Operational Art ...

 ... in action. 404 desperately tries to move the so called reserves to Krasnoarmeisk (Pokrovsk)--they will be annihilated, of course. But the arrows become longer and longer and operational successes slowly turn into strategic ones. 

Recall what REAL General Staffs do--they plan, non-stop, 24/7 and I want to remind you again about "maneuver"--taking territory is a "necessary evil" in order to annihilate enemy forces. In D.C. they watched movie Patton too many times and forgot completely how REAL wars are won. 

Meanwhile Caroline Leavitt:

US President Donald Trump sees progress after the recent direct Russian-Ukrainian talks, but there is no question of setting "red lines" in Ukraine. This was announced on August 12 by White House press Secretary Caroline Leavitt. "I don't want to set red lines for the president (Trump) from this podium. — Ed.) and on his behalf. However, the president did call on Ukraine and Russia to discuss these humanitarian issues directly with each other, and we are already seeing progress," she said at a briefing.

A hint, superpowers do not abide by "red lines", especially such power as Russia. 

NATO's "Red Lines".

These clowns still pretend that they matter. And here is la Repubblica today:

È la prima volta, dall’inizio della guerra. La Nato, in maniera molto riservata e senza comunicazioni ufficiali, ha fissato almeno due linee rosse, superate le quali ci potrebbe essere un intervento diretto nel conflitto in Ucraina. Al momento, va sottolineato, non esistono piani operativi che prevedano l’invio di uomini, ma soltanto valutazioni su possibili piani d’emergenza - una vera e propria extrema ratio - nel caso ci fosse il coinvolgimento di soggetti terzi nella guerra.

Translation: It's the first time since the beginning of the war. NATO, in a very confidential manner and without official communications, has established at least two red lines, beyond which there could be direct intervention in the conflict in Ukraine. At the moment, it should be underlined, there are no operational plans that provide for the sending of men, but only assessments of possible emergency plans - a true last resort - in the event of the involvement of third parties in the war.

Immediately one has to question the whole nature of those "red lines" because "red lines", a propaganda meme invented by journos, are called such because they are made public precisely for the articulation to the enemy what is not allowed to do. So, the immediate conclusion is that this whole thing is... pure propaganda with the purpose to convey that NATO is somehow in charge of the situation. It is not and never has been due to what many of us, yours truly included, repeated ad nauseam--NATO has no resources to fight real war. Least of all European chihuahuas with the ground forces the size of brigade or a single division and with industrial base of financialized economies operating through blowing bubbles. 

So, NATO identifies these two "red lines" as:

1. Penetration of Kiev's "line of defense" and involvement of the "third party" in the war;

2. "Provocation" against Baltic statelets or Poland, or direct attack on... Moldova.

This is all sounds too familiar--a bunch of decrepit impotents with severe erectile dysfunction trying to plot how they will gang bang and impress a porn star who "did Dallas". NATO's operational and strategic "prowess" is now a butt of jokes across all strata of Russian society. As Larry points out:

The bottomline is simple — the United States and NATO are not equipped, organized or trained to fight a peer force like Russia or China in a war of attrition. One of the biggest short-comings are the costly, fragile weapons that account for NATO’s supposedly premier means for pursuing a war. 

War, meaning a real war is a damn serious business of real economies and wills. I doubt anyone can match Russian will anymore in fighting NATO in 404 and destroying it. It also goes without saying that NATO and Pentagon are simply out of the realm of real operations for the XXI century battlefield, which is concerning because time after time very many NATO officers exhibited a complete unfamiliarity with the technological aspects of modern battlefield, trying to interpret glimpses into TOE of Russian Armed Forces as some kind of revelation, while the problem, of course, is cultural and is unbridgeable, not across the board anyway. It would be pretty naive to expect some Sandhurst 44 week long or USMA at West Point graduate brought up on the fairy tales of Gulf War or Patton "defeating Hitler" to grasp innards of Russian "way of war" starting from the level of the General Staff down to tactical units. A few competent Western scholars on the matter are exceptions which merely proves the rule of a wholesale ignorance of NATO. 

In related news, Xi is in France. As NYT spins, "reports", pardon me...

Xi Visits Europe, Seeking Strategic Opportunity. The Chinese leader has carefully chosen three countries — France, Serbia and Hungary — that to varying degrees embrace Beijing’s push for a new global order.

Xi already stated today that China together with France "would seek" resolution to 404 crisis. But then added that China is not a party to this whole thing, which is true. I, being a cynical realist (not in academic sense), repeat ad nauseam--China needs Europe for two things:

1. Market;

2. Access to aerospace, especially commercial one. 

China has her own interests and they are valid, because they are... China's interests. I will reiterate, watch this simple video--it will explain a lot, turn on CC:

A lot opens for people who watch and listen (which is correct, I can testify) to those "details" of Russia removing herself from this project--all of it contains a lot of hints. Same applies to Chinese military. These are facts, not wishful thinking. So, here it is, a sitrep of sorts to conclude this weekend.