Russia's Battle Plan in Ukraine

Three weeks ago to the day Russia launched a multi-force, multi-direction, and multi-purpose invasion of Ukraine. The Russian government called it a "Special Military Operation", much like the Ukrainian government called their military crackdown on Donbass separatists an "Anti-Terrorist Operation". One can't help wonder if the Russians weren't having a bit of fun with that one. Bottom line is, as was predicted here, the Russians did invade Ukraine on multi-fronts to: isolate the Ukraine army positioned against Donbass separatist forces, encircle Kiev, and occupy the Russian "L" stretching from Cherniv to Odessa on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River. 

The question at the moment is this: what happened to the plan? Any person with any military experience knows the old saying: "a plan only survives until first contact with the enemy". That is clearly the Russian experience in Ukraine. The problems with the Ukrainian campaign began at the top. Russian President Putin was using his military as a tool of politics, and that was and remains his major mistake. Much like the US government's political objectives in the Vietnam war, which in many ways tied the hands of its forces and caused many unnecessary casualties, Putin started this war with clear political objectives in mind. It is clear that these political objectives included: non-use of serious weapons in civilian areas; non-use of strategic bombers for carpet bombing; non-use of naval borne cruise missiles of guns for shelling; the list goes on. Essentially, Putin was trying to present the Ukrainian government with a fait a compli so that sober minds would realize resistance was futile and they would capitulate.

That was the best case scenario. Instead of conducting an air campaign like the US did in Iraq (for a month and a half), the Russian military moved in after mere hours of missile and air strikes. The result was that Russia did not destroy Ukraine's air defences and air force completely before entering ground forces, and perhaps more importantly did not cripple Ukrainian's will to fight. There may have been  geo-political/strategic reasons for this, or there may have been political calculations, but the bottom line is that Russian planes and helicopters were vulnerable, and remain so. That means, necessarily, Russian ground troops suffered unnecessary casualties from Ukrainian artillery and tanks. So the Russian command gave up prudent military doctrine to satisfy the political goal of not alienating eastern Ukrainian civilians for a post conflict order. In other words, it got too cute.

The Russian Navy has also been conspicuous by its absence in the campaign. It has complete dominance in that area of the Black Sea, yet has only fired six cruise missiles at an air base. You can also throw in the Russian strategic resources like heavy bombers and massive electronic warfare assets which have basically remain unused. All these forces would have made a massive difference in the three weeks of battle thus far. While not using the navy or strategic bombers may be incorporated under the strategy of not alienating the population, or political reasons  in other words, the very limited use of electronic warfare is more likely strategic in nature. Russian strategic thought is to keep its capabilities close to its chest until the big war happens, ie: World War III (hopefully that never happens). A good example of this is the recent discovery that Russia has decoy missiles in its barrages of missiles that fool the enemy's anti-missile systems, which was unknown until then. 

The primary difference between an American war and a Russian war today seems to be the Russians are trying to placate a population before they occupy them, while the Americans level the place and face uprisings thereafter (ie: Iraq, Afghanistan; etc). That doesn't mean the Russians won't face the same in any case. Certainly the main stream media, and social media, have portrayed the Russians as leveling Ukraine. However, from a military perspective, this is far from the truth. From a strictly military perspective Russia would be guilty of not using all its strategic and heavy forces to ensure its troops didn't take unnecessary casualties, and objectives wouldn't be impeded. Certainly the US or NATO would never be accused of that.

The US has a strategy of  "battle space dominance". The idea is that its forces must dominate every aspect of the battle space on air, land and sea. That strategy has been woefully lacking in the Russian's Ukraine campaign. Ukrainian tanks, and especially artillery have been relatively unbothered moving around Ukraine. NATO has managed to transfer anti-tank, and anti-air man-held portable missile systems to Ukraine without any issue. The systems have found their way to the individual fronts. Here there are collective failures in intelligence, and forces designed to restrict battle space. That may have been the reason two senior Russian intelligence officials were detained by their government. It may also point to a lack of precision weapons and/or drones that can interdict these supplies en route, or it maybe a case of sacrificing soldiers and tanks on the ground to keep military capabilities hidden from NATO forces. Don't forget the Russians sacrifice in WWII, like one rifle for two men. That dedication to "Mother Russia" is still there. Whatever the case, Russian troops and Russian objectives are paying the price on the ground. Unfortunately for the Russian military, troops morale may well suffer when they realize weapons that could be employed to limit their chances of being killed are not being used.

The last week of the campaign has changed somewhat. It appears now that Putin's grand gesture to the Ukraine has been replaced with some military imperative. Strategic missiles were used to destroy a Ukrainian base on the Polish border housing foreign volunteers, and more than likely NATO arms. Russian ships fired off a few more cruise missiles near Odessa. The cities of Mariupol and Kharkiv/Kharkov have been facing methodical military bombardment. This is the way of war. Ask the people of Mosul, Bagdad, Tripoli, Benghazi, Aleppo, the list goes on and on. If your military chooses to put its positions in a city, don't be surprised when the city is levelled to defeat you. My own father fought in the city of Ortona, Italy in WWII, and the place was levelled. He was at Monte Casino too, which was a beautiful historical monument that German paratroopers decided to make a defensive position. The US air force bombed it into oblivion - no questions asked. This is the ugly truth of war, no matter how many "Karens" scream about it. The self-righteous, hypocritical posturing of the US and some other countries is frankly upchuck worthy - especially amongst military people who know the truth of war.  

 It is now the beginning of the third week of the war in Ukraine, and news is "leaking" out that Russia and Ukraine are close to signing a peace agreement which pretty much includes all the demands Putin put on Ukraine before the war started. That being said, it seems inconceivable that Russia would sacrifice so much for so little. Even if Ukraine agreed to formally cede the Donbass and Crimea to Russia, it still leaves Russia without a land bridge to Crimea, and Russia already effectively controlled both anyway. Therefore, given the Russians already fully occupy the Kherson region we may see a referendum there on Kherson as an independent republic or a part of a Donbass/Kherson republic, or a part of Russia. If Russia is preparing to sign a deal, then an attack on Odessa would be out, Odessa would remain as Ukraine's only sea port. It also seems counterintuitive that Russia would miss the chance to take all of eastern Ukraine, making the Dnipro River the new "Iron Curtain". Afterall, once you have gone all in you may look very weak to leave with nothing of much strategic or even tactical consequence. Such a face to your enemy will likely embolden them to come for your throat. That, after all, kind of defeats Russia's stated objective of deterring NATO aggression against it. 

The Ukraine War - It's not what you think

 The world is a stage and we are but mere actors. Never has this saying been more true than today.  We are witnessing the making of "heroes" and "villains" in Ukraine and Russia right now. The Ukrainian President has been pumped by western media as some kind of modern day Churchill as he, with no military experience, "personally directs the defence of Kiev" from within the city. A hero, and potentially a martyr all in one. We have the Ukrainian military being hailed for putting up a "heroic" defence against the Russians. And, of course, we have Russian President Putin painted variously as the bad guy, evil guy, insane guy, ... you get the idea. Good guys vs bad guys, black vs white, demonize vs canonize - such is the evil pit that the world has evolved into.

We see this very painting of people here in Canada as well. Far from the flames of the Ukrainian war. Truckers are heroes. Truckers are terrorists. One Liberal cabinet member just referred to truckers in the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa as, wait for it, "terrorists".  We have just come through two years of what can only be described as the worst violation of civil rights in Canadian history - mass vaccination requirements, lockdowns and mandates - all designed to get Canadians used to the suspension of their constitutional rights as some sort of natural right the federal government, and provincial governments can exercise at will. The Canadian government even invoked the Emergency Measures Act, renamed by Mulroney but then known as the War Measures Act, to suppress an act of defiance and civil disobedience via protests on Parliament Hill. Rights you thought were sacred two years ago evaporated in a woke moment. It has been the same throughout most of the world.

So how does Ukraine fit into this? Well, three words: World Economic Forum. The WEF is a multi-national private organization born in Germany, now with its headquarters in Davos, Switzerland. It's primary purpose, like other German fathers of the same vision (Marx and Engels most recently), is to turn the world into a one government utopia where humans have no rights to property, religion, beliefs other than the WEF's, etc. In the words of the nominal head of the organization, the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". If that sounds a lot like another German phrase, the Third Reich, you can be forgiven. Both have their origins in Germany, both seek world dominance, both sought to conquer/control Europe (ie EU), both sought to conquer Russia/Soviet Union after gaining control of Europe, both believe in genetic manipulation of the human species, you get the idea. They don't call themselves Nazis anymore. The new term they love to use is "Globalists". 

The Globalists aim to conquer states from within, that is to say they mentor and put in place leaders and politicians that they control. (don't believe me? watch the video here. Interestingly, Schwab even refers to Putin as one of his guys. This takes us to the "we are all actors" part. What is really happening in the Russo/Ukraine war, and more importantly, what is the purpose of it.

The primary point woman from Europe is Ursula Von Der Leyen, a German (again) physician and politician (first woman to serve as Minister of Defence in Germany). Some of her mentors shown below:

In case you aren't familiar, the top picture is her with Henry Kissinger, and the lower picture is her with Schwab. Her job in all of this is to direct European states, and people, to prepare them for war against Russia. As you may have noticed from the emergency session to grant Ukraine EU membership, the European Parliament was decked out like some kind of Ukrainian birthday party. The new Chancellor of  Germany is newly elected Olaf Scholz - pictured below (with Schwab):

For the WEF, and its backers, the most important aspect of their plans is what can loosely be called the "schedule". The schedule is used to determine the length of time politicians stay in office, the bringing up of "young politicians" as Schwab refers to them in the video link above, the stacking of governments to implement its policies, and finally the beginning of the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". That is commonly referred to as Agenda 2030, which means eight years remain. In those eight years they have to destroy our current beliefs in bodily autonomy, freedom of thought and speech, ownership of private property, privacy, and nation states. They list as some of the primary goals of Agenda 2030 as people will own nothing; all commerce will be conducted by drones; a "handful of countries" will dominate all others; the amalgamation of people's physical/digital/economic identities, and others.  Here is the link to the WEF's own video on the matter here.

The war in Ukraine should thus be thought of as the initiating event that forces the world onto the WEF's schedule for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Putin's role, if you will, is to destroy the patsy state of Ukraine in order to occupy it and create a new iron curtain. Likely to follow in very short order are Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. You can view it as the WEF fixing the mistakes of Hitler's invasion of the USSR by having the Russians use up their men killing Ukrainian men - which is after all what bled the German Army white in WW II. Then, because Germany under Merkel (another of the politicians Schwab listed) agreed to tie Germany's energy needs so tightly to Russia, the sanctioning of Russia will "force" Putin to turn the tap off to Europe and create a massive economic shock to the world economy. It will also sour people toward the dependence on fossil fuels for energy. As a result, Russia will be at war with NATO, but not a nuclear war. Instead it is likely to be a war of conventional destruction previously unknown to mankind. Perhaps that is why the WEF includes travel to Mars as one of its goals - Dark Fleet anyone? 

China will join Russia in a war against NATO and its allies. The world will be carved into two blocks Eurasia and Atlantia. China will bury the hatchet with India, and India will join Eurasia. This will be a war of, in a sense, extermination. The Globalists (WEF) aim to reduce the human population of earth to around 500 million people - that's 7 billion deaths required. The Globalists refer to this as "creative destruction".  In a sense, their strategy mimics the Russian/Soviet war of 1941-45 - which they referred to as a "war of annihilation". 

The end result of the collapse of the financial system, the war of annihilation, and the collapse of the human value system will create a need to "build back better". This is where the WEF's agenda gets implemented. Make no mistake, nothing less than this can achieve their stated aims. For example, private property rights are guaranteed in the US constitution and have formed the basis for western life since the beginning. That means the US constitution must be destroyed in order to implement the "you will own nothing" aim. How do you destroy the US constitution without invading the US and conquering it? You destroy it from within. That means firstly you denigrate what it means to be American and have rights. Have we seen that happening in the US?  How about some examples of many: burning US flags; removing patriotic statutes (like Abraham Lincoln); labelling half the populations as deplorables; suspending rights during Covid; invalidating the US electoral system; politicizing the police and courts; moving to disarm civilian populations; etc. All of this is already happening in the US. 

The war in Ukraine is simply a manifestation of a controlled establishment that fully intends to extinguish the rights, and in many cases the lives, of  people all around the world. It is only a first step, and the remaining steps will be much worse than what we are currently seeing. This is by design and with purpose. This may sound like a "conspiracy theory" to you, but don't forget who made the term "conspiracy theory" a term for mocking - the establishment via the media. People lie but the evidence does not. Look about you. Look at your country and see what has happened to your values, rights, and nations over the last three decades. Ask yourself why it was the the most right wing, patriotic people like Reagan, Thatcher, and Mulroney who instigated and implemented free trade agreements between nations, which resulted in the unnecessary transfer of wealth from wealthier countries to less fortunate. The very definition of such a transfer of wealth from the fortunate to the unfortunate is socialism in its purest form. Yes, the world is but a stage and we are mere actors. We don't have to be slaves to it though.