Russia’s Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin has said his mercenary force captured all of Bakhmut and will hand over the city to regular Russian forces on May 25.
“Wagner has made no advances. Wagner today captured no territory. We have captured all the territory we promised to capture, right up to the last centimeter,” Priogzhin said in an audio message on Telegram on Sunday.
“As we stated yesterday. We are handing over our positions to [Russia’s] Defense Ministry and on the 25th we are leaving the conflict zone,” he added.
Prigozhin and Russian officials first announced the complete capture of Bakhmut on Saturday. Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Wagner for taking the city in a statement issued by the Kremlin on Sunday.
“Vladimir Putin congratulates Wagner assault teams as well as all Russian troops, who rendered the required assistance and shielded the flanks, with the completion of the operation to liberate Artyomovsk [Bakhmut],” the statement said.
Ukrainian officials are claiming that Ukrainian forces still control a portion of the city. President Voldymr Zelensky appeared to acknowledge that Russia captured the city in a press conference at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, but his spokesman later walked it back. “The president has denied Bakhmut has been taken over,” said Ukrainian presidential spokesman Sergey Nikiforov.
Despite the claims from Ukrainian leadership, Ukrainian soldiers fighting on the frontlines speaking to the Kyiv Independent confirmed that Ukrainian forces lost the last high-rise buildings they controlled in Bakhmut and said fighting was still ongoing on the outskirts of the city.
Zelensky has placed significant value on Bakhmut and previously said if he loses the city, he would come under pressure to “compromise” with Russia. Kyiv had expended enormous resources defending the city in a battle that had been raging since August 2022.
64 thoughts on “Prigozhin: Wagner to Handover Bakhmut to Regular Russian Forces After Capture”
Wagner will now get some R&R for their next mission in late June, early July.
R&R? what is this, the US? Russian soldiers don’t get R&R, they are told to continue fighting until the war is over or they die.
That’s absurd. You have no idea what “russian soldiers are told”, Clearly Russia has been rotating troops throughout the conflict – it’s actually the Ukrainians who are keeping units in place, pushing raw replacements up to fill in gaps with little opportunity to train or integrate. Ukrainian commanders themselves have complained about this, and its been reported in the WAPO and NYTimes, hardly “pro-russian”, or even neutral institutions.. Wagner PMC will be withdrawn, reconstituted, and re-engaged when ready.
American mercenaries have died there. Usually former soldiers who served in Afghanistan. You can get the soldier out of war, but I guess you can’t get the war out of some soldiers.
Julio, Bakhmut was (allegedly) taken by mercenary Wagners, not Russian soldiers. maybe those guys get coffee breaks and maybe they don’t.
i submit that most of us here including myself have no idea what we are talking about when it comes to modern foreign military strategy. i include you with us here.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t like any mercs. But these guys have grown on me since they are hardly in ‘merc’ category. They deserve the all rest, wealth and glory.
How many tens of thousands of lives fighting over this stupid little town? Start negotiating already!
They wouldn’t be fighting over it if it was ‘a stupid little town’
It wasn’t a stupid little town; it was a major cog in the pre war Ukrainian defenses in the Donbas; taking it was essential to Russia’s aim of securing the entire Donbas region, which now lies open a least as far as Chasiv Yar. And, if Ukraine lost more then Russia did, as seems likely, and if those losses included a significant number of their “assault brigades” intended as the power behind their proposed “spring counteroffensive” then this was a significant Russian victory. We’ll see; if the Ukrainians can stabilize the lines at Chasiv Yar or not, or if they can launch a successful counteroffensive, or not. If not then I think Ukraine is done.
Ukraine was done last year after Russians secured Mariupol. Ukraine isn’t fighting the war against Russians. Anglo-American empire is a war with both Russia and China. What we have in Ukraine is a minor front of a global war.
Wasn’t that you just yesterday claiming that it wasn’t the Russians who secured Mariupol, but rather local separatists?
I said no such thing.
Must have been some other warmonger. Sorry, you all look alike to me.
“if Ukraine lost more then Russia did, as seems likely”
What was so different about Bakhmut from other battles of its type that you would expect dug-in defenders to take more casualties than attackers rather than, as is usual, the opposite?
The difference in fire support; by all indications/reports, Russia was firing ten times the volume of artillery as Ukraine could respond with. And, given the great disparity in quantity of surveillance drones that Russia possessed (down to battery level) they were likely more accurate as well. And note; that sort of loss disparity of the attacker over the defender is NOT unusual; during the first few phases of Verdun (yes, a million years ago) France, dug in and on the defensive, suffered considerably higher losses than the Germans; and much more recently, VII Corps, and the USMC, breached the prepared Iraqi positions in both Iraq and Kuwait in Desert Storm at negligible loss to themselves. Again, because of far superior firepower and surveillance assets.
“by all indications/reports” is a very strange way of phrasing “‘Russia can’t possibly fail’ propagandists say [roll dice for current multiple] …”
Verdun isn’t a terrible comparison. But as you point out, that casualty ratio reversal was “during the first few phases.”
Desert Storm isn’t anything like similar. Breaching a line to break through into maneuver warfare territory is a lot different than besieging a city and trying to take/hold it block by block. Frankly, the Iraqi troops, for some reason, weren’t dug in very well either. I crawled through a number of their bunker complexes. Most of them were not very deep or at all reinforced to resist artillery impact. Hell, I found an entire artillery battery with not only its guns, but its ammunition stocks (what was left of them) just sitting on open ground. The biggest obstacle there, even before the US bombardment, was the belt of mine fields, not dug in troops.
Not sure what your point is; I never said “Russia can’t possibly fail”; but it’s unlikely. If Ukraine can successfully re-establish a coherent defensive line based on Chasiv Yar, or effectively counterattack, then maybe this won’t be that big of a win. We will see.
German losses throughout the Verdun campaign were less than France’s; but much less in the beginning, when they were simply pounding the French positions and moving into the rubble. Pretty much what it looks like Wagner’s tactic was – and similarly, Falkenhayn was criticized because his ops were “taking too long”; another parallel.
And while I have no respect for the Iraqi Army, the “saddam line” was certainly vaunted and touted by our own media, who claimed at the time that the “Iraqis excel at positional warfare”, so it’s certainly worth comparing. And, it was considered trouble enough for the marines to have to go outside the normal procurement chain and buy breaching equipment direct from Israel before they were sure of success – but dug in well or not; nothing was going to put up much resistance against the pounding Iraq took in the weeks before the assault.
The Ukrainians were certainly better prepared, but the weight, and accuracy, of Russian firepower was the difference. Other than Ukrainian propandists, and their media shills, no one reliable is claiming Russia suffered worse casualties than Ukraine; closest you can get is “both sides suffered heavy losses”, but even that is hedged. My personal opinion, take it for what it’s worth, is that Russia suffered half the losses Ukraine did. That’s more than what some are claiming (7:1 in Russia’s favor).
We all know any war is subject to heavy dose of propaganda. I detest cheerleading.
In this war, Ukrainian side has a massive propaganda advantage. Many of Ukkrainian claims, no matter how outlandish were with straight face supported uncritically by Western nedia.
Opposite information sources are practically non existent or self-censored. Information from Russian sources such as RT, is bland in the extreme. This indicates that those sources are extremely cautious not to violate near war time information control.
Net outcome? We have no trully independent sources. All we can do is do some hindsight analysis. This type of analysis has its value. It informs you who is mostly telling the truth and who has not.
Let us look at CNN today. Ukraine is supposedly still fighting in Bakhmut, outflanking Russian forces. Reality is, these skirmishes are well outside Bakhmut., clearly visible from the map. And flanking attempt is a textbook move allowing for bulk of forces to withdraw.
CNN also litteraly gushes today about terrorist attack on civilians in the town bordering Ukraine. 8 civilians injured. Some presumably Russian nationals from a brand new group is responsible. Except the mythical group is claiming orders given from Kiev, All clear llike a mud.
Many such exciting news how Russia is experiencing dissent, a diiscord is spreading in the halls of power — daily hinted in CNN. How likely any of this is true? I am suspicious of blatantly cheerleading media.
After all, Ukraine was fighting Russian Wagner CONTRACTORS in Bakhmut, not Russian army.. I hope this sinks in eventually. Contractors vs NATO-powered Ukrainian army.
The key difference between Mariupol and Bakhmut is — in Bakhmut an exit route for Ukrainian military has alwats been left open. This works two ways, Either Ukrainian military uses the corridor to withdraw, or to bring in reinforcements, Which is what Ukraine did. Russia signaled the end — when the bridge connecting Ukrainian forces to resulply town Chasni Yarvwas blown up.
From what I see Russia is playing cat and mouse game. Mouse can try many evasive manuevers and call them a victory. But cat almost always wins.
Again, look at the Russian tactics. Their REAL tactics, not the lies and fairy tales coming out of western media. Trouble yourself to look at some detailed battle maps from the Battle of Bakhmut. The Russians NEVER used headlong, human wave, frontal assaults. They use their standoff weapons (mortars, artillery, rockets, missiles, bombs, drones, etc) to expose weaknesses. They send small units to probe the defenses. They endlessly seek to flank the defenders. Flankers are sent out from the flanking salients gained. And then more flankers are sent out from the new salients. Over and over again. Rinse and repeat. A buidling or block of buildings is heavily fortified? It is then pounded into rubble. Then, small groups of infantry approach it. If it is still feisty, it is pounded again. Rinse and repeat.
By all accounts, including Western and Ukie ones, the Ukies lost many, many men. Only by Western accounts did the Russians, and how and why is never explained, given the above.
Get a clue, man.
The tactics you just described are about as perfect a recipe for the attacker taking more casualties than the defender as I’ve ever seen.
You are living in dreamworld. With the arty and stand off weapon advantage alone, that is not true. And the refusal to use large group, frontal assaults is also a well known way to limit attacking casualties.
That was the lesson learned by the end of WWI, by both sides. It is now relevant again, as dug-in defenders do generally have the advantage again, as opposed to during WWII. One overcomes that advantage by arty pounding, and by eshewing wasteful frontal assaults.
Yes, I live in a dreamworld in which the usual and well-known effects/outcomes of warfare apply instead of SPECIAL MAGIC RUSSIA being an exception to which they don’t.
You have been given ample reasons why the casualty figures are exceptional. You simply refuse to accept them, with no explanation for your refusal.
Stand off weapons account for between 3/5 and 2/3 of casualties and injuries. One side has a massive advantage in stand off weapons. That would be the Russian side. That alone should you give you pause, with your lazy, “the usual rules apply,” pseudo analysis. Beyond that, as I already mentioned, the Russian infantry attacks are small scale, and more in the nature of probing, flanking, and encircling, than in the nature of large, frontal assualts, futher negating the benefit of being on the defensive.
The Ukies were hunkered down in the buildings. The Russians blasted the buildings with stand off weapons. If there were still Ukies around to meet the small unit probing attacks, the attackers were called back and the building and/or its rubble were bombarded again. Following which, the small unit attacks began again. From front and both flanks, and from behind too sometimes. That’s why it took so long (a fact you do seem to comprehend).
How in the world that would result in larger Russian losses than Ukie losses is a notion for YOU to describe and defend. And, no, relying on generalties won’t do it.
You either (1) don’t know what you are talking about, or (2) are being contrary just for the sake of contrariness. There’s no third way.
I suppose that if “philadelphialawyer really, really, really, REALLY wants to believe certain claims” is “ample reasons,” sure.
Otherwise, I’ve got no particular reason to believe that SPECIAL MAGIC RUSSIA SECRET SUPERTACTICS changed the fairly well-understood effects of warfare.
No secret. Spelled out for you over and over again. But none are so blind as those who refuse to see. And not just “tactics” either, but rather infantry tactics PLUS arty supremacy. Both well documented.
I think you will find that the Russians believe they have an unending amount of lives to waste fighting over small towns.
i imagine that the Ukraines believe the same of themselves
They believe that their lives are not wasted – the Russians have promised to kill the Ukrainians who think different and promised the, camps to reeducate them – so really not that hard a choice.
Bakhmut fell nearly two months ago. It was a mop up operation like no mop up I ever heard of in history. Ukraine chose to repeatedly bring in new reserves to slow down inevitable. Holding a high rise buildings does not constitute a strategy.
Since they did not protect population, protect major military assets or documenntation, or had the task of slowing down advances to allow orderly retreat. In fact, the only reason for throwing in reserves, wave after wave — was for optics. Zelenski keeps on doing it. Same thing happened in Mariupol. It creates an impression of Ukraine being capable of offering a strong defense.
For as long as one understands that there are no military activities anywhere else aling the entire front.. Last presumed Ukrainian offensive was essentially taking over areas Russia oulled out from — both in Kherson and around Kharkov. In reality — there was no Ukrainian offensive since the beginning of this war.
In the first month of the war, while all eyes were on Kiev, Russia rolled through Kherson, Zaporozhie, good part of Lughansk and Donetsk. It established control of Azov Sea, and most cities were taken without any major effort
— but Azov Brigades dug into various residentialnandvindustrial sites. And it paid off. It looked like Russia was havung hard time taking the city. But the extent ofvsuch “defense” was theatrical, abd iutcome never in question. UN came to the rescue of surrounded Aziv militantd, providing more drama and media coverage. In Bakhmut Russia did not go for encirclement, allowing Ukraine forces to withdraw. But instead of withdrawing, Ukraine chose to repopulate their urban holdouts . Eventually, Russia decided to cut of the only supply line —- a bridge.
Only then Ukraine decided to withdraw. They executed pinzer move on the flanks, with expectation of forcing Wagner to regroup and slow down progress. Pull out at that point was fast. The flanking operation served the purpose. Withdrawal seems chaotic as there is still some random fighting going on. And it is hard to say what is the fall back position that is defensible or worth defending.
“Holding a high rise buildings does not constitute a strategy.”
Every Russian soldier and weapons system focused on finishing the job in Bakhmut was a Russian soldier and weapons system that couldn’t be used for other things, and Bakhmut in particular was a Russian objective that had to be secured before the entirety of Donetsk could be.
It took the Russians eight months to claim they’ve taken Bakhmut, and 15 months into the war they have yet to secure the Donbas. The Ukrainians were playing for time, and doing a good job of it.
“Every Russian soldier and weapons system focused on finishing the job in Bakhmut was a Russian soldier and weapons system that couldn’t be used for other things”. That presumes Russia had “other things” to focus on – but that doesn’t seem correct, since Russia wasn’t pushing anywhere else, and has several hundred thousand troops on standby available for “other things”, which they didn’t pursue. Russia’s strategy seems to have been to draw in Ukraine’s reserves, and pound them – something that, since Ukraine always had the numerical advantage in the sector, Russia appears to have done. The drawn out, attritional nature of the battle played to Russia’s strength, not Ukraine. Ukraine will now, presumably fall back to new lines at Chasiv Yar, which they should have done months ago – but now Russia is significantly stronger vis Ukraine than back in the fall. unless there really is a Ukrainian counterattack in the offing, but that seems less and less likely.
Yeah, and the Russians consider, and rightly so, the Donbass to be the central front. It is the central front, geographically. And it is the locus of the Russian speakers whom the Kremlin pledged to protect. The notion that you are tieing down forces is more apt when those enemy forces are drawn to the periphery, not the center. Russian forces across the river from Kherson, perhaps, can be said to be tied down, in a defensive posture, waiting for a possible Ukie counterattack, and thereby unavailable for “other things.” Same with the rest of the southern front, and the northeastern front. But the forces in Bakhmut were the tip of the spear, and, again, as mercs (including conscripts) eminently expendable from the perspective of the Kremlin. They were not “tied down,” they were slaughtering Ukies, and, eventually, driving them back on the strategically vital front line of the central front.
Again, this has been the Russian strategy since early in the war. Focus on the Donbass region. Attack a city by flanking or encircling it. Wear down the Ukies with overall stand off weapon superiority, blast their city fortress into smithereens, and then methodically drive them out. It is a slow business, but it is working.
I would say that you are both right. The Ukrainian urban fortress strategy has slowed down the Russian advance. And does create good optics, as well. On the other hand, it has been extremely costly, in terms of men and material. Perhaps more importantly, though, playing for time is only a good strategy if time is on your side. Is time really on the side of the Ukraine? The Ukraine relies almost entirely on the West. Is Russia likely to “blink” before the West? Russia has a lot at stake. The West? Nothing, really, save honor, of which it has none.
Time moved on to the Ukrainians’ side last April when the Russian attempt at a quick military victory failed and the Russian regime found itself up against western suppliers with many multiples their own production and logistics capacity. Every day of war weakens both sides. It just weakens the Russian side more/faster.
“It just weakens the Russian side more/faster.” that doesn’t seem to be the case, as Ukraine is self-admittedly running out of munitions while Russia seems to have no problems there. Russia is also apparently increasing the size of their forces while Ukraine is apparently running out of manpower.
“Ukraine is self-admittedly running out of munitions while Russia seems to have no problems there.”
Well, except for the constant complaints of Russian front-line troops that they can’t get any fucking ammo.
But yeah, except for that there, no problems at all.
Which is what you hear. The strategy by Russian military, as I see it, is to make others think they are weak, soft, unable to conduct warfare.
Russia is calling you to say you are wrong:
Prove it, you partisan hack.
I just did, if the Russians admitting they have a problem is not proof then what is your explanation for their words, what is in it for them?
Russia entered Ukraine to secure Donbas, Crimea. You do remember that people in those area sought entrance into the Russian sphere were turned down several time by Putin. Only when the NAZIs massed forces to invade did Russia invade. After referendums were complete by those areas and Crimea. Crimea is particularly Russia,not just because of history, but because there lies Russia’s only warm water port. I know several people who have been to the former sub base, Murmansk, and warm it is not. It is also a dismal, dark, depressing place. They brought back pictures of the area.
Flatly disagree. Russia has virtually unlimited manpower and military-industrial resources. The Ukraine has dwindling manpower, and only such military industrial resources as the West chooses to give it. Attrition warfare is a good “second best” strategy for the Russians (with the quick collapse you mention and that they perhaps hoped for being the very best). And the fortress strategy actually plays into Russia’s hands, given those factors. The Ukraine lost far, far more troops in Bakhmut than did the Russians. Troops it can’t spare. The Russian lost mainly mercs, and not even very many of them. Time clearly favors the Russians. They are patient. They are fighting close to home in a war that they seem to believe (at least) is vital to them. Whereas, to the West, it is a wholly unnecessary game. A Tweak the Bear opportunity that is not in the slightest bit tied to vital interests. Sure, to the Ukies it matters. But, in the big picture, the Ukies are proxies, not principles. Like a big Wagner group, or perhaps, the militias of the Donbass republics, in reverse. When the West tires of bankrolling and arming them, they are done. Just like proxies always are.
Yeah but this is operating on the presumption that Russia seeks win the war against Ukraine. Russia isn’t fighting against Ukraine. They don’t even consider it a war.
Oh, no. Not at all. It is the opposite. Russians don’t have much to risk but imperials have everything on the table. All of it. This is what Kremlin banked on when drawing them in. The loss of Ukraine means the collapse of entire empire. It will be a domino effect. This is why they are relentless and doubling down with “support of Ukraine” mantra. The cost of failure is egregious. Both Russians and Chinese know it so this will be a slow and meticulous bleeding of entire empire. They are already sending battalions of Polish, US and English troops into meat grinder because there are no Ukrainians left to fight for the empire.
Flatly disagree. The “domino effect” is a disproven theory. US losses in SE Asia did not trigger worldwide collapse of US empire. Nor did the loss of Afghanistan. The Ukraine is no more essential to the US empire than were those equally outlying, impoverished lands. All of them are nowhere near the US, and are right in the nabes of its rivals (China, Russia). None of them are culturaly, historically, or economically of any importance to the West generally, never mind the US. The US could, if not for internal politics, cut its Ukronazi losses tomorrow, and be the stronger, not weaker, for it.
Anglo-American empire operates on pure fiat. (propaganda/reputation) Decline in social standing leads to wide collapse on all fronts. Collapse of propaganda machine means economic and military collapse. Economic collapse is ALREADY underway. Besides, even if the empire somehow survives the loss in Ukraine, any empire that doesn’t expand – die.
All empires experience occasional setbacks. The US empire expanded since 1990 by taking East Berlin, the rest of East Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, the Czech and Slovak states, Hungary,and much of the Balkans. And now Finland and perhaps Sweden are to be formally enrolled as well.The “loss” of the Ukraine (an impoverished, corrupt, divided, labor-exporting, population-decling, near failed state—and that was before the war started), which it never fully secured in the first place, is of minor, second or third order, importance, at most.
Reputation and propaganda are important. But can be turned around pretty quickly. I’m old enough to remember folks seriously spouting about the domino theory in SE Asia, and the vital importance of S Vietnam to the USA. What happened to all that? Vietnam is now happy to make t shirts for the USA. And we all here can remember how the propaganda said that Afghanistan was important, and that “we” were wining there. Indeed, it was a slam dunk. That’s why we could leave! Because our proxy regime was so stable! LOL!
Vietnam was different because neither USSR nor China sought to destroy the empire. They do now.
Loss in Afghanistan means loss of central Asia and Mideast. Recent developments in Mideast prove that it’s a gigantic loss for the imperial D&C strategy in Eurasia. Economic ramifications of that loss are just starting to unfold.
Those ramifications have very little to do with who “wins” in the Ukraine. It was inevitable that the rest of the world, the world outside the US orbit, would eventually tire of US dominance. I don’t say that the US can’t or won’t suffer more setbacks, but only that its existence as an empire, and, indeed, the strongest empire going, is not seriously at risk. Certainly not in the Ukraine, and not, in my view, merely because of some unwanted developments in the MidEast. Remember, back in Cold War days, there were “hardline” anti US states in Iraq and Libya, as well as in Syria. Even Eqypt was more in the Soviet orbit than the US’. Now, Syria is a shell, not even in control of all of its territory. The regimes in Iraq and Libya are long gone. Etc, etc.
Pretty easy to forecast catastrophe, but empires tend to live long lives, and to die quietly and slowly, with residual power and land, gradually declining in relative importance. Quick collapses come with defeat in existential wars, like the collapse of the four empires after WWI, or the collapse of the Japanese Empire after WWII. The Ukraine war is nothing like that for the USA. It is a war of choice. A splendid little war, fought far, far from the US heartland. No or few US casualties. No draft. An “expeditionary” war, if you will. If it doesn’t go as well as the expeditionary war against Spain went, well, so what?
Well, the arrogant rats in DC and London don’t seem to have this kind content security with their standing. Or they wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail for “an impoverished, corrupt, divided, labor-exporting, population-decling, near failed state—and that was before the war started”
… and sustaining heavy loses in geostrategic, economic, global standing in the process.
The “rats” are committed personally, professionally, politically, and, in terms of their careers, economically and socially, to an ever expanding empire. The neo cons and neo libs fight tooth and nail for wars in and over impoverished countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Ukraine) because such wars are in THEIR interests, not necessarily (or at all) in the interests of the country, or even “the empire.” Hawkish factions usually dominate the politics of imperial regimes. And they always posit that the current war is winnable, necessary, and indeed, vital, and so on. There is very little glory, or profit, in being a realist. The MIC doesn’t pay realist pundits or think tanks, and their endless “fellows” and “senior fellows” and so on know which side their bread is buttered on.
Plus, the politics of jingoism, whether American, British, Russian, German, French, whatever, are always easy. And have a built-in success rate. Most citizens are apt to buy into their own country’s greatness. And to rally round the flag. And to loath, hate and fear the Other.
But propaganda and jingoism are not reality, no matter how shrill and insistent.
Interesting view… So you believe there is no consensus or a unified imperial strategy from neolibercons or their controllers? All random and opportunistic?
No. I believe it is all part of a system. And such systems are typical of empires. Legislators and executives get the glory, and the eventual pay offs. As do the generals. Pundits and media companies get paid off in the here and now. The MIC companies make money always, as they are doing now hand over fist. An interlocking system of media, government, big business, the phony think tanks, lobbyists, pundits, etc. All pushing for endless war and endless expansion. While it is ‘”opportunistic” on the individual level, it is the opposite of random on the macro level.
Thanks. So that pretty much confirms that the empire is trapped in Ukraine with no way out.
There is always a way out. There was a way out of Vietnam and a way out of Afghanistan. And there is one out of the Ukraine, as well. Typically, a new Administration bites the bullet, takes the dead rat out of the kichen, whatever metaphor you like. Unfortunately, it tends to combine that good action with the bad action of starting a new war/intervention/coup.
If there will be a new admin… With economic collapse and default looming, it doesn’t look like business as usual.
Looks like system-wide failure to me. We’ve been expecting it since 2008 crash.
But optimism is always good.
Bill Clinton referred to resources belonging to other countries as being our “interests”. So it goes.
De-dollarization by the rest of the world will bring down the empire.
Countries unhooking from the dollar will bring down the empire. Keeping the MIC structure in place adds to that.
Perhaps. But that has been coming for a long time. The Ukrainian adventure provides an opportunity, at most, for what was already in the wind and in the cards. The world was not going to let the USA set the terms of international trade and finance forever with a fiat currency.
It was a meat grinder with aim to decimate imperial military. Russians have favorable supply lines and they knew imperials will not withdraw. This is much larger strategy than clean up of Donbass or Ukraine. The bait, pull and extermination of large military forces could be a strategy to prepare a large offensive on west Europe. They could attack and retake Baltic states in order to bait the imperial to go nuclear. After that, use it as justification with Eurasian allies to destroy US and England. I hope I’m wrong but we’ve already passed nuclear threshold with English depleted uranium shipment.
I thought Russia was about to collapse; do not tell me our State Department and their minions in the MSM are lying to us….
By now ‘Rasputitsa’ should be over hence any Ukrainian offensive must start soon to make use of the dry season.
Comments are closed.