Make no mistake, I get it--it hurts being a sore loser, but we may state with absolute certainty now that most what US "senior military officials" know about real war is derived from blowing the shit from unarmed civilians. They lack serious skills in strategic and operational planning and I expressed myself on this issue not for once, especially when commenting on the modern day academic standards or, rather, lack thereof in the USMA in West Point. But here we go again.
Russia is running low on ammunition as its Ukraine invasion careens toward the one-year mark, and it may soon be forced to use older, unreliable rockets and artillery shells -- some built decades ago, according to a senior U.S. military official. The new ammunition, what the Pentagon calls "fully serviceable," could be used up by early next year as the war continues despite the winter weather, said the official, who briefed the press Monday on the condition of anonymity. Russia also appears to be running low on precision-guided munitions.
Of course, this official is "anonymous" because who would like to parade oneself as a military amateur and ignoramus. Wasn't Russian Army supposed to run out of ammo and cruise missiles like what... in March or April? One has to ask a question--these "anonymous officials", have they ever commanded anything larger than the squad or have they ever won anything in their life in real war? We can confidently say no, because Pentagon's "record" is abysmal, with the US losing its wars left and right against grossly inferior technologically but determined enemies. Now, to conceive that somebody, who "studied" military economy from the "text-books" penned by financiers and stock brokers from Wall Street, who still think that the US is the "largest economy in the world", will understand what Russian military industry is, is down right risible. They have no intellectual apparatus to grasp it--they haven't been taught it. I omit here my many years long contention that the understanding of Russia in the West is that of a kindergarten petulant child, but this is the issue of the Western humanities "education".
Of course, the other possibility should not be discounted too--US "journos" simply made this shit up--their MO, basically--and "reported" it in accordance to ideological imperatives of the moment, those imperatives being an extremely acute necessity to cover up the collapsing front of VSU (NATO really) around Bakhmut and those severe strategic ramification which this collapse entails for not just Zelensky regime, but for its handlers. And we know his handlers are in London and Washington. Not to be outdone, of course, is London's The Economist--a collection of pompous imbeciles, "consulted" by MI-6 and "byproducts" of Sandhurst--who continue to spread utter pseudo-military BS and propaganda and quote today... Zaluzhny.
Ukraine has enough men under arms—more than 700,000 in uniform, in one form or another, of whom more than 200,000 are trained for combat. But materiel is in short supply. Ammunition is crucial, says General Syrsky. “Artillery plays a decisive role in this war,” he notes. “Therefore, everything really depends on the amount of supplies, and this determines the success of the battle in many cases.” General Zaluzhny, who is raising a new army corps, reels off a wishlist. “I know that I can beat this enemy,” he says. “But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs [infantry fighting vehicles], 500 Howitzers.” The incremental arsenal he is seeking is bigger than the total armoured forces of most European armies. Ukraine’s partners are speeding up efforts to repair and refurbish old and damaged equipment to return it to the field faster, in part by teaching Ukraine to fix it as close to the front lines as possible. They are also accelerating the manufacture of weapons to meet growing demand from Ukraine and their own armed forces.
Yeah, sure. He forgot to mention, of course, that VSU had more, much more, than that in February, but then encountered Russian force three times smaller and all those numbers simply evaporated. Or, as Russians say, if the grandmother had the balls, she would have been the grandfather. But Western BS peddlers with zero knowledge of operations (I doubt they teach that in Britain anymore) and operational planning as related to real war have only that tool left for them--BS. But The Economist's drivel is symptomatic of the UK's state in general, that one is of a complete economic, moral, intellectual and military degradation. At least, Ron Jeremy for all his hilarious appearances had a large cock, UK has only the former left and is reduced to nothing more than Tabaqui.
And so we go, the vicious circle of BS and PR actions, lies, expose' of stupefying incompetence across the board continues. Meanwhile Russian industry--you know, the real economy--continues to churn out military materiel and equipment in, ahem, industrial quantities and preparing for yet another "defeat", like retaking all of Donbass and then... Who knows what then.
Eastbound supplies of Russian natural gas will continue to grow and could hit almost 90 billion cubic meters by the end of this decade, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday at a meeting of the Strategic Development and National Projects Council. He said the development of port and pipeline infrastructure to the south and east would be an important step to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions and other “hostile actions” against Russia.“Implementation of such projects as the Kovyktinskoe Field, the Power of Siberia 2 and the Far Eastern route will make it possible to increase gas supplies to the east to 48 billion cubic meters by as early as 2025 and to 88 billion by 2030,” Putin said. This would actually amount to more than 60% of gas supplies to the West in 2021, he noted.
And dedollarization continues to accelerate. As someone noted today in Russian segment about Putin's meeting with Council on Strategic Development--the West is completely absent from a discussion. But then again, do you care about doormats? Only when the time comes to throw the old one out and get a new one to the threshold of one's home.
Post a Comment