pro-Russian blogs.
Post anything on The Saker or Andrei Martyanov blogs that expresses concern that things maybe are not going Russia`s way and it will be deleted within minutes or you`ll be shouted down as an agent of enemy propaganda.
This is odd really since Russians living in Russia (the main target) don’t even read these blogs so nobody in any western troll farm is going to waste time posting anything there that has a mostly western political right audience.
German journalist and Great Reset/WEF student Ernst Wolff has been saying the same from day one of the SMO. I am starting to think he (you) might be right.
A great post that sums it all up perfectly! The Russian political leadership, Putin and those he has surrounded himself with, have and are inflicting a total disaster on their country. I can understand why some believe he is secretly working for the WEF, though I personally see it as rather far fetched. The personality theory (that he is weak, indecisive, and does as little as possible for as long as possible) - well that certainly is true, but can it explain it all? I wonder. Has he enough personal power to push through such obviously disastrous policies? If so, that means the entire political leadership and possibly military as well, must be so subservient and corrupt that it boggles the mind.
What is clear, and maybe this is easier for an outsider to see, is that Putin and the Russian leadership have to go if much is to be salvaged from this operation, and failure here will have larger very negative geopolitical consequences. Unfortunately is seems unlikely. Reading some blogposts (even western ones) it is amazing to see how many still insist that its all going to plan - "he knows what he is doing", "there is a plan" etc. It reminds me of those true believers who are fully vaxed and boossted and will still insist after multiple severe illnesses that it would have been much worse without the vax. And still wearing masks.
Hey, I just revisited your post of 3 October ("If Putin Was a 5th Column Traitor, What Would He Be Doing Any Differently?"). Your column didn't actually cover that in detail it was just some reflections on the topic and you then suggested you might write such a column sometime. Maybe it's time.
Some things that occur to me just off the cuff are -- Ukraine in 2014 when Putin had a golden opportunity to intervene to support a legitimately elected president who would have had the full support of the east of a big chunk of the Ukrainian army, and ended up taking Crimea but selling the Donbass down the river. The crazy decision to invade Ukraine instead of waiting for them to attack Donbass, where an intervention would have been much more justifiable. And to do it in February with attacks on Kiev when it was all mud and his forces stuck on main road and easy targets. And engaging in pointless negotiations in Istanbul after a history of NATO and Ukraine reneging on agreements and guarantees. And his excessively conservative economic policies that hampered diversification of the Russian economy away from resources only. Good grief - I could go on all day.
And contrast Putin's crisis management with Medvedev who when he was president intervened immediately and decisively in Georgia (I believe without consulting Putin) and it was all over in weeks. Yes, the situation was different - Georgia is smaller and weaker than Ukraine and there were Russian peacekeepers on the ground - but what would Putin have done? My guess he would have hesitated, prevaricated - consulted Xi, consulted Erdogan, sought negotiations with the US, sounded out Merkel and Macron, and by the time he eventually realized something needed to be done, the Georgians would have been in full control of the disputed territories, and have received substantial US aid. He would then have sent in a small force which the Georgians would have held off.. and so on ... and so on ... and the whole affair would have dragged on disastrously for many months, maybe longer, and he would have ended up making a very bad deal.
If he had resigned in 2013 he would have been remembered as a great leader who saved his country. Today ....?