Herr Schroeder is in Moscow, as Spiegel reports.
Gerhard Schröder hält sich in Moskau auf. Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen soll es dabei um Gespräche zu Gaslieferungen durch die Pipeline Nord Stream 1 gehen. Er reiste via Baku nach Russland.
Translation: Gerhard Schröder is in Moscow. According to SPIEGEL information, the talks are about gas deliveries through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. He traveled to Russia via Baku.
Well, not so fast. Even considering Schroeder and Putin's long and friendly relations, the issue is more than just the ability to sustain Germany's economy, which, mind you, decided to kill it completely on its own. Russia didn't elect globalist elites in Germany, Germany did, and the time of excuses is over--once you made your bed, you must sleep in it. There is, of course, a possible twist to this NS1 "issue", which is, indeed, to a large degree technical--one must do maintenance of turbines--but there is a Nord Stream 2. Remember? The one which was shut down by cowards in Berlin under US pressure?
Germany surely can atone for her behavior by finding a spine, since NS2 is already filled with gas and has, surprise, surprise, Russian-made turbines which do not require going outside Russian jurisdiction and can be easily maintained. Get it? NS 1, however, delenda est. Well, for now, anyway, until remnants of Ukraine exist. Which brings us to this ever important issue of "strategery" and promised "offensive" by VSU. Let us go to RUSSIAN definition of OFFENSIVE which sounds from good ol' Great Soviet Encyclopedia (taken from Military one) as such:
Основной вид военных действий, осуществляется с целью разгрома противника и овладения важными рубежами или районами. Противник уничтожается огнем артиллерии, ударами авиации и другими средствами поражения, атакой танковых и мотострелковых войск. Обычно создается многократное превосходство в силах и средствах над противником на направлении главного удара. Перед Наступлением Проводится огневая подготовка атаки, а в ходе Наступления Огневая поддержка и огневое сопровождение наступающих войск..
Translation: the main type of military operations carried out with the aim of defeating the enemy and capturing important lines or areas. The enemy is destroyed by artillery fire, air strikes and other means of destruction, and attacks by tank and motorized rifle troops. Usually, a multi fold superiority in forces and means over the enemy is created in the direction of the main attack. Before the Offensive, fire preparation of the attack is carried out, and during the Offensive, fire support and fire escort of the advancing troops ..
Simple, isn't it? I can only quote my friend Colonel Trukhan in his assessment of Pentagon's "planning": "they are not going to out-think us". I agree with this and the Pentagon strategy from the get go was based on a completely false narratives and ignorance of Russia and her military thought. The idea from the inception was: by means of constant feed of Ukrainian cannon fodder and with supplies of Western technology, to ИЗМОТАТЬ--TO WEAR DOWN--Russian Army and while prepositioning of NATO forces at the Western borders of Russia. Boy, those generals in Pentagon, obviously, still live with their Al Bundy's "four touch-downs" in high school football moment of having more than half-a-year of prepositioning with impunity superior forces against third rate Arab military. They never, obviously, studied Russian operations, which by far surpass anything US Army ever saw, in WW II. Otherwise they would get a hint that Russians WILL always maintain strategic reserves, not just military, which WILL always allow the swing of any operation--be it offensive of counter-offensive to defeat any combination of forces.
So, now that Pentagon saw itself how real wars are fought and it dawned on it that 90% of Russian forces are held in reserve, those "planners", known for their military "art" from "glorious" Afghanistan "victory", begin to scratch their heads trying to remember that operations (and wars) are planned:
1. Using combat effectiveness when calculating a required force size (наряд сил) for specific objectives. And that is based on great ISR and ability to calculate REAL correlation of forces. This task was successfully FUBARed, traditionally I may add, by all those generals and spooks, who are still reliving their fifteen minutes of fame after beating a three-year old kid in the sand-box in 1991.
2. OFFENSIVE consists of STRIKES. Russian definition of STRIKE is this:
Удар (воен.) Удар (военное), непосредственное воздействие на противника средствами поражения и войсками с целью его уничтожения и достижения стратегического, оперативного или тактического результата. Различают У. войск (сил флота), ракетные, авиационные (бомбовые, бомбоштурмовые), артиллерийские, торпедные, а в случае применения ядерного оружия ? ядерные (ракетно-ядерные). Время, порядок нанесения У. в бою или операции и использование их результатов согласовываются между всеми силами, выполняющими общую задачу. Войска (силы флота) при выполнении боевой задачи могут наносить удары на нескольких направлениях. Одно из них, имеющее решающее значение для разгрома противника и выхода в район конечной цели операции (боя), является направлением главного У. На направлении главного У. создаётся решающее превосходство над противником в силах и средствах, обеспечивающее его поражение. Для нанесения главного У. создаётся ударная группировка войск (сил флота). В ходе боя и операции направления главного У. и вспомогательных У. могут изменяться. В зависимости от характера действий противника и времени нанесения У. он может быть ответным, встречным или упреждающим. По оперативному замыслу и способу осуществления У. войск бывают рассекающими, дробящими, концентрическими (наносятся по сходящимся направлениям); по выполнению частных оперативно-тактических целей ? демонстративными, ложными, отвлекающими.
Translation: Strike (military) Strike (military), direct impact on the enemy by means of destruction and troops with the aim of destroying him and achieving a strategic, operational or tactical result. There are strike troops (naval forces), missile, aviation (bomb, bomb assault), artillery, torpedo, and in the case of the use of nuclear weapons nuclear (rocket-nuclear). The time, the order of applying Strikes in a battle or operation, and the use of their results are agreed upon between all forces performing a common task. When performing a combat mission, troops (naval forces) can strike in several directions. One of them, which is of decisive importance for defeating the enemy and reaching the area of the final goal of the operation (battle), is the direction of the main Strike. In the direction of the main Strike, a decisive superiority in forces and means is created over the enemy, ensuring his defeat. A strike group of troops (naval forces) is created to execute the main Strike... In the course of a battle and an operation, the directions of the main Strike and auxiliary Strikes may change. Depending on the nature of the enemy's actions and the timing of the execution of Strikes it can be retaliatory, counter, or preemptive. According to the operational plan and method of implementing strike troops are dissecting, crushing, concentric (applied in converging directions); to fulfill partial (limited) operational-tactical goals, demonstrative, false, distracting.
These are ABCs any junior officer fresh from any military academy knows and which are universally understood and that is why there could be NO "offensive" on part of VSU around Nilkolaev or elsewhere because even when one considers every reserve Pentagon desperately tries to assemble for VSU, including pouring what it can in terms of weapons, advisers and training another 10,000 of Ukie cannon fodder in Poland, the only thing they may hope for is STRIKE by VSU with very limited tactical-operational objectives for, at present time, merely a PR effect designed to cover up Pentagon's sheer incompetence in a face of real armed forces, and in desperate attempt to bite Russians somehow in a barely hidden rage. I know, this is the feeling of a guy who looks at the girl who is way out of his league.
Of course, the other funny thing is that you cannot concentrate forces without being detected and, of course, VSU, even with all Western support, cannot achieve ANY strategic objectives on the front with the length of more than 2,000 kilometers and is reduced to mere limited strikes. But Pentagon's woes do not stop here, apart from shock from the very limited Russian force taking part in SMO, a true revelation for them is a stunning really degree of effectiveness of Russian Air Defense. It is stunning. Even when one considers the fact of, inevitable in the conflict of such intensity, "leakers". We will know the percentage of "leakers" (enemy missiles which do reach targets past Air Defense) after the conclusion of SMO but it is already clear--it is very low. I will go out on a limb here and will "guess" that we are looking at the effectiveness of Russian Air Defense against ALL types of targets: Tochka U, HIMARS, other MLRS in the vicinity of 80-85% at least. Probably, closer to 90%. In aircraft, probably around 95%.
For NATO forces which are being assembled in Europe it means only one thing: levels of attrition of their strike weapons and combat aviation which dash any hope of achieving any meaningful objectives. It also means levels of attrition of the ground forces which no NATO country, with the exception of Germany, has any experience with. So, I guess back to drawing board Pentagon, right? Don't hold your breath--professional jealousy is a strong motivator which is destructive more often than it is constructive. And we observe this destruction of the US Armed Forces in real time. It is not just a "wokeness", however baneful, which kills US military--it is Patton syndrome, when mediocre general who never encountered a serious Wehrmacht force at its peak demonstrated what Atkinson in his foreword to Patton's memoirs described as: "the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would cost the American Army so dearly in Vietnam."
The US continues to suffer from this syndrome now across the board, being mired in its exceptionalist delusion, but it is warfare where this rot manifested itself so profoundly and so dramatically. For the force which convinced itself that it is "the greatest fighting force in history", while losing all of its wars, this trial by tactical, operational, strategic and technological realities could be a final blow before final collapse of its fake edifice.
Post a Comment