Totally Agree ...

 ... which is strange because it is from The Telegraph))

The EU’s top diplomat is a gift to the Kremlin. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, knows all too well that nothing is more fatal for the future of Ukraine than disunity among Kyiv’s Western allies. “Russia wants to see the US and Europe divided,” she warned back in March. “Let’s not give them that.” Yet now, as the grim process of thrashing out a real peace deal gets under way, the US and Europe could hardly be further apart. And it’s Europe’s refusal to face reality that is to blame. While Kallas and other European leaders talk among themselves, stripping out all the most painful bits of Trump’s 28 point peace plan, the real negotiations are taking place between Moscow, Washington and Beijing. Europe is not at the table even as the future security architecture of the Continent is being hammered out. Rather than engaging with the ugly reality of talking to the Russians, Kallas and her fellow European leaders have chosen ideological purity over practical diplomacy.

Hey, hey, hey, The Telegraph, stop making sense all of a sudden. Your rag was at the forefront of anti-Russia hysteria and then suddenly something changed? Oh, we know what changed. You lost the war while Russians are very good at keeping records. And now, with Russia's funds (which most likely are already not there) the final blow to NATO and EU is coming ... from the United States itself. 

Read Larry's excellent piece on new National Security Strategy properly titled: Trump files for divorce from NATO over Ukraine The new US National Security Strategy signals a massive foreign policy shift; it remains to be seen if Washington is serious about it.  It is an excellent piece, which really comes well together with Dmitry Orlov's overview of this whole clustercoitus with Russia's funds. Here is the summary:

1. Ukraine is on its last legs, guaranteed to lose the war, its army melting away and its government mired in corruption scandals. Throwing more money at the Ukrainian financial black hole would be simply a waste.

2. Frozen Russian sovereign funds held by Euroclear are in the form of eurobonds. If the EU stole this money, it would simply be refusing to pay back $300 billion of its own debt. This would not give it any money (it has already spent the Russian money which was used to buy these bonds) but it would certainly hurt its financial position and complicate further borrowing and deficit financing.

3. The EU would gain nothing, but it would lose actual, real money and brick and mortar assets it had built up in Russia, including any future profits from them and any future role in the Russian economy.

Perhaps the brain trust of the EU that has hatched this very interesting plan to steal Russia's money consists of Russian agents. Or perhaps they are just a bunch of idiots. You be the judge.

Really difficult to add anything other than to agree with The Telegraph that people like Kallas (a majority of Euro elites) is a gift which keeps on giving and Russians love it--keeps the circus alive for longer while Europe descends into complete irrelevance:

MOSCOW, December 6. /TASS/. Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev agrees with Elon Musk that the European Union should be abolished in order to return sovereignty to its member countries. "Exactly," the Russian politician wrote in a comment to Musk's corresponding publication in X. Earlier, Musk wrote that "the EU should be abolished, and individual countries should be returned sovereignty so that states can better represent their people."

The experiment failed, because it was built around mythical idea of globalism and inability to learn from the history. Europe failed to learn anything from WW II. Time to pay the bills. More than six years ago while commenting on Irina Alksnis excellent piece I wrote:

I always said--genuine superpowers move in their own world and they have their very own, unique, complexes and "disabilities" only other superpowers can understand, even when being enemies. Irina Alksnis completely and masterfully conveyed this in her article.    

EU is not superpower, the US and Russia are, make your own conclusions. 

This IS Offramp ...

 ... each time he and the US are offered it--he comes back to the square one (because his masters demand so) and he gets himself deeper and deeper into the excrement, especially considering the fact that the US simply ran out of not military options only, but material ones as well. 

Trump may now abandon both Russia and Ukraine. Donald Trump is caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock, which is vast and apparently unable to move, is Russia. The hard place is Ukraine, and the European countries standing resolutely beside it. The US president had promised to settle the war within 24 hours of taking office, later extending that to 100 days. But it has now been some 317 days since his second inauguration, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows no signs of slowing. The US president has flirted with both punishing Moscow and Kyiv for obstructing his attempts to settle the almost four-year war. With Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner returning to Washington without a deal, a decision will have to be made over what comes next from an American perspective.

When even rabidly anti-Russian The Telegraph gets it, then Trump simply has NO choice. Or rather--do what you said before on board of Air Force One--let them "fight it out". That's the only "deal" he can get and ... the offramp. I want to remind again the words of Field-Marshal Paulus at Nuremberg: 

At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Goering's lawyer ironically remarked that, while in captivity, Field Marshal Paulus lectured on strategy at the Soviet Higher Military Academy named after K. E. Voroshilov (which in fact did not happen). Paulus, who was present at the meeting as a witness, replied: "The Soviet strategy was so far superior to ours that the Russians could hardly need me, even to teach at the school for non-commissioned officers. The best proof of this is the outcome of the battle on the Volga, as a result of which I was taken prisoner, and also the fact that all these gentlemen are sitting here in the dock." A more devastating assessment of the criminal strategists of Nazi Germany, perhaps, cannot be made!

Russians have a joke (and it is really not a joke)--fighting Russia is like fighting one huge advanced military academy attached to one huge military-industrial plant. Ben Hodges doesn't know military history, he also doesn't have a grasp of operations be that in WW II or in 2025.

Daniel simply stomped on him. Good Lord, this was a SACEUR. BTW, still haven't heard back from Mario Nawfal about, now questionable, my "debate" with Bed Hodges. One can only hope)) Meanwhile--countries, like people, love victors, especially if the victor is rich. Before that those were just negotiations, now, as WSJ reports, it is an offer from Sudan. 

Sudan’s government, based in the interim capital Port Sudan, has offered Russia its first naval base in Africa and investments in the mining sector, particularly gold, in exchange for weapons, according to US and Sudanese sources. According to Sudanese officials who spoke to the newspaper, the offer includes a 25-year agreement allowing Moscow to deploy up to 300 soldiers and four warships, including nuclear-powered vessels, in Port Sudan or another naval facility on the Red Sea.

Keep in mind WHAT kind of weapons those ships carry. 

Make your own conclusions. I'll help you. 

This is the range of hypersonic 3M22 Zircon. The range of 3M14M is ... three times longer. 

Yes, Absolutely))

 "Putin's Forces" are bad)). Yes, that's what The Telegraph rag states. 

Putin’s forces are actually barely above Third World level: So, Donald Trump has recently said that the US military would be part of Ukrainian security in the event of a peace deal, offering “very good protection”. Then, shortly after, he said there would be no US “boots on the ground”. Is this just shilly-shallying? No, actually. The fact is that the USA is perfectly capable of crippling the Russian military, on its own, without the use of nuclear weapons and without the need for a single US boot to touch Ukrainian soil – probably without any large number of US aviators needing to enter Ukrainian airspace, even.

Absolutely, just send in this guy. He'll show those damn Russkies.

But the reality is much more prosaic. This piece is written by this guy))

Ah, what do you know--the guy is a part of Revolver and Pistol Club. So he knows everything about war)) In reality, he is a typical British tabloid hack with an acute case of butthurt and the only way he can vent the frustration from impotence is the same way as this imbecile from the same Telegraph. Remember him?

Yes, and sweeping is now in its conclusive phase, but then again, combined arms warfare is not a strong forte of the British Armed Forces. Come to think about--there are no strong fortes at all, and this is the main reason why these losers go around and parade themselves as clowns that they are, including in the publication which I wouldn't suggest to use as a toilet paper in times of crisis. 

The Telegraph, LOL))

Being British "elite" nowadays is not fun. You are the butt of the jokes and constantly embarrass yourself as a military amateur. 

Royal Navy submarines have suffered a few mishaps recently, but the country’s Trident programme shows we’re still a potent threat. Despite the vessels’s age, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who served in the Royal Navy for 37 years from 1972 to 2008, agrees completely with the Prime Minister’s view that despite their age, the Trident submarines really do worry the Russians. “One Trident submarine has the ability to incinerate 40 Russian cities very quickly. That is a lot of food for thought for Putin and that should make any world leader fearful,” he tells The Telegraph.

No, you are not! Because the credibility of a deterrent comes from two things:

1. Its total independence from other party in terms of its production and deployment.

2. Constant confirmation of its technical (euphemism for combat) readiness. 

UK does not meet any of these criteria. Royal Navy's SSBNs carry only four SLBMs in their tubes. Obviously, UK doesn't have full control of US produced SLBMs Trident II D5. The latest attempt by RN's SSBN to launch (first time in 8 years) one of its Tridents ended up in snafu. And then, the game of SSNs and SSKs starts (in Biscay as an example) where French and British SSBNs patrol primarily, but there is another thing--it is called Early Warning and ABM--UK has neither. In fact, most of UK command corps doesn't have enough qualifications to grasp that:

1. All 40 MIRVs from UK sub if it manages somehow to survive to launch will have to meet Russian ABM--it ranges from full capability against ICBMs MIRVs as A-235 Nudol to S-500 and S-550, all of which are in serial production. 

2. Russia can burn, in her turn, 40 British cities even without nukes, while a single salvo by any Borei-class SSBN can turn every military installation of significance in the Air Strip One into ash. 

Russians, unlike British, do not fight civilians and Russia's nuclear doctrine is honed primarily for Counterforce, not Countervalue. But if London insists, 160 hypersonic maneuvering blocks from a single Borei (Russia has 9 of them plus other delivery systems) can multiply UK as a whole (using Russian parlance) by 0. In other words, such a country will simply cease to exist. I am sure Admiral Perry knows what Search Theory and ASW are in the year of 2025 and, frankly, UK will have neither Navy nor Patrol Aviation by the time the only patrolling RN's SSBN will be detected, tracked and sunk. But in the end, Mr. Poseidon has its own ideas on how to deal with that. But what do I know, really. What do I know ... 

When You Have No Self-Respect.

That would apply to these "military experts" in UK who pretend that they are slightly more than terrorists and have a grasp of war and applied geopolitics. Remember this cretin? 

He is back at it again)))

Ukraine is humiliating Putin at the worst possible moment. 

The new year brings rather more hope to President Zelensky than Vladimir Putin, I judge. The latter may have been a brilliant spy but is being exposed as a dreadful military commander. He has forgotten, or more likely is unaware of, the principles of warfare, most especially the one that says reinforce success not failure. With his three-week special military operation now approaching its fourth year, it seems most likely that Zelensky will still be in power this time next year and Putin’s best hope may be a villa in North Korea or breaking rocks in the Urals. Russian history does not paint a rosy picture for failed dictators.

The NATO militaries, including the US Army generals paraded themselves throughout the SMO as nothing more than credentialed amateurs, who can operate only on templates created on utterly false premises from history to technology. But even considering the fact that British tabloids are just that, a BS peddlers, one has to ask the question, with CV like that: 

What do you expect? Exactly. But when one has no elementary self-respect and NATO armies and fleets are commanded by people with degrees in agriculture, biology or God forbids, journalism, no number of hours in some staff college is going to address a gaping hole in professional military education and integrity which comes with Esprit de corps--a thing beyond the grasp of British military, a demoralized, shrinking lilliputian force which is shown its true miniscule scale by the enemy British loved to hate since 18th century. 

About Those Land Corridors...

 ... much ado about nothing. Media also want to eat.

Nato is developing multiple “land corridors” to rush US troops and armour to the front lines in the event of a major European ground war with Russia. American soldiers would land at one of five ports and be channelled along pre-planned logistical routes to confront a possible attack by Moscow, officials told The Telegraph. It comes amid warnings from the Alliance’s top leaders that Western governments must prepare themselves for a conflict with Russia in the next two decades. Logistical routes have become a key priority since Nato leaders agreed to prepare 300,000 troops to be kept in a state of high readiness to defend the alliance at a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, last year. Existing plans have US troops landing at Dutch ports before boarding trains that transport them through Germany and onwards to Poland.

When I say they are incompetent amateurs in NATO I now wholeheartedly mean it. Get a load of this, LOL))

If Nato forces entering from the Netherlands are hit by Russian bombardment, or northern European ports destroyed, the alliance is set to shift focus to ports in Italy, Greece and Turkey. From Italian ports, US troops could be carried via land through Slovenia, Croatia to Hungary, which shares a border with Ukraine. Similar plans exist to transport forces from Turkish and Greek ports through Bulgaria and Romania to reach the alliance’s eastern flank.

These clowns obviously need basic arithmetic for calculating the "weight" of Russian missile salvo which is enough to take out any possible port of disembarkation of NATO troops and of completely paralyzing SLOC (Shipping Lanes of Communication) including by means of sinking any ships carrying troops. I posted this piece a few years back, it is worth reminding these "planners" that they better face the music. 

While Metrick does a good job describing an effect of a salvo of tens of 3M14 missiles on Bremenhaven as a main "unloading point" of arriving NATO reinforcements to attack Russia (yes, namely this way, not the other way around), he is incorrect in assuming that such an asset as Project 885 Yasen-class SSGNs will be involved in striking European ports--for that Russia has more than enough 3M14 and X-101s loaded on a fleet of missile corvettes, SSKs and strategic bombers of Tu-160 and Tu-95 variety. The first salvo from these assets may involve up to 150-200 long range cruise missiles--all of them within the range of any European port capable to receive reinforcements from the US. Yasens are a different breed--they are specifically designed for operations on SLOC, their own ASW (against NATO subs) and, finally, these are dedicated CBGs killers, more so than even monstrous Oscar-II (Project 949A) SSGNs. Next year, first launch of hypersonic 3M22 Zircon is planned from one of the Yasen-class subs. This weapon changes calculus of any war on the high seas completely.

Five years passed since then and Russian economy is firing on all cylinders outproducing NATO in everything, sometimes by the order of magnitude and especially so in standoff weapons. Because of that, even they noticed:

But after warnings that Nato only has 5 per cent of the necessary air defences to cover its eastern flank, the Jsec commander is concerned about surface-to-air capabilities to defend his key logistical hubs. “Observing and assessing the Russian war in Ukraine, we have observed Russia has attacked Ukraine’s logistics bases,” he said. “That must lead to the conclusion that it is clear that huge logistics bases, as we know it from Afghanistan and Iraq, are no longer possible because they will be attacked and destroyed very early on in a conflict situation.” “With regards to air defence... It’s always scarce. I cannot imagine a situation that you have enough air defence. That is a good example where a military principle applies: ‘If you want to be strong everywhere, you are strong nowhere.’”

Yes, they will be destroyed together with C3 structure with command top being killed either in disembarkation points, on the march or in tactical and operational rear. And, BTW, you CAN be strong nearly everywhere if you defend the country such as Russia, which knows war better than anyone else in the world. Spin, all the time, never-ending.

Good God, They Are That Stupid.

I am on record, worse than US journos are the British ones. All of them, without exception, are qualified only for discussing Meghan Markle's lingerie. Now, here is the example of a deliberate BS, which is funny especially coming from British tabloid. 

Russia has permanently lost the Arctic to NATO. 

A-ha-ha, LOL))) The argumentation in this piece is hilarious. 

Then Putin invaded Ukraine (again) and suddenly all eyes were back on the world’s strongest military alliance. It wasn’t long before the Arctic nations Sweden and Finland were asking to join. Once they join, every Arctic country except Russia will be a member of NATO. That matters for the same two reasons every maritime trade area in the world matters – routes and resources.

So, the guy thinks that economically insignificant Sweden and Finland joining NATO, with their brown water navies, will make any difference is delirious. With Finland's eight conventional powered ice-breaker fleet designed primarily for Baltic Sea, I am sure this will ensure Russia "losing" the Arctic. But most hilarious in this stream of consciousness is this, LOL)) 

What can the UK do in this environment?

I have news for this dude--NOTHING! UK has no resources nor experiences, with the exception of Arctic convoys in WW II and sending some of Royal Navy's SSNs, to do anything in the Arctic. Zilch, nada.  Remarkably, he admits:

In other words, the UK’s role in facing down Russia in the High North is much the same as it is everywhere; strong on soft power, diplomacy, science and technical expertise but with the bare minimum of military hardware to credibly back it up.

The UK's "soft power" is obviously a joke and it is about time London resigned itself to the fact of it being nothing more than the capital of a second tier (at best) power, in Arctic it is altogether is nothing and is absolutely powerless, even in the wet dreams.  It is especially preposterous to read this drivel from the former RN officer. But even larger issue here is WHY this drivel was written when the whole combined West's Arctic capabilities are still dwarfed by that of Russia's. 

Meanwhile, here is some serious news:

Indian refiners have started using Chinese yuan instead of US dollars to pay for some oil imports from Russia, Reuters reported on Monday, citing people with direct knowledge of the matter. According to the sources, India’s biggest buyer of Russian crude, Indian Oil Corp, became the first state refiner to pay for some Russian purchases in yuan last month. At least two of India’s three private refiners are also paying for some Russian imports in yuan, two other sources claimed. “Some refiners are paying in other currencies like yuan if banks are not willing to settle trade in dollars,” an unnamed Indian government source was quoted as saying. The sources noted it could not immediately be determined how much Russian oil Indian refiners have bought with yuan, adding that Indian Oil has paid in renminbi for multiple cargoes.

Make your own conclusions.