American “Century Of War Lies” Collides With “Secret Of Politics” Warning
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
An insightful new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announcing this morning: “In January, the Russian armed forces carried out 127 strikes with precision weapons on military infrastructure and defense industry facilities in Ukraine…Enterprises for the production, modernization and repair of weapons, arsenals, military airfields, fuel depots, deployment points of units of the armed forces of Ukraine and foreign mercenaries were hit…More than 3,000 units of various weapons, including foreign ones, were destroyed…They include German Leopard tanks, US Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Patriot and HIMARS launchers…The losses of the Ukrainian armed forces have exceeded 23,000 both killed and injured in January”, says this announcement followed a Ukrainian serviceman revealing to his nation’s peoples last evening during a television interview: “Ukrainian authorities are hiding the truth about real losses on the battlefield from society to avoid shocking it”.
Following the news yesterday: “Leaders from the European Union unanimously agreed to a four-year €50 billion aid package for Ukraine as Hungary, which vetoed the deal in December, fell into line with the other 26 member states, ending weeks of wrangling over the move”, this report notes, socialist European Union and NATO member leader Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban revealed the grim truth: “Hungary did not object to the allocation of €50 billion to Ukraine at the European Union summit in Brussels, because this money will be spent not on purchasing weapons, but on supporting the bankrupt Ukrainian state in order to prevent its complete collapse…The Ukrainian economy is connected to a life-support machine…But for support from the European Union and the United States, there would be no salaries, pensions or working institutions, and closing shop would be the sole option left”.
Along with the economy of the Ukraine Nazi Regime being on life support, this report continues, analytical articles like “Ukraine – The Power Scuffle Continues” document how its leadership are presently engaged in a desperate struggle for power against each other—is a struggle for power between corrupt puppet leader Ukraine President Vladimir Zelensky and his top military commander General Valery Zaluzhny, about which the leftist Washington Post, in its just released article “Zelensky’s Shake-Up Of Military Command, Meant As A Refresh, Risks Backlash”, revealed: “Russia has more forces and weapons than Ukraine, and for Kyiv to gain on the battlefield, Zaluzhny told the president, it must mobilize at least as many people as Russia plans to — some 400,000, according to the senior official familiar with their meeting…Ukraine must also prepare for losses, which are expected to be comparable to last year’s…The average age of Ukraine’s troops, for example, is over 40, and some soldiers have been fighting for more than two years without much rest”—and Pulitzer Prize winning legendary American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh just reported: “Zelensky’s desire to fire his commanding general is the result, some Americans believe, of his knowledge that Zaluzhny had continued to participate – whether directly or through aides is not known – in secret talks since last fall with American and other Western officials on how best to achieve a ceasefire and negotiate an end to the war with Russia”.
Yesterday, this report details, Ukrainian Commander-In-Chief General Zaluzhny released his strategy document “On The Modern Design Of Military Operations In The Russo-Ukrainian War: In The Fight For The Initiative”, which was quickly followed by the leftist Washington Post article “Ukraine’s Top General, Awaiting Dismissal Order, Urges Futuristic Overhaul”, wherein it observed: “With his days in command apparently numbered, Ukraine’s top general alleged on Thursday that the Ukrainian government had failed to mobilize sufficient numbers of troops and called for an urgent upgrade of the country’s high-tech warfare capabilities to overcome Russia’s larger and better-armed forces “and ensure the existence of statehood””—and in his opinion article just published by leftist CNN, it saw General Zaluzhny gravely assessing: “We must contend with a reduction in military support from key allies, grappling with their own political tensions…Our partners stocks of missiles, air defense interceptors and ammunition for artillery is becoming exhausted, due to the intensity of hostilities in Ukraine, but also from a global shortage of propellant charges…The weakness of the international sanctions regime means Russia, in partnership with certain others, is still able to deploy its military-industrial complex in pursuit of a war of attrition against us…We must acknowledge the significant advantage enjoyed by the enemy in mobilizing human resources and how that compares with the inability of state institutions in Ukraine to improve the manpower levels of our armed forces without the use of unpopular measures”.
Better instructive for Ukrainian Commander-In-Chief General Zaluzhny then concocting fairy tale strategy documents, this report notes, would be his watching films like “Debunking A Century Of War Lies” to understand the truth about the United States leading his nation into collapse and ruin—after which he would be wise to read and comprehend the American government RAND Corporation think tank document “Overextending And Unbalancing Russia” published in 2019, wherein it exactly describes how the Americans planned to destroy Ukraine by pushing it into an unwinnable war with Russia because they comically believed it would destabilize the Moscow leadership and allow them to ignite a color revolution, after which they planned to divide the Russian Federation up between the socialist Western colonial powers.
The 19th Century equivalent to American think tanks like the RAND Corporation that plot how to destroy other nations, this report continues, was German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the greatest military commander and statesman of his time who created modern Germany, about whom is known: “One of the secrets of Bismarck’s success was his careful in-depth study of the national interest of all the other states…He thereby avoided the pitfall of misunderstandings that led to conflicts”—and in summarizing Bismarck’s mastery of diplomacy, the late world-renowned American historian Jonathan Steinberg assessed: “In international relations, it meant absolutely no emotional commitment to any of the actors…Diplomacy should, he believed, deal with realities, calculations of probabilities, assessing the inevitable missteps and sudden lurches by the other actors, states, and their statesmen…The chessboard could be overseen and it suited Bismarck’s peculiar genius for politics to maintain in his head multiple possible moves by adversaries….He had his goals in mind and achieved them…He was and remained to the end master of the finely tuned game of diplomacy…He enjoyed it…In foreign affairs he never lost his temper, rarely felt ill or sleepless…He could outsmart and outplay the smartest people in other states”.
In applying his unmatched realist principles, this report concludes, Bismark most accurately assessed: “Never fight with Russian…On your every stratagem they answer unpredictable stupidity” and advisedly warned: “The secret of politics?…Make a good treaty with Russia”–an unheeded warning now joined by the recently released Western military article “The Russian Art Of War: How The West Led Ukraine To Defeat”, wherein it observed:
Throughout the Cold War period, the Soviet Union saw itself as the spearhead of a historical struggle that would lead to a confrontation between the “capitalist” system and “progressive forces”.
This perception of a permanent and inescapable war led the Soviets to study war in a quasi-scientific way, and to structure this thinking into an architecture of military thought that has no equal in the Western world.
The problem with the vast majority of our so-called military experts is their inability to understand the Russian approach to war. It is the result of an approach we have already seen in waves of terrorist attacks—the adversary is so stupidly demonized that we refrain from understanding his way of thinking.
As a result, we are unable to develop strategies, articulate our forces, or even equip them for the realities of war. The corollary of this approach is that our frustrations are translated by unscrupulous media into a narrative that feeds hatred and increases our vulnerability.
We are thus unable to find rational, effective solutions to the problem.
The way Russians understand conflict is holistic. In other words, they see the processes that develop and lead to the situation at any given moment. This explains why Vladimir Putin’s speeches invariably include a return to history.
In the West, we tend to focus on X moment and try to see how it might evolve. We want an immediate response to the situation we see today. The idea that “from the understanding of how the crisis arose comes the way to resolve it” is totally foreign to the West.
Russian military thought is traditionally linked to a holistic approach to warfare, which involves the integration of a large number of factors in the development of a strategy. This approach is materialized by the concept of “correlation of forces”.
The Russians have always attached particular importance to doctrine. Better than the West, they have understood that “a common way of seeing, thinking and acting”—as Marshal Foch put it—gives coherence, while allowing for infinite variations in the conception of operations. Military doctrine is a kind of “common core” that serves as a reference for designing operations.
Russian military doctrine divides military art into three main components: strategy (strategiya), operative art (operativnoe iskoustvo) and tactics (taktika). Each of these components has its own characteristics, very similar to those found in Western doctrines. Using the terminology of French doctrine on the use of forces:
The strategic level is that of conception. The aim of strategic action is to lead the adversary to negotiation or defeat.
The operative level is that of cooperation and coordination of inter-force actions, with a view to achieving a given military objective.
The tactical level, finally, is that of maneuver execution at weapon level as an integral part of the operational maneuver.
These three components correspond to levels of leadership, which translate into leadership structures and the space in which military operations are conducted.
For simplicity’s sake, let us say that the strategic level ensures the management of the theater of war (Театр Войны) (TV); a geographically vast entity, with its own command and control structures, within which there are one or more strategic directions.
The theater of war comprises a set of theaters of military operations (Театр Военных Действий) (TVD), which represent a strategic direction and are the domain of operative action.
These various theaters have no predetermined structure and are defined according to the situation. For example, although we commonly speak of the “war in Afghanistan” (1979-1989) or the “war in Syria” (2015-), these countries are considered in Russian terminology as TVDs and not TVs.
The same applies to Ukraine, which Russia sees as a theater of military operations (TVD) and not a theater of war (TV), which explains why the action in Ukraine is designated as a “Special Military Operation” (Специальная Военая Операция—Spetsialaya).
A “Special Military Operation” (Специальная Военная Операция – Spetsial’naya Voyennaya Operatsiya—SVO, or SMO in English abbreviation) and not a “war”.
The use of the word “war” would imply a different structure of conduct than that envisaged by the Russians in Ukraine, and would have other structural implications in Russia itself. Moreover—and this is a central point—as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg himself acknowledges, “the war began in 2014” and should have been ended by the Minsk Agreements.
The SMO is therefore a “military operation” and not a new “war”, as many Western “experts” claim.
[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
February 2, 2024 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.