#Ukraine army expansion

[latestnews-now]

The Biden administration is pushing Ukraine to lower its conscription age to 18, urging the country to dramatically expand its military ranks to combat the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. With the war nearing its third year, Ukraine faces a serious manpower shortage despite significant U.S. military aid. In this video, we explore the latest developments as the U.S. and European allies press Ukraine to increase its troop numbers. Will lowering the draft age be enough to turn the tide against Russia? Join us as we break down the implications of this significant shift in Ukraine’s military strategy. Stay informed on the latest updates and subscribe for more insights on the Russia-Ukraine war.

[relaxedstyles]

Kinda quiet story ...

[komsomolka]

The term Russophobia was centered on fear – fear of Russian expansion into the zones of influence of the British Empire, in Iran or India, for example. This “Russian scare” assumed such vast proportions that even the remote island nation of New Zealand built a series of coastal forts in the 1880s to ward off a perceived Russian attack. [...]

Russophobia is deeply rooted in people’s subconscious in the Western hemisphere and is virtually part of the local identity, which needs Russia as an opponent in order to reassure itself of its assumed superiority. [...] The phenomenon is “cyclical,” where narratives of a good Russia appear when Russia is experiencing a phase of weakness, while stories of evil Russia come to the fore in the Western media when the country becomes more “assertive.” These narratives are de facto timeless and almost mythological in content. [...]

For centuries, European colonial powers conquered, divided and appropriated the wealth of almost every region in the world. But none of these actions transformed their respective states into “voracious” and “hungry” empires in their own Western self-image. The stereotype of the undying Russian thirst for land, on the other hand, is a mainstay of Russophobia and is partly based on a forged but very powerful document. According to the English historian Orlando Figes, various Polish, Hungarian and Ukrainian authors forged a will of Peter the Great in the course of the 18th century and then circulated it within Europe. The forged document, which was submitted to the archives of the French Foreign Ministry in the 1760s, spoke of an extensive Russian plan for the subjugation of Europe, the Middle East and as far as the Southeast Asia. Although the supposed Tsar’s will was recognized as a forgery from an early stage, it was instrumentalized by Western foreign policymakers as a justification for war against Russia for about 200 years. [...]

Today’s insinuations that Russia would “carry on” with other Eastern European states after a victory in Ukraine also reflect the spirit of the forged will, according to criticism from the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2022. The fact that the will is a forgery has always been irrelevant to Russophobes, because it ideologically fits the stereotypical image: “Because, after all, forgery characterizes Russia’s policy better than any historically authenticated truth,” according to the German war propaganda concerning the document in 1916. Adolf Hitler made very similar remarks in 1941 – even though it was the German army that was stationed in Russia and annexed large territories during both world wars. The stereotype mainly reveals the projections of the politicians of Western powers, who assign their own way of thinking and acting to the Russian leadership. [...]

The stereotype of Russian backwardness is ancient and could historically only have taken root because contrary facts were consistently ignored in the West. “Russia is like another world,” wrote Bishop Matvey of Kraków as early as the mid-12th century in a letter to the French crusading preacher Bernard of Clairvaux. But the stereotype did not really catch on until the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times, when Europe began to form an identity as a separate cultural area, which was essentially achieved by distinguishing itself from other cultural areas, explains historian Christophe von Werdt: “Russia played a particularly important role in this interplay of European identity formation and perception of what was foreign. For in its case, Europe was confronted with a ‘foreign’ Christian land that it could not colonize or culturally assimilate.”

In the 16th and 17th centuries, Western Europeans increasingly came to Russia as diplomats, mercenaries or merchants, recording their impressions of the unfamiliar country. Eastern European historian Manfred Hildermeier writes that the cultural distance evident in the records was “increasingly combined with a sense of superiority.” German travelers, for example, reported with amazement that Russians bathed naked in the river in full view of others and men and women were not separated by gender in the saunas located almost everywhere, but went there together. [...]

The Swiss author Guy Mettan demonstrates the selectivity of Western judgment even more pointedly. He compares the popular 1761 travelogue of French astronomer Jean Chappe d’Auteroche with the contemporaneous account of a Japanese boat captain named Kodayu, who traveled the same route through Siberia at the same time as the Frenchman. “But they seem to describe two different planets,” notes Mettan; the accounts of their voyages could not be more different.

Whereas d’Auteroche discerned backwardness and barbarism everywhere in Russia, Kodayu soberly describes everyday life, living conditions and socio-political circumstances. Reading both books side by side is fascinating, because it painfully reveals the contrast between the impartiality of the traveler from the Far East and the Westerner’s urge to judge others from a position of superiority and emphasize his supposed civilizational advantage.

The craftiness and deceitfulness of Russians is another recurring paradigm of Russophobia. As early as the 16th and 17th centuries, Western visitors to Russia identified deceitfulness and mendacity as typical Russian character traits – not, however, as traits of individual Russians, but of all Russians. According to Russophobic logic, this general character trait, by association, will then also be reflected in Russian politics. [...]

Western observers have been indignant about the European-like appearance of Russians for centuries, meaning the Russians, in their clothes and appearance, are virtually lying already. The French writer Astolphe Marquis de Custine wrote in 1839: “I do not reproach the Russians for being what they are; what I reproach them for is pretending to be what we are. They are still uncultured… and in this they follow the example of the apes and disfigure what they copy.” [...]

If the Russians try to remedy their supposed backwardness by orienting themselves toward the West, then they are wrong again; at heart, they remain half-savage barbarians.

Russians are people “with a Caucasian body and a Mongolian soul,” wrote the U.S. journalist Ambrose Bierce in his “Dictionary of the Devil” in 1911. Bierce meant this satirically – as he did with each of the approximately 1,000 entries in his book. He critically echoed the clichéd thinking of his time. In 2022, the political scientist Florence Gaub told ZDF, a German public television broadcaster: “We must not forget that even if Russians look European, they are not Europeans, in this case in a cultural sense.” She did not mean this satirically.

Probably the most powerful element in Russophobia is the stereotype of Russian tyranny. It entails two complementary parts: a demonic leader and a sort of slave mentality of the Russian population.

Tsar Ivan IV – in Russian he is called “the Austere,” while in the West he is called “the Terrible” – was an archetype of the cruel Russian ruler, explains Oleg Nemensky. According to Nemensky, the “black myth” of the bloodthirsty tyrant, “whose brutality allegedly exceeded all conceivable limits,” emerged in the 16th century at the time of the Livonian War and occupied the most important place among the propagandistic Russian stereotypes of the time. Ivan the Terrible, in Western eyes, “combined the symbolization of evil and brutal power with the servile bondage of his subjects.”

Indeed, Ivan IV was a brutal ruler and apparently a sadistic character who employed cruel methods of torture and execution. However, whether this made him exceptional in his time is questionable. Yet, Ivan the Terrible’s legendary reputation established the image of Russian rulers in general in the rest of Europe, which was also basically applied to the Russian rulers of the following centuries: cruel, tyrannical, brutal. The fact that soon after the 31-year reign of Ivan, Tsar Alexei I, who bore the epithet “the meekest,” on the other hand, is something few will ever have heard.

Undoubtedly, it is common in wartime to demonize the leader of an opposing power as personified evil. According to Arthur Ponsonby, it is one of the tenets of wartime propaganda to direct hatred at the enemy leader. But in the Russophobic culture of many Western countries, this logic also applies in peacetime. [...] For example, the fact that Vladimir Putin was to receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Hamburg in 2004 caused such indignation in parts of the public that both the university and Putin decided against it. The reason for the storm of protest, it was reported, was the “Chechen war waged in a manner contrary to international law.” In 2011, the planned awarding of the Quadriga Prize to Putin (then the Russian prime minister) was also cancelled due to general outrage. In contrast, these standards were not applied to U.S. presidents: Bill Clinton, who shortly before had commanded a war of aggression against Yugoslavia in violation of international law, received the German Media Prize in 1999, the Charlemagne Prize in Aachen in 2000 and the European Mittelstandspreis (Medium-Sized Business Prize) in 2002. [...]

Nemensky emphasizes that it is extremely remarkable that the antithesis of Western freedom vs. Russian slavery is reproduced again and again across different eras of history, even if there is a change in the specific concepts. No role is played by the centuries of Western slavery, which lasted even longer in the U.S. than serfdom did in “backward” Russia.

According to the Russophobic narrative, Russians are a people incapable of governing themselves and therefore covet slavery. A people that is consistently ruled by tyrants and dictators must itself be inherently authoritarian and subservient, according to the circular argument that has been recapitulated for centuries.

“This nation finds more pleasure in slavery than in freedom,” the Austrian envoy Sigismund von Herberstein reported from Moscow in 1549. The Russians are a “tribe born into slavery, accustomed to the yoke and unable to bear freedom,” the Dutchman Edo Neuhusius told his readers in 1633. “Political obedience has become a cult, a religion for the Russians,” the abovementioned Astolphe Marquis de Custine noted in 1837. “Russia was for us the epitome of bondage and forced rule, a danger to our civilization,” wrote German public broadcaster ARD correspondent Fritz Pleitgen about the thinking of German journalists in the 1960s. “‘Slave consciousness’: Why are many Russians so submissive?” asked the German public broadcaster Bayrischer Rundfunk in 2022.

As strikingly interchangeable as these statements are across the centuries, this insight is useful for understanding the deep-seated, traditional hatred of Russia among the liberal middle classes of Western countries. It is precisely in these groups, represented today by the Democratic Party in the U.S. or the Green Party in Germany, for example, that the stereotype of a despotic Russia has always been extremely powerful. [...]

It has also been observed historically that Russophobia eventually subsides. This could happen even without war, as the end of the bloc confrontation in 1990 showed. However, the phenomenon will not disappear, but will remain latent as long as Western societies do not fundamentally address the problem. Historical models exist for this, and the parallels between Russophobia and anti-Semitism are a topic in themselves. [...]

Former CIA official Phil Giraldi [...] said in an interview that the Biden cabinet is full of Russophobes who blame Russia for all sorts of things. He also said that many people in the CIA were motivated by Russophobia and believed the stereotypes. In the political-media landscape of Western countries, however, people are usually unwilling to even recognize the problem. [...]

What is clear from all this is that the phenomenon of Russophobia has little to do with Russia and the Russians themselves – but a lot to do with Western societies. [...] Russophobia is at its core a racist phenomenon, notes Guy Mettan. Russophobes fundamentally refuse to recognize people from Russia or the Russian state as equal and equivalent to their corresponding Western counterparts.

[whencyclopedia]

Why Did Hitler Attack the USSR?

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), the leader of Nazi Germany, was intent on attacking the USSR in the summer of 1941. With Western Europe subdued in 1940, Hitler could finally pursue his dream of territorial expansion in the East, destroy Bolshevism, the ideological enemy of Nazism, and grab a vast array of resources ranging from wheat to oil.

Hitler directed his generals to launch Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941. The leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), overcame a series of gigantic defeats and ensured his Red Army was continually replenished and resupplied so that the Axis invaders gained vast swathes of territory but no strategic victory. The German-Soviet war dragged on until 1945 and ended in Germany's total defeat as the Second World War (1939-45) came to a close in May 1945. Although often dismissed as Hitler's great folly, the reasons why he attacked the USSR are many and varied, ranging from suspect ideological motives to practical economic necessity.

Adolf Hitler & Generals, 1943

State Treasury of Poland (Public Domain)

Motives to Attack the Soviet Union

The reasons Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 include:

The identification of communism as a long-standing ideological enemy of Nazism and the Germanic people.

The realisation that Germany's massive rearmament had exhausted and indebted the economy, which now needed an external boost of wealth.

The belief that the USSR might soon stop shipping raw materials to Germany, as it was obliged to do by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

The belief that the USSR intended to take over the oil fields in Romania, which were vital to Germany's economy.

The desire for Lebensraum ('living space') for the German people, that is, new lands in the east where they could find resources and prosper.

The desire for the resources of Ukraine and the oil fields of the Caucasus.

The belief that Slavic people were racially inferior to Germanic people and so were 'ripe for conquest'.

The belief that Stalin's purges had seriously weakened the fighting capabilities of the Soviet Red Army.

The consideration that the Red Army had failed to subdue Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40.

The belief that the USSR was amassing troops to attack the Third Reich.

The hope that eliminating the USSR from WWII would oblige Britain to seek peace terms, removing the threat of an invasion of the Continent.

The belief that the USSR must be attacked and conquered before the United States entered WWII.

Continue reading...

[mariacallous]

The year was 1998. Walking down Pushkin Boulevard in my native Donetsk, I listened to English lessons on my Walkman and dreamed of America—a country I would soon call home.

At age 20, I couldn't form a sentence in the language of the USSR's arch-enemy; my teachers, who didn't speak English themselves, made sure of that.

Born and raised in Ukraine, I had just graduated from Donetsk State Tech University, but I couldn't speak Ukrainian either.

Russian was my native language; though it wasn't me who chose it, Russian colonialism did just as it chose to plaster the names of Russian chauvinists, like Pushkin, all over my city.

I was gaslit by the evil empire, and so were you. Let me correct this: So are you.

In the fall of 1982, I remember the nannies at my kindergarten weeping over the death of "our dear leader," Leonid Brezhnev. Perhaps I cried, too. The earliest childhood memories are notoriously faulty.

But in 2024, I hold no illusions about Russia: What it has done, what it seeks to do, and what will happen if the Free World fails to stop it.

Rewriting History: A Soviet Mirage

It took me a lifetime to un-dim the metaphorical lights—to escape the unreality Moscow constructed for the peoples and lands it colonized.

It all started with a perverted version of history that provided all the answers but left no room for questions.

For example, when did World War II start? Sorry, my mistake—the "Great Patriotic War," as it's called in Russia. Everybody knows it began in 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded the USSR.

Except it didn't. Adolf Hitler's betrayal of Joseph Stalin didn't start the war—their secret pact to invade Poland did.

What the world remembers, and what Russia tries desperately to forget, is that Europe's worst calamity began with the unholy alliance of two evil regimes hellbent on colonization.

Growing up in the USSR, doubt and skepticism, at the heart of the Western intellectual tradition, were out of reach.

It took me decades to understand that the Soviet Union was never truly a country, but rather an oppressive Russia Empire by another name.

When the "brotherhood" of 15 nations is praised and celebrated all around you, it is almost unimaginable that one of those "brothers" was prepared to kill, rape, and torture in a zealous pursuit of its imperialist ambitions, which, in Russia's case, always took categorical precedence over human life.

The Victory That Wasn't

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Cold War order crumbled before our eyes, many in the West mistook it for a victory. But who exactly did we defeat?

During the 70 years of the USSR's existence, the evil of communist ideology was merely layered atop the evil of a Frankenstein state, one that desperately wanted the world to see it as a nation.

By 1991, Communism was gone, the USSR fell apart, but the revanchism and a deep-seated fear in Moscow—that the Russian Federation would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions—remained.

Empires thrive on perpetual expansion, as vividly demonstrated by Russia's invasion of Ichkeria, Georgia, and now Ukraine.

Caught in a relentless cycle of conquest and domination, Moscow's legitimacy and stability hinge on the constant acquisition of new territories, the appropriation of other nations' histories, and the subjugation of their peoples.

Suppressed History Is a Harbinger of More Violence

In seventh grade, we studied the "Great Famine" of 1932-1933 and learned about the "kulaks" hiding grain and how the righteous Red Army was fighting the imperialists who wanted the Soviet project to fail.

But did I know what role Stalin's monstrous and deliberate policy to starve millions of Ukrainians by engineering Holodomor had to do with my own life story?

Why did everyone around me speak Russian in Ukraine at the tail-end of the twentieth century? How did my Armenian father, born and raised in Georgia, end up coming to Donbas—the Soviet Union's promised land of his youth?

Colonialism is the answer. Moscow knew that to bury the Ukrainian dream—escaping the empire's yoke—required repopulating the land with outsiders to prevent even a possibility of a grassroots national movement rekindling.

Finding myself both complicit in Russia's imperial project and its victim was as confusing as it was unsettling.

Raphael Lemkin, the man who introduced the concept of genocide to the world, recognized Moscow's Holodomor as a systematic effort to destroy the Ukrainian nation, culture, and people through starvation and repression.

Yet, as I grew up, his name and his views existed in a separate realm of knowledge and awareness from the one I inhabited. The two were meant never to cross.

Had I not escaped the morass of endless lies sustaining the evil empire, I would've never understood that we are witnessing another genocide attempt and that history is indeed repeating itself.

A Breath of Fresh Air

The year was 1998. Walking down 900 East Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, as a fresh-off-the-boat American, I had much to look forward to and little to reflect on.

Between naïveté and arrogance, I managed to strike both with the thought that my individual journey was forerunning the path Ukraine was to inevitably take: From the dark past of oppression and suffering all the way to freedom and prosperity.

I didn't think much about Russia at the time. Surely, it must have wanted the same thing for itself, but it was for the Russian people to decide their future.

When I swore allegiance to the U.S. flag in 2005 and began my career in international relations, the rose-colored glasses started to come off. The straitjacket of lies that had enveloped my mind since childhood showed signs of wear and tear as it came into contact with history books that weren't Russian propaganda.

Not only did I start to understand the past, but Moscow was also unmasking itself fast in real time—murdering thousands of Chechens for defying their colonizers, meddling in the affairs of Ukraine and other neighboring states, and reverting to ruthless authoritarianism after a brief flirtation with democracy in the nineties.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians were rejecting a rigged election and uniting in what became known as the Orange Revolution, demanding accountability from their government.

It was evident that Russia and Ukraine were on different paths, but I was unprepared even to imagine the magnitude of this difference.

From Public Service to Global Diplomacy

After five years of U.S. government service, working on development projects from agriculture in Moldova to renewable energy in Mongolia, I applied for a graduate degree in Public Administration at Harvard.

For a kid from Donetsk, a son of a coal miner, getting an admission letter felt like something out of a fairytale.

Arriving in Cambridge, MA, I delved into the mechanics of democracy and governance; conversations with professors and peers sharpened my vision. I saw more clearly than ever how Moscow had twisted its colonial history and appropriated or perverted histories of the lands it controlled.

My education was no longer a means to an examined life; it was to become a weapon against the empire of lies that had once claimed my allegiance.

My next stop was the World Economic Forum in Geneva, where I covered regional affairs for a portfolio of countries including Russia and Ukraine. Moderating panel discussions with ministers, activists, and opinion leaders often revealed deep historical tensions.

Ukraine faced significant challenges on its path toward Europe, with freedom, prosperity, and nationhood at stake.

What remained obscured to me at the time, however, was the extent to which Russia would resist and sabotage Ukraine's progress at every turn.

The heir to the bloodthirsty tsars and commissars, the Russian Federation was firmly set on a trajectory toward totalitarianism, oppression, and, ultimately, fascism.

With hindsight, I realize that my gaslit mind mistook a bit of situational awareness for enlightenment. Back then, though, I believed—indeed, I knew—Russia couldn't invade Ukraine.

Now, I can see that for the Moscow-centered empire, colonial conquest was all but inevitable.

The West Deliberately Refuses to Understand What Russia Is

Pick up any map, and you'll easily spot a vast country called Russia. But make no mistake—this is no nation; it has no national interests, only imperial ambitions.

Bizarrely, we justify Moscow's criminal actions eagerly at our own peril, despite the threat it poses not just to Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, etc. but to the entire world and, paradoxically, to the population of Russia too.

Don't take my word for it, ask the people of Tatarstan, Bashkiria, Dagestan or any other Eurasian folk Moscow had colonized. The veritable prison of nations spent decades, if not centuries, attempting to erase their identities, languages, and cultures.

Our stubborn refusal to face the facts is confounding.

What is holding us back from processing the lessons of Russia's bloodstained history, from believing Russia when it tells us it plans to commit what I see as genocide? Why can't we act decisively on this knowledge?

Given an opportunity to restore deterrents, rebuild our credibility, and reassert our commitment to the values we profess, we flounder time and again.

To help Ukraine defeat the aggressor is not charity, it's in our strategic interest. Any other outcome creates a much more problematic future for each of Ukraine's allies individually, and all of us collectively.

The Peril of Inaction, Cloaked in Excuses and Laced With Cowardice

Gaining clarity of vision and decolonizing my mind has been a decades-long process, still ongoing.

I finally learned Ukrainian, and I no longer speak Russian. After all, Moscow used the pretext of "protecting" Russian speakers in Donbas to justify its invasion.

As an unhumorous joke goes, no matter where you are or who you are, if you continue to speak Russian, the motherland will come to "save" you one day.

Reflecting on my journey, I see much of it mirrored in the painstakingly slow and reluctant awakening of the Free World to the realities of Ruscism (Russian Fascism).

But we can't afford decades of incremental enlightenment; we must now recognize that the policy of "with Ukraine as long as it takes" has failed. From the start, it was grounded in our misunderstanding of Moscow.

History makes it clear that Russia responds to indecisiveness and weakness by raising the stakes, but when faced with strength and determination, it retreats.

The humiliating defeat of the Tsarist Russia by Japan in 1905 is one such example. More recently, In 1989, a nuclear-armed superpower—one of only two in the world—was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan after another devastating loss.

Its equally violent successor, the Russian Federation, has claimed victory in every conflict it initiated since, with the consequences all too obvious.

We, in the Free World, can no longer afford to be willfully gaslit by Moscow's lies. The stakes are too high, not just for Ukraine but for every democratic nation.

Our moral and historical obligation extends beyond thoughts and prayers; it demands decisive action. We owe this to the generations before us, and even more to those who will follow.

The time has come to end incrementalism and commit fully to Ukraine's victory, securing not a temporary ceasefire–certain to boomerang back as a yet more dangerous war–but a lasting peace for Europe and the world.

[tomorrowusa]

We told you something like this might happen.

In 1994 the US, UK, Russia, and Ukraine signed an agreement which became known as the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees.

Of course Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum with its illegal invasions and Trump is in the process of cutting off aid and intelligence to Ukraine.

The lesson learned is that the US will not honor its security agreements and the only way to prevent attaick by neighbors is to acquire nuclear arms.

So Poland, a victim of Russian aggression in the past, now wants access to nukes.

Poland will look at gaining access to nuclear weapons and also ensure that every man undergoes military training as part of an effort to build a 500,000-strong army to face off the threat from Russia, Prime Minister Donald Tusk told the parliament on Friday. Poland's dramatic military expansion comes as fears grow across Europe that U.S. President Donald Trump is aligning with the Kremlin and turning his back on America's traditional western alliances — a geopolitical shift that Warsaw regards as a potentially existential threat. Tusk said that Poland "is talking seriously" with France about being protected by the French nuclear umbrella. President Emmanuel Macron has opened the possibility of other countries discussing how France’s nuclear deterrent can protect Europe. Tusk also stressed that Poland cannot restrict itself to conventional weapons. "We must be aware that Poland must reach for the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons and modern unconventional weapons ... this is a race for security, not for war," he said. He pointed to the example of Ukraine, which gave up is nuclear arsenal and is now being attacked by Russia.

Poland will also withdraw from some conventional arms treaties.

He also said Poland would take steps to withdraw from international treaties banning the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

Ukraine may not currently have nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean it can't make them.

Ukraine Can Go Nuclear — Should it?

Trump's abandonment of Ukraine is setting off a chain reaction which could easily spiral out of control.

[sonyaheaneyauthor]

NATO has confirmed that North Korean troops have been sent to help Russia in its almost three-year war against Ukraine and says some have already been deployed in Russia's Kursk border region, where Russia has been struggling to push back a Ukrainian incursion.

Adding thousands of North Korean soldiers to Europe's biggest conflict since World War II will pile more pressure on Ukraine's weary and overstretched army.

"Today, I can confirm that North Korean troops have been sent to Russia, and that North Korean military units have been deployed to the Kursk region," NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told reporters.

Rutte said the move represents "a significant escalation" in North Korea's involvement in the conflict and marks "a dangerous expansion of Russia's war".

It will also stoke geopolitical tensions in the Korean Peninsula and the wider Indo-Pacific region, including Japan and Australia, Western officials say...

...Ukraine, whose defences are under severe Russian pressure in its eastern Donetsk region, could get more bleak news from next week's US presidential election. 

A Donald Trump victory could see key US military help dwindle.

In Moscow, the Defence Ministry announced on Monday that Russian troops have captured the Donetsk village of Tsukuryne — the latest settlement to succumb to the slow-moving Russian onslaught.

Rutte spoke in Brussels after a high-level South Korean delegation, including top intelligence and military officials as well as senior diplomats, briefed the alliance's 32 national ambassadors at NATO headquarters... MORE

[merrymorningofmay]

The divide in politics today is between unreality and reality. Those who seek to rule the world blur human experience and smudge memory, making cooperation and friendship laughable and unthinkable. Rather than possessors of truths, we are to serve as lonely nodes in a power network.

Ukraine resists an unreality war. Putin's premise for invasion is that Ukraine does not exist. There is no state, no nation. Ukraine is just a misunderstanding that can be corrected by the violence and propaganda. And so the country was to be occupied, the children were to be reeducated, and everyone with any sort of political involvement was to be murdered.

(...)

The Russians won a very real victory back in 2014: even if we do not accept the specifics of their propaganda, many of us still have trouble with the basic sequence of events: Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and then NATO became popular in Ukraine. Russia voided military agreements by invading. When we talk about "NATO enlargement" or "NATO expansion" we accept a story in which Russia has done nothing wrong. But more insidiously, we accept the premise that Ukrainians do not figure in the story. We fail to consider what happened to them in 2014, an invasion of their country by Russia, and why it would have made sense for them to react as they did.

(...)

What the Kremlin feared in 2014, when Russia invaded Ukraine the first time, and what it feared in 2022, when it undertook the full-scale invasion, was reality-based politics. While in Russia Putin was able to control the information environment, no single person was able to do that in Ukraine. Whereas in Russia elections were fake after (reckoning generously) 1996, in Ukraine they were competitive and even unpredictable. In Ukraine, people showed a disturbing (for the Kremlin) tendency to act according to their own sense of what was important, and even to risk their lives for it.

The claims about Ukrainian unreality are smooth and featureless. Ukrainians are just Russians who do not know it. They are just an element of some larger conspiracy. They are just objects on a strategic chessboard between Russia and America. None of this is true, none of this is real. Much of it is self-contradictory. But it does not have to make sense, since its sources are not reason but conformism and pain. One side of unreality is the spectacle: the social media, the television, the cooperation of fascist billionaires. The other side is the violence: in the case of Ukraine, an invading army, executions, torture chambers, reeducation centers for kidnapped children.

The reality of Ukrainian resistance, on the other hand, is rough and human. There is a popular president who was new to politics. There is a state that continues to function. There is an experienced civil society, trained in protest, that applies its skills and its trust to new tasks. There is an impressive tech sector, which has kept ahead of the Russians in new ways of fighting war. There is cooperation among all of these groups. It is not always smooth, and it is not without intense emotion. But it is real, in the sense that it arises from human truths and human commitments. And that, for Putin, is the problem. The claim that Ukraine does not exist is really the claim that nothing like this should ever exist.

Ukrainians have fought for three years, giving far more proof of their reality than anyone should have to give. As we consider three years of this awful war, we can also consider why people take the sides that they do. The issue goes well beyond Ukraine and Russia. Russia’s specific falsehoods work in the minds of people who take the Kremlin’s general approach.

One does not have to be a Russian to take the side of unreality, to take the view that might makes right, that facts and values do not exist, that everyone who disagrees should be humiliated, that democracy is a sham. And one does not have to be a Ukrainian to take the side of reality, to believe that some things are true, some things are worth caring about, that those of us who agree about that can work together and become friends, and that there can be a better form of politics.

[evadne01]

King Arthur (2004) Culture (personal hc and historical information)

Sarmatians and Sarmatia

General indications of the people

The Sarmatians are an Iranian people and therefore, like the Scythians, are part of the Iranian linguistic family (an Indo-European linguistic family). Open to Persian culture and religion, they were probably divided into four tribes: Iazyges, Roxolani (or Rossolani), Aorsi and Alani.

Roxolani, who settled in the territories occupied by the Scythians to the north and northwest of the Black Sea (between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD) and with them, at first, established an alliance. When this relationship failed, the Sarmatians conquered the territories of the Scythians, subjecting the population to their power.

Iazyges, who settled in the territories west of the Dacians, south of the Germans and both east and north of the Danube between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD.

Aorsi, of whom little is known: it is probable that they settled near the kingdom of the Bosporus to the south-east of the Alans.

Alans, who settled east of the Black Sea to the north of the Caucasus and the Aorsi and here they are described by the Romans as horse breeders. They were the longest-lasting Sarmatian population, partly converted to Arian Christianity in the 9th century, fought against the Mongols first, and then alongside them (a series of tombs, perhaps of Christian Alani warriors was found in a Mongolian necropolis in Korea); the remaining Alans settled in the western Caucasus, where they underwent a more or less strong Turkish and Islamic influence in the 14th-17th centuries, and then a process of partial Russification between the late 18th century and the present day. They are currently known as Ossetians.

They originally inhabited the steppes along the Volga, the piedmont regions of the southern Urals and the steppe of western Kazakhstan. In their homelands they clashed with the Bactrians, the Parthians and the Sogdians. At different times and in different waves they pushed westward.

Sarmatia: county

Sarmatia is the name given by the Romans to a portion of lands in Eastern Europe, present-day Ukraine and the southern federal district of Russia, and Western Asia, between the Black Sea and the Don and Volga rivers, originally inhabited by the Sarmatians.

Originating from the steppes of Central Asia, the Sarmatians began to migrate westward around the 4th-3rd century BC, pushing into the regions previously occupied by the Scythians. At the height of their expansion, around the 1st century AD, they controlled a vast territory that extended:

West: the Vistula River (in present-day Poland)

East: the Volga River

South: the northern coasts of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, up to the Caucasus

North: the forests of Eastern Europe

This territory today corresponds mainly to Ukraine and southern Russia.

Relations with Rome

The Roman Empire, in 300 AD, stretched from Arabia to Britain. But they wanted more. More land. More people loyal and subjected to Rome.

But no people were as important as the mighty Sarmatians to the east. Thousands died on that batterfield. And when the smoke cleared on the fourth day, the only Sarmatian soldiers left alive were members of the decimated but legendary cavalry. The Romans, impressed by their courage and skill on horseback, spared their lives.

In return, these warriors were conscripted into the Roman army.

The Iazyges in particular came into conflict with Rome, and during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, after the Marcomannic Wars, some 5,500 Sarmatian horsemen were recruited and sent to Britain as auxiliary troops.

Culture and society

In particular, their society was composed of warrior shepherds, nomads. And they were expert horsemen.

The Sarmatians were known for their skill in heavy cavalry, with armored warriors called cataphractarii. In addition to cavalry, they were skilled with the bow and long spears.

Women had an active role in society and, according to some sources, also in military activities, perhaps contributing to the myth of the Amazons.

Their language belonged to the eastern branch of the Iranian languages (bit unknown).

Religion and sacred rites

Their religion was naturalistic and animist/shamanic, with a cult of spirits and fire, sky, sun and spirits of ancestors.

Their deities were linked to the natural elements.

Their art was "animalistic of the steppes", with motifs of wolves, horses, eagles and snakes. Even the shields, saddles, buckles and weapons were richly decorated with these symbols.

The Sarmatians were pagans. They venerated forces of nature, spirits of ancestors and invisible powers that governed fate, war and life.

Their religion was deeply personal, experiential, visceral — perfect for warriors who lived in an unstable reality, and who sought in the signs of the sky and the voice of the wind a sense of their destiny.

Going into more detail, we can analyze the different aspects:

Animist → they believed that everything (trees, animals, fire, stars, wind) had a spirit or a vital force.

Shamanic → there were priests/shamans (most likely women) who acted as intermediaries between the human world and the spirit world, often through visions or trances.

Totemic → the clans probably had sacred protective animals, such as the deer, the horse, the wolf, the eagle.

Cult of the Sun and the Fire

The Sarmatians venerated the Sun and Fire as sacred and purifying forces.

The Sun represented life, guidance, justice.

Fire was seen as a means of communication with the gods, capable of purifying and carrying offerings to the sky. After the rites, the fire was never hastily extinguished and in certain places it was kept permanently lit as a sacred fire.

The Sky and the Spirits of the Ancestors

The Sky was considered a living and dominant entity, the great Father Spirit, to whom warriors especially turned. The sky represented:

Protection from above

The fate of the warrior

Divine judgment after death

The cult of ancestors was central in their religion (and in every other aspect of their life). 

The dead were buried in kurgans (burial mounds) with offerings, weapons, horses, sometimes even sacrificed servants or family members. The spirits of ancestors were believed to be able to influence the lives of their descendants, to punish them or to protect them (as when they took the form of their war horses)

Horse as sacred creature 

The horse had an almost divine value. It was:

The warrior's companion in life and death

Guide animal in the afterlife

Symbol of the bond between heaven and earth (fast, noble, free)

Horses were often sacrificed in funerals, and buried with their owners. The harnesses were decorated with cosmic symbols.

Symbols and spirit guides

Recurring symbols in Sarmatian finds:

Snake: transformation, occult knowledge

Stag: spiritual guide and messenger of the divine world

Wolf: wild strength, clan spirit

Eagle: vision, ascension, connection with the sun

Although the term “Spirit Guide” was not used, people believed in:

Totem animals, linked to clans or families.

Animal omens, as forms of communication from gods or ancestors.

Protective souls, often with animal form in dreams or shamanic visions.

The sacred hunt or animal dance, in which warriors symbolically assumed the strength of the animal.

It is likely that animals were not just symbols, but manifestations of higher powers, nature spirits or warrior ancestors.

→ How the spirit guide is discovered

During the warrior initiation

A young man is left alone in the steppes or in the woods. He must survive, fast and dream. The animal that appears is “his spirit”

Through shamanic vision

The shaman of the clan can identify the animal guide in a state of trance.

During a moment of crisis

The animal appears in reality (a wolf leading out of a blizzard, a deer watching silently before a battle).

The Legend of Targitai and the Spirits of the Hunt

“There was a time, in the endless steppes, when men did not know the way. They were strong, yes, but blind. The skies were vast, the winds harsh, and blood flowed meaninglessly.

It was then that Targitai was born, son of heaven and earth, first of warriors.

When he reached the age of steel, his father took him to the heart of the steppe and said:

“Sleep under the stars, eat only what the wind brings you. When your soul grows silent, listen.”

For seven days and seven nights, Targitai was alone. He did not speak. He did not fight. He did not cry. And at sunset on the seventh day, when the sky was red as spilled blood, three animals came to him:

The Wolf, who said: “I will teach you to hunt without being seen, to fight in a pack, and to die for those you call brother.”

The Stag, who said, “I will teach you to see far, to move like a shadow, to lead your people in the hidden paths of truth.”

The Eagle, who said, “I will teach you to watch from above, to strike with justice, and to carry your dead beyond the sky.”

Targitai did not speak, but bowed his head.

From that day, every warrior of his lineage sought the animal soul that awaited him. Not to command it, but to walk beside it. And it is said that those who betray their spirit guide, die with a broken heart, far from home.”

This legend was told around the fire, usually before the ritual to know their spirit guide. Furthermore, it is the reason behind which warriors have different gifts (wolf = loyalty and ferocity; deer = intuition and solitude, eagle = wisdom and justice).

Initiation Ceremony: The Vigil of the Spirits

"Only he who has seen the face of the night can ride toward the dawn." – Sarmatian proverb.

Every young Sarmatian, upon completion of the 14 winters (then, from the pact made with the Romans, before being sent into forced service), participates in the Vigil of the Spirits, an ancient ritual in which the warrior faces solitude and seeks his own spirit guide.

The steps are as follows:

Isolation – The young man is taken to a sacred place (a gorge, a plateau, a forest) and left alone, without food or weapons, for seven days. He carries with him only a ritual robe and a bone dagger.

Vigil – During the night, he burns sacred herbs and sings (or whispers) the names of his ancestors. It is said that the spirit guide will come in a dream or manifest in physical form, if the young man is ready.

Test of the Soul – If the spirit appears, the young man must accept its nature: a wolf, a deer, an eagle, or another animal. Accepting a soul too similar to one's own can lead to imbalance. Some receive no spirit at all and are considered "orphans of the gods."

Return and March of Silence – The young man returns to the camp and remains silent for three days, to meditate and understand the bond that has just begun. At the end, he receives the symbol of his spirit engraved on a brooch, a tattoo, or a hilt.

Sarmatian Prayer to the Guiding Spirit

(in a ritual tone, to be whispered in the wind or around a fire)

"O Soul who walks with me,

who finds me worthy in the night,

open my eyes to the signs,

open my heart to the way.

May I not dominate, but follow.

May I not conquer, but remain whole.

May my blood be your song,

and my death your return."

Knights of the Round Table

From the images of the Round Table shown in the film, we can see that there are 23 chairs.

One of these belonged to Arthur Cassius, otherwise known as the king who united Albion in some interpretations of his life.

For the others, we can list the seven knights present in the events shown in the film:

Lancelot

Dagonet

Bors

Gawain

Galahad

Tristan

The other sixteen, based on the stories of the Knights, are:

Percival

Hector

Kay

Leodegrance

Bedivere

Elyan

Leon

Gareth

Alymere

Safir

Lamorak

Palamedes

Cador

Caradoc

Macduff

Pellinore

The Round Table represents the symbol of equality among the knights, indicating that no member is more important than the others.

This directly represents the method with which Arthur led his knights. In addition to sitting on the same level as them, he never tried to force his religion on theirs, respecting them enough to allow them to choose what they believe in.

Further to see in detail the 7 knights.

Seven sarmatian knights and their leader 

The Sarmatian knights were taken when they were children, approximately between the ages of 12 and 15.

Gahalad

Personality: idealistic, young and passionate. Believes in the ideals of justice and freedom.

Characteristics: he is one of the closest to Arthur in terms of moral vision and often acts as the conscience of the group.

Fighting style: fast and elegant, uses a long sword and occasionally a bow.

Appearance: curly brown hair, young and clean face; he is the "purest" knight in appearance and temperament.

Age: enlisted at 11 years old, after fifteen years he is 26 years old. He is the youngest knight of the group.

Nickname: "The Pure". Galahad is the perfect knight, pure of heart, destined for the Grail. Young, idealistic, brave, often thoughtful and respects a very strict code of honor.

Spirit Guide - The Wolf: The wolf is a symbol of loyalty, purity of the pack and moral guidance. Wolves are protectors of their community, but also capable of great solitude and reflection. The wolf as a spiritual guardian indicates that Galahad is the last to retain an ancient innocence or hope for good.

Tristan

Personality: silent, enigmatic, solitary. He is the observer and scout of the group.

Characteristics: the most "wild", almost shamanic; he has a very strong bond with his falcon, which he uses to monitor the territory.

Fighting style: he is a master in the use of the curved sword and the cavalry bow. He is a deadly archer, but also excellent in close combat.

Appearance: long black hair, short beard, olive skin; always accompanied by the falcon. He has a melancholic and ferocious air.

Age: Enlisted at 15, after 15 years he is 30

Nickname - "The Guardian": Lonely warrior, falcon (Isolde) as his companion, Hero with great observation skills

Spirit guide - The Stag: the stag is a symbol of intuition, grace, independence and sacrifice. The stag represents the connection with nature. In many traditions, the stag is a sacred sign, a guide between the worlds, often linked to hunting and spiritual rebirth.

Gawain

Personality: thoughtful, loyal and kind-hearted. He is among the most moral of the group.

Characteristics: he has a strong bond with Galahad and Dagonet; he often shows empathy towards the weakest and most civilized.

Fighting style: agile and precise, he mainly uses a short sword and a bow.

Appearance: he has long brown hair, short beard. He is also recognizable for his attentive and thoughtful look.

Age: Enlisted at 13, after 15 years he is 28

Nickname - "The Tenacious": represents courage and honor, protective and practical.

Guiding Spirit - The Eagle: the eagle symbolizes clear vision, nobility and protection. The eagle is a predator, but also a guardian who watches from above, clearly seeing what others do not see. It is a symbol of great mental and physical strength, but also of a balance between justice and compassion. The eagle does not dive easily, but when it does, it does so with determination and grace.

Bors

Personality: Rough, blunt, comical but incredibly loyal.

Traits: Father of numerous children (often mentioned, with only one with a name, Gyllis, made with a Sarmatian woman named Vanora); embodies the rough but golden-hearted warrior.

Fighting Style: Brutal and powerful, fights with two battle axes.

Appearance: Burly, bushy beard, often dirty and unkempt. His speech is colorful.

Age: Enlisted at 15, after 15 years he is 30

Nickname - “The Savage”: Rough, golden-hearted, loud, vulgar, full of love for his family

Spirit Guide - Rhinoceros: The Rhinoceros represents endurance, protection and unwavering determination. The Rhinoceros is a solitary animal, but knows when to band together to fight. This guiding spirit is reflected in Bors's strong sense of loyalty and his ability to face any battle with tenacity and strength. The rhino may seem clumsy, but he is agile when necessary, and his inner strength is his gift.

Dagonet

Personality: Silent, protective, almost paternal towards the younger ones.

Characteristics: Extremely brave, he is willing to sacrifice himself for his companions.

Fighting style: He wields a huge double-headed axe and a shield; he prefers close combat.

Appearance: Massive, with a dark beard and a serious look. He has a solemn and calm aura.

Age: Enlisted at 15, after 15 years he is 30

Nickname - "The Shield": Silent, protective, he sacrifices himself for others.

Spirit Guide - The Snake: The snake is a symbol of transformation, intuition and resilience. An animal that may seem dangerous and mysterious, but which also brings knowledge and healing. The snake is a symbol of continuous renewal, as it sheds its skin to grow, representing the ability to adapt to changes without fear.

Lancelot

Personality: Sarcastic, romantic and philosophical. He is Arthur's main sidekick.

Characteristics: He has a very close relationship with Arthur; he is one of the most skilled and respected knights.

Fighting style: He uses two curved swords (similar to scimitars), which he wields with incredible skill and speed.

Appearance: Elegant, with dark hair, often with a light beard; he has the air of an ironic thinker.

Age: Enlisted at 13, after 15 years he is 28

Nickname - "The Lion": famous for his strength and courage.

Spirit Guide - The Lion: The Lion is the symbol of strength, courage and natural authority. Lancelot, like the lion, is a leader, capable of performing heroic acts, but also deeply solitary. The lion is the king of the savannah, but brings with him a great loneliness. Lancelot’s ability to fight and lead is tied to this powerful spirit, but his vulnerability to loneliness and the burden of duty is also a key part of this connection.

Arthur

Personality: noble, tormented, idealistic. He has a strong sense of honor, justice and responsibility towards his role and his men.

Origins: he is a Romano-British officer, son of a British mother and a Roman father. He is the leader of the Sarmatian knights, which he leads with respect and brotherhood.

Motivations: initially tied to duty towards Rome, but as time passes he clashes with the corruption of the Empire and embraces the defense of Britannia and its people. His faith falls into the words of Pelagius, that is, the incarnation of ideals of freedom, moral responsibility and hope.

Fighting style: expert with the long sword, gifted with great technique, charisma and military strategy. He is a true commander in the field.

Appearance: dark hair, short beard, marked but determined face. He wears a distinct armor, halfway between the Roman and Celtic styles.

Age: Enlisted at 15, after 15 years he is 30

Nickname - “The Dreamer”/”The Roman King”: Leader, half Roman, half British, embodiment of duty and doubt. The only Roman considered worthy by the pagans.

Relationship between the knights 

Even if every knights would have their life for the others, there are some relationships that stand out.

Arthur & Lancelot

They respect each other, even if they are often tense. Arthur is an idealistic dreamer, while Lancelot is a devoted skeptic: he follows him, questioning everything.

Gawain & Galahad

Given Galahad's young age, it is possible that the knights have developed an instinct to protect him, especially Gawain. The two are seen to have a close brotherly relationship.

Gawain is more practical and protective, while Galahad is more idealistic.

They support each other in battle and seek each other out in difficult times. Gawain can speak for Galahad (as seen when Galahad is worried about the delay in the delivery of freedom from the bishop and Gawain comforts him or when Arthur requests their help for a last mission and Gawain promises Galahad's support.)

Bors & Dagonet

Intimate and silent bond. Bors talks too much, and Dagonet almost never, but you can feel the family affection between them. Bors trusts Dagonet with his vulnerability: he values ​​him as the noblest among them, despite his simplicity. Also, they could come from the same nomadic Sarmatian camp.

Tristan & Arthur

Tristan is Arthur's silent guardian, shadow and protector. Arthur trusts him blindly. Tristan is the observer of the group.

Timeline 

Around 415 AD - Birth of the Knights

The knights were born between 410 and 420 AD, in the Sarmatian steppes. They were the sons of warriors and knights, in a context of war and tensions with Rome.

Their services were promised to the Romans because of the strength of their ancestors, forced to fight for 15 years in the service of the capital of the Empire, before they could receive a pass that would allow them to return to their homes.

Around 427 AD - Forced enlistment

At around 12-15 years old, they were taken from their homes to respect the treaty between the Roman Empire and the Sarmatians. They were trained in Vindolanda or along Hadrian's Wall.

We can say that Roman commanders could choose their warriors, among all those who were present.

Arthur Cassus, one of the best Roman warriors, had the right to choose his warriors at the age of 15.

We can say that he chooses Tristan, Bors, Dagonet, Lancelot, Gawain and Galahad from the training camp, along with the knights who do not survive the battles they fight. We can also assume that Galahad is the youngest of all.

Between 428 and 443 AD - Training and Battles

In addition to the training they endured on Hadrian's Wall, they trained together, forging a deep brotherhood, based mostly on survival, war and loss.

Although they fight for Rome, they develop disillusionment and resentment towards the Empire, while remaining loyal to Arthur.

Around 445 AD

They reach the end of their service, awaiting the promised release.

[project-71]

Welcome everyone to our little project - Alpha-71!

(Or Alphaverse, as we like to call it)

Featuring modern-day combat/warfare, more than one hell, furries, monsters, war and terrorism, Alpha-71 revolves around the story of Alpha-71, a Private Military Company (PMC) and it's most valuable team, Bravo Team. Also known as The Headhunters.

But we still have a lot to uncover to know how Alpha-71 formed, how their members got to where they are, and who the other organizations, armies, terrorists groups and cults are.

But first, let me introduce you to the main three factions of the Alphaverse:

ALPHA-71

Our protagonists. Initially formed from rogue AERO operators as a Task Force specialized in Counter-Terrorism and "Peacekeeping", Alpha-71 soon grew as years passed and converted to a Private Military Company.

Feared by their ruthless and merciless tactics, Bravo Team AKA The Headhunters are the top of the chart in Alpha-71's ranks. Conformed from operatives from various countries, some new, some since the funding of Alpha-71, The Headhunters are the tip of the spear and the best soldiers money can buy.

With a mysterious and anonymous leader known only as "Alan", Alpha-71 is mostly run by him from the shadows. Some are curious and skeptical of "Alan" being a real person, from his last sighting being almost more than two decades ago, As a former AERO operator.

But who or what is AERO? You may ask.

AERO

(Heavily inspired by the SCP Foundation, converted to our own little thing for creative freedom)

The Anomalous Entity Research Organization (AERO) has been around for more than sixty years, protecting, abducting and making sure civilians don't see the ugly side of nature.

AERO started as a branch of the UN Peacekeeping Forces in 1947 but voted to be separated into an independent organization in 1956, making it 77 years old. (68 as an independant organization)

Locking up anomalous individuals for either research, termination or cooperation, the ranks of AERO are made up of Cooperative Anomalous Individuals (C.A.I.), former special forces and/or secret service operators, which most of them are working in complete anonymity provided by the organization itself.

Equipped with cutting-edge technology and gear, AERO operators are fearsome and intimidating by their advantages in technology during a Human-Human-Encounter or the most common one, A Human-Anomaly-Encounter. Most if not all of this gear comes from MAЯ (Multi-National Armory Resources).

EXPURGATION INSURGENCY

Classified as a terrorist group, the Expurgation Insurgency (E.I.) is a cultist group with still unknown beliefs. Spies planted by Alpha-71 and/or AERO have documented their members being forced to attend to rituals where they are suspected to summon anomalous individuals.

Their agents are cultists, though most of their low-level soldiers are exchanged soldiers from countries they occupy. They usually settle in devolping and/or corrupt countries as these countries are less likely to strike them down. Sometimes forming diplomatic/military relations with the countries they occupy. Stablishing supply lines of gear for their soldiers.

If they want to have some kind settlement in countries that don't want them, they will try to overthrow it, mostly happens in countries which have some kind of anti-goverment rebellion that aligns with the Insurgent's apparent ideology (or maybe just their needs at the moment) such as during the events of Operation Valkleim Down where they help the Cartel take over the country, not only giving them access to the Sea Of Azov but also headquarters in the heart of Eastern Europe for expansion of underground operations in Ukraine and mainland Russia.

•🦈 Main Character bios coming next post! •🐱

[blastnews]

NATO said for the first time about North Korean military in the SMO zone

North Korean soldiers have been sent to the Kursk region to help the Russian army liberating its territory and this should be ‘immediately put an end to’. This was stated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on 28th October.

‘Kiev's military seized parts of Kursk in August in an operation that marked the first military offensive into Russian territory since World War II. Pyongyang's battlefield assistance to Russian President Vladimir Putin alarmed Western allies, with Rutte pointing to the North Korean deployment as a ‘dangerous expansion’ of the conflict,’ Politico said in a publication.

In fact, the AFU with foreign mercenaries did not enter Kursk, as Politico writes, but occupied part of the Kursk region.

‘I can confirm that North Korean troops have been sent to Russia and North Korean military units have been sent to the Kursk region,’ the new NATO secretary-general told reporters shortly after meeting with a senior South Korean intelligence official.

Rutte added that Moscow's deployment of North Korean troops means ‘a significant escalation of the DPRK's ongoing involvement in Russia's illegal war’ and ‘a dangerous expansion of Russia's war.’

The NATO secretary-general also said, the publication noted, that the deployment of North Korean soldiers in the Russian region shows Russia's weakness and is ‘a sign of Putin's growing desperation.’

Earlier, on 17th October, Volodymyr Zelensky even named a specific number of North Korean soldiers who, in his opinion, would fight in Ukraine on the side of the Russian Armed Forces - 10 000 people.

A day later, South Korean intelligence published a press release in which it claimed that 1.5 thousand soldiers from the DPRK were allegedly already at Russian training grounds in the Far East - in Vladivostok, Ussuriysk, Khabarovsk and Blagoveshchensk.

Both Moscow and Pyongyang denied the allegations, saying they were ‘groundless stereotypical rumours’ aimed at tarnishing the image of the DPRK and Russia and undermining the legitimate, friendly and partnership relations between them.

In an interview with journalist Olga Skabeyeva, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that ‘if there are pictures, it means they reflect something’ and recalled Article 4 of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between Russia and the DPRK, which provides for military assistance to the other side that has been attacked.

Source: ukraina.ru

Picture: illustrative

[davidshawnsown]

Chilean Army 1st Cav Regt (Grenadiers)

Part of my Ukrainian War Universe

IMU the tensions in Peru and the ongoing armed forces modernization in Argentina under Millei, as well as Bolivian threats to the north and a growing pivot to BRICS, would lead to a renewed expansion of the Chilean Armed Forces planned under the final months of the late Sebastian Pinera presidency and now starting to bear fruit under Gabriel Boric who was the only leftist leader in South America to speak out in support of Ukraine to counteract all these especially given the leftist attitudes in Peru against the rightist presidency of the past years especially in the country's south.

IRL it is a one squadron/battalion (termed Group) regiment that maintains traditions of the Chilean Army cavalry and its a mainly mounted formation that for nearly two centuries, off an on, has provided the mounted travelling escort to the presidency and in wartime is operationally controlled by the 3rd Mountain Division. It also provides guards of honor for state visits. It reports as part of the Santiago Garrison Command alongside the 1st MP Regiment.

IMU such a commitment would allow thus the regiment to have a mixed role as both presidential guard and as a combat formation with two out of its 8 squadrons - the seventh being the training squadron OPCON under the Equestrian School in Quilotta's Camp San Isidro and the 8th being the dismounted honors squadron that provides dismounted public duties in the capital - being mounted ceremonial cavalry and the 3rd being mountain recon that in wartime is a part of the 3rd Division alongside the other two. All of the groups have a conscript company in keeping with the Chilean practice of conscription in the armed forces (the 4th armored group has two). The three mounted groups also have a veternary unit.

The Honors Group also hosts the Cuadro Negro exhibition team - a formation IMU mixed with personnel of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in the 4th Division, since it is where it had been originated.

The 1st Group also hosts a vehicle company, motorbike company to provide force multipliers to the Carabineros in presidential events and a coach squadron which takes care of the presidential horse drawn coaches and the presidential cars.

Unlike the lancers IRL, each of the ceremonial mounted squadrons are organized as lancers and dragoons/mounted rifles to mirror the historical Chilean cavalry of years goneby. The mounted recon squadons of 3rd Group are trained as combat soldiers only - while the 2 other groups are trained in both combat operations and ceremonial roles, alongside the Horse Artillery Group of the Tacna Regiment - IMU a regimental OPCON unit in ceremonial events only due to its use of horses.

The regiment's other combat capabilities are 4 armoured groups - 2 armored and 1 cavalry and mechanized infantry each in support of elements of the 2nd Infantry Division (Mot) and the Santiago Garrison Command. The 1st Armored Group, which uses MBTs, operates M60s and Leopard 1s, the 2nd is a light formation armed with M10 Bookers, the 3rd is an armored cav unit with Marder 2s and the nationally produced MOWAG Piranhas via FAMAE which performs recon and light attack roles and the 4th is the largest of the groups performing mechanized infantry roles in a mix of IFVs and APCs in support of the cavalry and armor, with the M3 Bradley, M59s, Marder 2s and the Centauros in assault gun role also to provide support to the combat elements of the 2nd Division's two BCTs.

@lukeexplorer

[real-total-drama-takes]

Intro to Ukraine

Ukraine

Head Of Government: Prime Minister: Denys Shmyhal

Capital: Kyiv (Kiev)

Population: (2022 est.) 43,637,000

Head Of State: President: Volodymyr Zelen

Russia

Head Of Government: Prime Minister: Mikhail Mishustin

Capital: Moscow

Population: (2022 est.) 143,377,000

Head Of State: President: Vladimir Putin

Lead up to the invasion.

October 2021.

In October 2021, months of intelligence gathering and observations of Russian troop movements, force build-up, and military contingency financing culminated in a White House briefing with U.S. intelligence, military, and diplomatic leaders on a near-certain mass-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Nov/Dec 2021

In the days and weeks leading up to the invasion, the Joe Biden administration made the unconventional decision to reduce information-sharing constraints and allow for the broader dissemination of intelligence and findings, both with allies—including Ukraine—and publicly.

The goal of this strategy was to bolster allied defenses and dissuade Russia from taking aggressive action.

Commercial satellite imagery, social media posts, and published intelligence from November and December 2021 showed armor, missiles, and other heavy weaponry moving toward Ukraine with no official explanation from the Kremlin.

Dec-Jan 2021/22

By the end of 2021, more than one hundred thousand Russian troops were in place near the Russia-Ukraine border, with U.S. intelligence officials warning of a Russian invasion in early 2022.

Dec 2021

In mid-December 2021, Russia’s foreign ministry called on the United States and NATO to:

● cease military activity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

● commit to no further NATO expansion toward Russia

● prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in the future.

The United States and other NATO allies rejected these demands and threatened to impose severe economic sanctions if Russia took aggressive action against Ukraine.

February 2022

On February 24, 2022, when Russian forces invaded a largely unprepared Ukraine after Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized a “special military operation” against the country.

In his statement, Putin claimed that the goal of the operation was to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine and end the alleged genocide of Russians in Ukrainian territory.

Background Info

The Soviet Union

In 1918, a year after Russia’s communist revolution, Ukraine declared independence, but in 1921, the Red Army conquered most of it and Ukraine became a republic within the Soviet Union.

Following the end of World War I, former foreign minister Sergei Sazonov, remarked, “As for Ukraine, it does not exist. Even the word is artificial and a foreign import. There is a Little Russia, there is no Ukraine . . . The Ukrainian movement is nothing but a reaction against the abuses of the bureaucracy and of Bolshevism.”

Putin’s view of Russia

He interprets Russia’s purpose and role in world politics through an imperialist frame and believes that it should dominate others; he believes powerful countries dominating large regions is a norm, not as a thing of the past.

- nat5 mods anon

(Finally got to the new topic! Unfortunately the slideshow we got is a bit dissapointing.)

.

[usafphantom2]

Ukrainian success in Crimea attributed to AWACS, spy satellites and NATO drones

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 09/27/2023 - 09:00am in Military, War Zones

American and NATO early warning aircraft (AWACS), Poseidon surveillance planes and high-altitude drones provide persistent information to the Ukrainian Army command, leading to a situation where the highly protected Crimean Peninsula is being attacked at will.

A part of the Russian media lamented that the dominance of the West in the collection of information, which operates from the Black Sea borders without meddling in Russian territory, is allowing the Ukrainian military to "see" detailed activities of the Russian armed forces, both on the front lines and in the rear.

The attack on the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol last week, along with a previous attack that caused great damage to a ship and submarine under repair, is a testimony to the superiority of information of the NATO-led Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia, as reported by the website topcor.ru.

In addition, through the use of aerospace reconnaissance capabilities, NATO can meticulously supervise the actions and movements of the Russian military, discerning even details such as the types of aircraft taking off and the specific missiles launched. This vital information is promptly transmitted to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, providing them with a substantial advantage in operational awareness both on the battlefield and in the rear areas, according to the report.

In the first eighteen months in the Northern Military District, Russian ground forces faced these challenges. With the support of voluntary organizations and civil society, Russia has partially mitigated the shortcomings in tactical drones and secure communications. The focus then shifted to the fight against NATO's AWACS, Poseidons and Global Hawks.

In 2022, the Russian Aerospace Forces had three A-50 AWACS and six A-50U aircraft modernized, with another A-50U recently delivered by Rostec. The updated A-50U improves the detection capabilities of air, land and sea targets, with reduced weight, extended flight range and mission duration.

The A-50U, similar to a mushroom-shaped radar on an Il-76 base, tracks up to 300 aerial targets, detects enemy bombers at 650 km and cruise missiles at 215 km. The expansion of its use to increase situational awareness would require more aircraft, as well as the deployment of Tu-214R aircraft, although with limited supply.

Beriev A-50U aircraft being escorted by two MiG-31 interceptors.

Rostec said that the new AWACS aircraft can detect new types of aircraft and track more targets and guided fighters simultaneously than the previous modification (A-50). This newly delivered aircraft is lighter and has better range.

Russia also has about two dozen Il-20 radio reconnaissance aircraft, and there is potential in the versatile "Sych" reconnaissance container. Mass production and the deployment of Sych radars on suitable aircraft carriers could solve the shortage of reconnaissance.

The report concludes that addressing recognition needs through increased deployment of A-50U and Tu-214R aircraft, as well as mass-production Sych radars, presents a viable solution.

Tags: Military AviationNATO - North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationWar Zones - Russia/Ukraine

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Daytona Airshow and FIDAE. He has work published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. Uses Canon equipment during his photographic work throughout the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Romania seeks parliamentary approval to buy 32 F-35 jets for $6.5 billion

27/09/2023 - 08:24

MILITARY

Lockheed Martin conducts first flight of the U-2 Dragon Lady with avionics technology update

26/09/2023 - 20:06

EMBRAER

Super Tucano world fleet reaches the mark of 550,000 flight hours

26/09/2023 - 18:01

MILITARY

Finland will buy Patria's Hawk simulator for future F-35 flight training

09/26/2023 - 16:00

ARMAMENTS

USAF selects Northrop Grumman for SiAW missile development for F-35

26/09/2023 - 14:00

MILITARY

USAF's first female fighter pilot retires

09/26/2023 - 08:29

[mariacallous]

In a new interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, President Volodymyr Zelensky argued that nuclear weapons could be a sufficient security guarantee for Ukraine if the nation isn’t granted immediate NATO membership. Zelensky also reasoned that Russian troops should withdraw from every inch of Ukrainian territory if the alliance abandons its expansion plans (after which Kyiv would raise the issue of financial compensation for all its losses). Speaking through an interpreter, Zelensky told Morgan:

Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then, let them give us nuclear weapons. Will they give us the missiles in the quantities [needed to] stop Russia? I’m not sure of that, but I think it would help. Otherwise, what missiles can stop Russia’s nuclear missiles? That’s a rhetorical question. So, let’s do it the following way: Give us back nuclear arms. Give us missile systems. Partners, help us finance the one-million[-man] army, move your contingent on the parts of our state where we want the stability of the situation, so that the people have tranquility.

Later in the interview, Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine lacks the means to liberate all occupied territories, saying that the West’s assistance has been “insufficient” to drive out Russian troops.

Responding to the Ukrainian president’s remarks about nuclear weapons, Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Zelensky “a madman who sees the planet as a stage for his deranged fantasies.”

Ukrainian officials have repeatedly argued that NATO membership is Kyiv’s “only real security guarantee” against continued Russian aggression. Before returning to the White House last month, Donald Trump said he sympathized with Moscow’s opposition to NATO expansion into Ukraine. “Then Russia has somebody [NATO] right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feelings about that,” Trump said, ignoring the fact that the NATO member states already border Russia in Norway, the Baltics, Poland, and most recently Finland. 

Ukraine turned over its Soviet nuclear weapons stockpiles under the Budapest Memorandum, signed in December 1994. The document — signed by Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States — guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. 

[tomorrowusa]

What Putin is doing in Ukraine is not just reckless, not just a war of choice, not just an invasion in a class of its own for overreach, mendacity, immorality and incompetence, all wrapped in a farrago of lies. What he is doing is evil. He has trumped up any number of shifting justifications — one day it was removing a Nazi regime in power in Kyiv, the next it was preventing NATO expansion, the next it was fending off a Western cultural invasion of Russia — for what ultimately was a personal flight of fancy that now requires his superpower army turning to North Korea for help. It’s like the biggest bank in town having to ask the local pawnshop for a loan. So much for Putin’s bare-chested virility.

[ ... ]

Putin lately has stopped even bothering to justify the war — maybe because even he is too embarrassed to utter aloud the nihilism that his actions scream: If I can’t have Ukraine, I’ll make sure Ukrainians can’t have it, either.

[ … ]

This is as obvious a case of right versus wrong, good versus evil, as you find in international relations since World War II.

[ … ]

Ukraine needs to inflict as much damage on Putin’s army as fast as possible. That means we need to massively and rapidly deliver the weaponry Ukraine needs to break Putin’s lines in the country’s southeast. I’m talking the kitchen sink: F-16s; mine-clearing equipment; more Patriot antimissile systems; MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems, which could strike deep behind Russian lines — whatever the Ukrainians can use effectively and fast.

— New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, just back from a visit to Kyiv. (archived)

If you're in the US, contact your representative in the House and urge him/her to support the proposed $24 billion in aid to Ukraine.

Representatives | house.gov

If you have the misfortune to be represented by a dumb-ass MAGA zombie like Matt Gaetz and they say no, write back and ask: "Why do you hate freedom?"

Wars don't end just because people in third countries get bored with them.