Its Foreign Ministry’s ominously implied ultimatum to Minsk and reaffirmation of Ukraine’s right to self-defense suggest that Kiev might invade Belarus’ Gomel Region and/or Russia’s Bryansk Region.
NATO was definitely involved in the Kursk invasion and one thing, though I'm not sure, is that there, apparently, were a lot of Poles involved. That implies Poland may be up for the afore mentioned Polish invasion across the Western Belarus border.
What, besides Empire Elite bribes, would Poland gain from an invasion into Belarus?
Poland gets a pat on the head from the Americans. I know the Polish mentality well. Poles would slit their own children's throats with a song on their lips, if doing so meant that some American would pat them on the head and call them "good boy!"
For those who thing that is hyperbole, look at how Poles embraced the literal direct biological and ideological descendants of the same Ukrainians who gleefully murdered their grandparents. And I don't know a Polish family that didn't suffer losses at the hands of the UPA.
"The stage is therefore set for opening up another front on this false pretext if Kiev has the political will to do so."
I don't think Kiev has any political will at this point, if they ever did. At least not in the grand scheme of things. I mean, we know who set this all up, and it wasn't them. They just bought into the program, mostly for personal gain. I doubt there are any real patriots at the top. Have there ever been since 1991?
Increasingly we're hearing the narrative that Ukraine has jumped the shark - that they're acting without authority, which begs the question of who's actually in charge. This seems like a set up to absolve the true authors of any responsibility for what happens next.
Assuming there are a least a few competent strategists on the Atlanticist side (Andrei Martyanov seems to think not) and given that it's obvious Ukraine is losing, then (thinking like them) how do you turn defeat into victory, or at least some kind of stalemate? My first thought is to create the conditions whereby Russia is forced to occupy the entire country. That sets the stage for something similar to what the USSR had to deal with post the GPW - a persistent insurgency that took 10 years to stamp out.
Obviously Russia would seek to avoid this, their best scenario being a rebellion within the UK population, but how likely is that? How many of the people who voted for Yanukovych would (or could) get behind that? If you look at the electoral map from 2010, Russia has only captured half of the territory where Y had the majority. Or have those people fled already? I have no idea.
An internal revolt of some sort, followed by a declaration of complete neutrality and a renunciation of any further engagement with NATO would be the only acceptable outcome for Russia, correct? That would have to come with a commitment on Russia's part to rebuild what they've destroyed. That would place a huge economic burden on Russia, so it might be acceptable to the Atlanticists, but given how quickly Russia recovered from previous sanctions, maybe not?
Opening up another front doesn't help Ukraine this late in the game. What's the point of holding a tiny piece of Russia or Belarus that eventually you won't be able to supply, while the Russian army takes most of the south, including probably Odessa? Not to mention dividing your forces creates a power vacuum all the way to the Polish border. Tempting to just drive on through if you're Russia, but now you're taking the whole cake basically, which is what you want to avoid.
Russia clearly has the means to roll this whole thing up, but they clearly don't want to do that, and the Atlanticists know that. They'd also do everything in their power to suppress the kind of uprising I suggested, as that would play to Russia's hand.
Where does this go from here? It seems like most observers are caught up in the day to day minutia - this village captured, that tank destroyed, and so on. I can't listen to it anymore. I just don't see the point when Russian victory is a forgone conclusion. I just want to know what form that will take.
"This seems like a set up to absolve the true authors of any responsibility for what happens next."
Yes, good point: 'an ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure'.
"...Russia is forced to occupy the entire country. That sets the stage for something similar to what the USSR had to deal with post the GPW - a persistent insurgency that took 10 years to stamp out."
That, I believe, is what they're most concerned about. Were that not the case (the Russians' primary concern) I'm sure this could all have been finished long ago.
The Russians know how the Americans prefer to fight their wars through proxies with NGO-funded colour revolutions. Just imagine the nightmare in a 'Russian-occupied' Ukraine!
"Or have those people fled already?"
Those who haven't have been forced to side with Bandera-et-alia-NATO, and those who haven't are in prison or dead.
"...a commitment on Russia's part to rebuild what they've destroyed."
Fair enough, now you try working out how much of it was destroyed by Russia and what proportion of that by America.
There are strong, quite incontrovertible actually, arguments positing this is ENTIRELY the Americans' fault. All of it!
"...taking the whole cake basically, which is what you want to avoid."
You got it!
"I just want to know what form that will take."
Like everything in Russia, of which the Ukraine, although quite happily and easily independent, is still an integral part, it will take as long as it takes.
The West in particular the elites are in current shocks mode as Ukraine collapses and Western Asia totters on the brink of a devastating regional war. In both conflicts the survival of the two leaders Zelensky and Netanyahu require the direct military engagement and support of the US and its allies. The unintended law of consequences haunts the reflexive actions of these global elites driven by necessity to impose their financial and military hegemony on all and sundry. Astride this discontinuity the fascist and eschatological ideology of the two leaders and their extremist constituencies force them into deliberate acts of provocation at supranational levels. I do believe we can expect no less.
Belarus has at least two years to prepare against a potential invasion from the South. The attack from around Kiev to Gomel, however, would not be easy due to lack of good roads through a swampy area. The purpose is to drag Belarus into the conflict, and entice (or give pretext to) Polish invasion of western Belarus as Polish volunteers cannot fight effectively from Kiev toward Gomel. Attacking from the West would be far easier. Would Poland be this foolish ? Who knows. Judging by military logic, Ukraine should not have attacked the Kursk region, isn't it ? So how can we be sure the next attack would be completely supported for the "usual logic" ? If Lukashenko has not arranged for proper Russian back-up to protect Gomel, it would be his fault (as well as or his military Chief of staff).
I suspect there is a goal in the west to force Putin to call mobilization in Moscow and St. Petersburg areas to disrupt Russian psychology, while Putin is not yet sure that his government can handle a mobilization in those two places. If he does not mobilize there, there will be larger and larger schism inside Russia for why those two areas are spared. If he does, some of the soft-spine Russians in those two areas will start running away again. Besides from extracting forces from the "cold sectors" further, I don't think there is much room to avoid further mobilization. However, some air and naval forces have to be stationed at the Far East and the Baltics/Finnish front, especially air defense forces. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia in general still need some stabilizing forces. There are really not many, if any, cold sectors which can afford to have forces moved away. Between praying Ukraine does not have such forces or ambition versus another mobilization, I would call mobilization, but that is just me.
"...some of the soft-spine Russians in those two areas will start running away..."
I think that probably would have been more important some time ago, perhaps before NATO's attempted invasion of Kursk(skaya oblast), than now. Soft-spines have gone right out of fashion in Russia now; they wouldn't enjoy anything like the sort of sympathy they might have been able to garner some time ago.
For the love of god they’ve already sacrificed two generations of Ukrainian men on the eastern front trying to play hardball. What’s it going to take for them to come to the table. Makes you wonder if Zelenskyy would prefer to burn it all down before he admits defeat.
The other possibility is that Ukraine is undertaking a deception campaign to suggest they might attack towards Gomel and thus compel the Russians to keep reserves available for that contingency instead of committing them against the Ukrainian Kursk salient.
The idea that Ukraine might be looking for some way to draw NATO into a Ukraine-Belarus fracas is not totally illogical given the diminishing options from which Zelensky can choose. But the question of the alleged 120K Ukrainian troops along the border and how feasible it really is for Ukraine to undertake another diversionary operation is central to any assessment of what this hypothesis might really amount to in practice.
What does Ukraine really have available for such an operation? The border with Belarus falls under Operational Command North. If you look at ISW's 2016 order of battle for Ukraine (amazingly, they haven't attempted an update since the war began) you see units like the 1st Tank Brigade, 30th Mechanized Brigade and 58th Motorized Brigade that have been committed to the east, as one would expect given Ukraine's manpower problems. And the upper Dneipr and its tributaries would certainly make such an operation difficult.
One question I have for anyone who has an answer: Is anyone maintaining up-to-date orders of battle for the two sides and an updated tracking of unit locations?
"...Belarus only has around 65,000 active soldiers..."
So each one of Belarus' has to take out less than two of the Ukraine's (supposedly 120,000)?
Quite doable; with Russia'a support, and given the state of the Ukraine's conscripts (There aren't THAT many NATO-friendly (stupid) mercenaries.) those aren't bad odds, actually.
Judging by the recent developments in the Central European conflict, the Ukraine seems to be hell bent on opening new fronts, the Kursk region and now Belarus and the Bryansk region.
This endeavour is blatantly insane unless military aid for Ukraine is significantly increased and/or the Ukraine is counting on direct interventions by "willing" third parties. I.e. the Anglosphere and their proxies, larger European countries (Germany, Poland) with obvious interests.
An intervention of NATO is unlikely for the moment - unless Belarus is provoked into invoking a NATO case by attacking either Poland or the Baltics.
Much as I appreciate President Lukashenko, his fiery temperament could lead to precisely this scenario.
The scenario of "willing third parties" is substantiated by the current efforts of the EU to create it's own significant armed forces.
Separate from NATO and therefore unhindered by the "NATO Case" restrictions.
Basically modelled on the "Partnership for Peace" and even including "neutral" Switzerland. The latter is rapidly increasing their military cooperations such third parties!
The anglofascist USofA could thereby circumvent or postpone it's active participation in the expanding conflict at the expense of European lives!
I suppose 5he obvious clue would be in NATO activity along the Byelorussian border.
Since, if you think that NATO has no inkling and will stand idly by, then you are smoking something fierce.
Then again, considering how Russia got caught flatfooted by the Kursk incursion on their own border, their ISR is clearly in need of serious upgrades.
NATO was definitely involved in the Kursk invasion and one thing, though I'm not sure, is that there, apparently, were a lot of Poles involved. That implies Poland may be up for the afore mentioned Polish invasion across the Western Belarus border.
What, besides Empire Elite bribes, would Poland gain from an invasion into Belarus?
Poland gets a pat on the head from the Americans. I know the Polish mentality well. Poles would slit their own children's throats with a song on their lips, if doing so meant that some American would pat them on the head and call them "good boy!"
For those who thing that is hyperbole, look at how Poles embraced the literal direct biological and ideological descendants of the same Ukrainians who gleefully murdered their grandparents. And I don't know a Polish family that didn't suffer losses at the hands of the UPA.
"The stage is therefore set for opening up another front on this false pretext if Kiev has the political will to do so."
I don't think Kiev has any political will at this point, if they ever did. At least not in the grand scheme of things. I mean, we know who set this all up, and it wasn't them. They just bought into the program, mostly for personal gain. I doubt there are any real patriots at the top. Have there ever been since 1991?
Increasingly we're hearing the narrative that Ukraine has jumped the shark - that they're acting without authority, which begs the question of who's actually in charge. This seems like a set up to absolve the true authors of any responsibility for what happens next.
Assuming there are a least a few competent strategists on the Atlanticist side (Andrei Martyanov seems to think not) and given that it's obvious Ukraine is losing, then (thinking like them) how do you turn defeat into victory, or at least some kind of stalemate? My first thought is to create the conditions whereby Russia is forced to occupy the entire country. That sets the stage for something similar to what the USSR had to deal with post the GPW - a persistent insurgency that took 10 years to stamp out.
Obviously Russia would seek to avoid this, their best scenario being a rebellion within the UK population, but how likely is that? How many of the people who voted for Yanukovych would (or could) get behind that? If you look at the electoral map from 2010, Russia has only captured half of the territory where Y had the majority. Or have those people fled already? I have no idea.
An internal revolt of some sort, followed by a declaration of complete neutrality and a renunciation of any further engagement with NATO would be the only acceptable outcome for Russia, correct? That would have to come with a commitment on Russia's part to rebuild what they've destroyed. That would place a huge economic burden on Russia, so it might be acceptable to the Atlanticists, but given how quickly Russia recovered from previous sanctions, maybe not?
Opening up another front doesn't help Ukraine this late in the game. What's the point of holding a tiny piece of Russia or Belarus that eventually you won't be able to supply, while the Russian army takes most of the south, including probably Odessa? Not to mention dividing your forces creates a power vacuum all the way to the Polish border. Tempting to just drive on through if you're Russia, but now you're taking the whole cake basically, which is what you want to avoid.
Russia clearly has the means to roll this whole thing up, but they clearly don't want to do that, and the Atlanticists know that. They'd also do everything in their power to suppress the kind of uprising I suggested, as that would play to Russia's hand.
Where does this go from here? It seems like most observers are caught up in the day to day minutia - this village captured, that tank destroyed, and so on. I can't listen to it anymore. I just don't see the point when Russian victory is a forgone conclusion. I just want to know what form that will take.
"This seems like a set up to absolve the true authors of any responsibility for what happens next."
Yes, good point: 'an ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure'.
"...Russia is forced to occupy the entire country. That sets the stage for something similar to what the USSR had to deal with post the GPW - a persistent insurgency that took 10 years to stamp out."
That, I believe, is what they're most concerned about. Were that not the case (the Russians' primary concern) I'm sure this could all have been finished long ago.
The Russians know how the Americans prefer to fight their wars through proxies with NGO-funded colour revolutions. Just imagine the nightmare in a 'Russian-occupied' Ukraine!
"Or have those people fled already?"
Those who haven't have been forced to side with Bandera-et-alia-NATO, and those who haven't are in prison or dead.
"...a commitment on Russia's part to rebuild what they've destroyed."
Fair enough, now you try working out how much of it was destroyed by Russia and what proportion of that by America.
There are strong, quite incontrovertible actually, arguments positing this is ENTIRELY the Americans' fault. All of it!
"...taking the whole cake basically, which is what you want to avoid."
You got it!
"I just want to know what form that will take."
Like everything in Russia, of which the Ukraine, although quite happily and easily independent, is still an integral part, it will take as long as it takes.
The West in particular the elites are in current shocks mode as Ukraine collapses and Western Asia totters on the brink of a devastating regional war. In both conflicts the survival of the two leaders Zelensky and Netanyahu require the direct military engagement and support of the US and its allies. The unintended law of consequences haunts the reflexive actions of these global elites driven by necessity to impose their financial and military hegemony on all and sundry. Astride this discontinuity the fascist and eschatological ideology of the two leaders and their extremist constituencies force them into deliberate acts of provocation at supranational levels. I do believe we can expect no less.
Belarus has at least two years to prepare against a potential invasion from the South. The attack from around Kiev to Gomel, however, would not be easy due to lack of good roads through a swampy area. The purpose is to drag Belarus into the conflict, and entice (or give pretext to) Polish invasion of western Belarus as Polish volunteers cannot fight effectively from Kiev toward Gomel. Attacking from the West would be far easier. Would Poland be this foolish ? Who knows. Judging by military logic, Ukraine should not have attacked the Kursk region, isn't it ? So how can we be sure the next attack would be completely supported for the "usual logic" ? If Lukashenko has not arranged for proper Russian back-up to protect Gomel, it would be his fault (as well as or his military Chief of staff).
I suspect there is a goal in the west to force Putin to call mobilization in Moscow and St. Petersburg areas to disrupt Russian psychology, while Putin is not yet sure that his government can handle a mobilization in those two places. If he does not mobilize there, there will be larger and larger schism inside Russia for why those two areas are spared. If he does, some of the soft-spine Russians in those two areas will start running away again. Besides from extracting forces from the "cold sectors" further, I don't think there is much room to avoid further mobilization. However, some air and naval forces have to be stationed at the Far East and the Baltics/Finnish front, especially air defense forces. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia in general still need some stabilizing forces. There are really not many, if any, cold sectors which can afford to have forces moved away. Between praying Ukraine does not have such forces or ambition versus another mobilization, I would call mobilization, but that is just me.
"...some of the soft-spine Russians in those two areas will start running away..."
I think that probably would have been more important some time ago, perhaps before NATO's attempted invasion of Kursk(skaya oblast), than now. Soft-spines have gone right out of fashion in Russia now; they wouldn't enjoy anything like the sort of sympathy they might have been able to garner some time ago.
For the love of god they’ve already sacrificed two generations of Ukrainian men on the eastern front trying to play hardball. What’s it going to take for them to come to the table. Makes you wonder if Zelenskyy would prefer to burn it all down before he admits defeat.
Burning it all down in no way harms Zelenskii. He'll just scuttle off to one of his villas in Italy, Tel Aviv or Miami or wherever.
So true. The dude makes me sick
The other possibility is that Ukraine is undertaking a deception campaign to suggest they might attack towards Gomel and thus compel the Russians to keep reserves available for that contingency instead of committing them against the Ukrainian Kursk salient.
The idea that Ukraine might be looking for some way to draw NATO into a Ukraine-Belarus fracas is not totally illogical given the diminishing options from which Zelensky can choose. But the question of the alleged 120K Ukrainian troops along the border and how feasible it really is for Ukraine to undertake another diversionary operation is central to any assessment of what this hypothesis might really amount to in practice.
What does Ukraine really have available for such an operation? The border with Belarus falls under Operational Command North. If you look at ISW's 2016 order of battle for Ukraine (amazingly, they haven't attempted an update since the war began) you see units like the 1st Tank Brigade, 30th Mechanized Brigade and 58th Motorized Brigade that have been committed to the east, as one would expect given Ukraine's manpower problems. And the upper Dneipr and its tributaries would certainly make such an operation difficult.
https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISW%20Ukrainian%20ORBAT%20Holcomb%202016_0.pdf
One question I have for anyone who has an answer: Is anyone maintaining up-to-date orders of battle for the two sides and an updated tracking of unit locations?
ahahah what an idiot, you don't even believe yourself to the stupid things you write. Slava ukraine and death to russia
"...Belarus only has around 65,000 active soldiers..."
So each one of Belarus' has to take out less than two of the Ukraine's (supposedly 120,000)?
Quite doable; with Russia'a support, and given the state of the Ukraine's conscripts (There aren't THAT many NATO-friendly (stupid) mercenaries.) those aren't bad odds, actually.
Judging by the recent developments in the Central European conflict, the Ukraine seems to be hell bent on opening new fronts, the Kursk region and now Belarus and the Bryansk region.
This endeavour is blatantly insane unless military aid for Ukraine is significantly increased and/or the Ukraine is counting on direct interventions by "willing" third parties. I.e. the Anglosphere and their proxies, larger European countries (Germany, Poland) with obvious interests.
An intervention of NATO is unlikely for the moment - unless Belarus is provoked into invoking a NATO case by attacking either Poland or the Baltics.
Much as I appreciate President Lukashenko, his fiery temperament could lead to precisely this scenario.
The scenario of "willing third parties" is substantiated by the current efforts of the EU to create it's own significant armed forces.
Separate from NATO and therefore unhindered by the "NATO Case" restrictions.
Basically modelled on the "Partnership for Peace" and even including "neutral" Switzerland. The latter is rapidly increasing their military cooperations such third parties!
The anglofascist USofA could thereby circumvent or postpone it's active participation in the expanding conflict at the expense of European lives!