Posted on 02/24/2024 5:59:01 AM PST by SpeedyInTexas
Lady Graham, US Department of War and Chief Investigator of Child Molestation.
🍈😂👍
This is the third time recently that I have seen President Trump use the word “will”, in reference to levying secondary sanctions on India for buying Russian oil.
I suspect that he will.
D-4.
Simple Keith makes my eyes rain
Russian intelligence services appear to be reassessing and possibly innovating their sabotage operations in Europe. The Economist and Bloomberg, citing an upcoming report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), recently reported that instances of suspected Russian sabotage attacks and hybrid warfare incidents in Europe sharply escalated to 30 attacks in 2024; IISS also counted 11 suspected Russian-backed hybrid attacks in Europe between January and May 2025.[14] The Economist reported that IISS analysts assessed that the decreasing trend in the number of suspected sabotage attacks in 2025 could be due to the increased NATO presence in the Black Sea, Russia's attempts to posture itself as a good-faith negotiator during peace negotiation with the United States about the war in Ukraine, or concerns that the scale of Russian hybrid attacks in Europe may provoke NATO escalation.[15] US and European officials told Bloomberg that the decreasing trend could be due to Russian President Vladimir Putin's desire to avoid antagonizing US President Donald Trump at the start of Trump's second term and early peace efforts in Ukraine, the reallocation of Russian General Staff's Main Directorate (GRU) resources to Ukraine, high-profile trials of saboteurs that are deterring future attacks, or the Moscow's attempts to tighten its control over and restrain the local proxies that Russia is using to conduct the attacks.[16] The official sources cautioned that the decreasing trend does not indicate that Russia has stopped its hybrid attacks or will not escalate them in the future, noting that Russian sabotage plots are more frequent in eastern European states than those in western Europe. IISS similarly warned that Russian intelligence services may be refining their tactics and reassessing the criminal networks in Europe with whom they partner, and that Russia may renew its hybrid campaign against Europe in the near future.[17]
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-3-2025
Kremlin officials are slowly organizing a coordinated response to US President Donald Trump's August 1 statement that the United States would redeploy two nuclear submarines closer to Russia. The Kremlin did not immediately employ a coordinated response on August 2 and 3 following Trump's initial announcement, but more Kremlin officials began to coalesce around similar rhetorical lines on August 4.[1] Kremlin officials utilized three main framings to respond to Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines — posing Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines as “emotional,” discounting the threat that this decision poses to Russia, and posturing Russia as a more responsible international actor than the United States. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on August 4 that discussions of nuclear escalation are premature and a “very emotional” perception of the situation.[2] Peskov claimed that Russia is “very careful” about any statements related to nuclear issues and that Russia takes a “responsible position” in regard to nuclear rhetoric.[3] Russian Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairperson Grigory Karasin responded to Trump by claiming that it is always better to be less emotional and more rational in foreign policy.[4] Russian State Duma Deputy Mikhail Matveev also characterized Trump as “emotional” in response to Trump's August 1 statement.[5] Russian State Duma Deputy Viktor Volodatsky claimed that Trump is attempting to intimidate Russia, but that the redeployment of US nuclear submarines near Russia is not a real threat to Russia, and Russian Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov similarly claimed that Trump is mistaken if he assesses that this redeployment will scare Russia.[6] Dzhabarov claimed that Russia is not threatening anyone.
These official Russian responses ignore the Kremlin's history of frequently leveraging nuclear saber-rattling to push the West to make decisions that benefit Russia. Trump explicitly acknowledged on August 1 that he redeployed the submarines in response to Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev’s July 31 nuclear threats.[7] Medvedev alluded on July 31 to Russia's automatic or semi-automatic nuclear weapons control system, referred to as the “Dead Hand” or the “Perimeter.”[8] The Kremlin regularly uses Medvedev to introduce nuclear threats into the Russian and international information spaces, but more senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, also often make similar vague allusions to Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities.[9] Putin has routinely invoked Russia's Oreshnik ballistic missile system to allude to the possibility that Russia could conduct a nuclear strike against the West, and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed during a media engagement with Putin on August 1 that Trump cannot dictate rules to a nuclear power like Russia.[10]
The Kremlin also responded to Trump's August 1 announcement by trying to downplay Medvedev’s role in Russian decision-making in order to obfuscate the role Medvedev plays in Putin's information efforts targeting the West. Peskov claimed on August 4 that Russian officials, including Medvedev, have different assessments on current events but that Russian President Vladimir Putin alone determines Russia's foreign policy.[11] Peskov claimed that Putin's position is the “main thing” of import. Peskov’s attempt to separate Medvedev’s views from Putin's ignores the way that Putin and other high-level officials in Putin's inner circle have themselves frequently used similar nuclear saber-rattling to threaten the West.[12] Medvedev himself does not drive Russian foreign policy decisions, but ISW continues to assess that his statements are very likely part of a top-down, concerted Kremlin informational strategy.[13] Putin would be able to censor Medvedev’s statements if he chose to do so, especially considering the Kremlin's demonstrated ability to coordinate official statements and overall grip on the Russian information space, internet, and media. Medvedev’s aggressive statements serve a specific purpose for Putin, however, as they push the West to see Putin's statements as more moderate and rational by comparison and create space for Putin to make greater demands or larger threats. Peskov’s August 4 claims are trying to conceal the way that the Kremlin is likely approving and encouraging Medvedev’s use of his platforms to make statements against the West.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-4-2025
Fields covered with fiber optics, view from the cockpit of a Ukrainian Mi-24.
https://bsky.app/profile/specialkhersoncat.bsky.social/post/3lvlgxdlznk2t
34 s video
Like mines, it will be interesting to see how this mess is cleaned up as well
Private and public Kremlin statements indicate that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demand the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts before he will initiate a peace agreement. Helping Ukraine inflict battlefield setbacks on Russian forces remains essential to efforts to persuade Putin to reevaluate his position on the war and negotiations. Reuters reported on August 5 that three Kremlin sources familiar with the matter stated that Putin's belief that Russia is winning and his doubts that US sanctions will have a significant impact on Russia are driving Putin's decision to continue his war against Ukraine.[1] Two of the sources claimed that Putin's war aims take precedence over his efforts to improve relations with the United States and US President Donald Trump. One source claimed that the recent Ukrainian-Russian peace talks in Istanbul were a Russian attempt to convince Trump that Putin was open to peace but noted that the talks were devoid of any real substance. One source claimed that “Putin cannot afford to end the war just because Trump wants it.” A source described Trump's reported March 2025 offer — in which Trump purportedly proposed to lift all US sanctions against Russia, to “de jure” recognize Russian sovereignty over occupied Crimea, and to “de facto” recognize Russian control over the other parts of Ukraine that Russian forces occupied at the time — as a “fantastic chance,” but stated that stopping a war is more difficult than starting one. Putin rejected that offer.
The Kremlin insider sources likely leaked this information in an attempt to obfuscate Putin's actual, more extreme war aims. One of Reuters’ sources stated that Putin does not see the logic in stopping Russian offensive operations, as Russian forces are making relatively more rapid advances on the battlefield.[2] The Kremlin sources implied that Putin would be willing to establish a ceasefire if Russia first occupied (or was given) the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts. Recent Kremlin statements, including from Putin himself, have repeatedly indicated that Putin remains committed to achieving his maximalist objectives that amount to full Ukrainian capitulation, however.[3] Putin claimed as recently as June 20 that “all of Ukraine is [Russia's].”[4] Russian State Duma Deputy Anatoly Wasserman said in an interview with Azerbaijani news outlet Minval published on August 3 that the stated goals of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine are “incompatible with the continued existence of Ukraine” as a sovereign state and that Russia alone will determine the end date for its war.[5] Kremlin newswire RIA Novosti published two op-eds on July 30 entitled “There is no other option: no one should remain alive in Ukraine” and “Noted: Ukraine will end very soon.”[6] Kremlin insiders are likely speaking to Western media outlets in order to socialize Putin's demands to Western policymakers and audiences, frame Russia's demand for the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as reasonable, and insinuate that there is a possibility for a full ceasefire and lasting peace should Ukraine and the West acquiesce to Putin's demands.
Putin has intentionally put himself in a position where he cannot present any peace settlement that falls short of his original war aims as a victory to the Russian military or people. One Kremlin source told Reuters that Putin does not feel that now is the time to end the war because Russian society and the Russian military would not understand such a decision.[13] The Kremlin has been engaged in a concerted multi-year effort to justify Putin's maximalist war objectives as necessary for the existence of the Russian state and to garner societal support for a protracted war until Russia achieves such goals.[14] Russian state and independent polling from early 2025 suggested that most Russians support continuing the war in Ukraine, and the Kremlin is likely seizing on these sentiments, which it has actively fostered, to justify Putin's decision to continue the war.[15] Putin is also increasing Russian society's reliance on military spending by heavily investing in Russia's defense industrial base (DIB), which now accounts for a significant portion of overall Russian domestic production.[16] ISW continues to assess that any sharp decrease in Russia's defensive spending will likely depress the Russian economy in the medium term, furthering Putin's incentive to continue a protracted war in Ukraine and instigate future military conflicts despite high Russian losses on the battlefield and critical constraints on its economy.[17] Putin has intentionally cultivated Russian society's commitment to his war aims and has not set conditions to take any off-ramps to accept a peace settlement that falls short of his original war aims.
Russia announced on August 4 that it will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, likely as a rhetorical response to US President Donald Trump's August 1 announcement about the redeployment of US nuclear submarines toward Russia. Russia's INF Treaty withdrawal does not portend a shift in Russia's use of shorter- and intermediate-range missiles, however. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claimed on August 4 that the conditions for Russia's “unilateral moratorium” on the deployment of weapons banned under the INF Treaty are “disappearing” such that Russia “no longer considers itself bound” by the INF Treaty's restrictions.[18] The Russian MFA claimed that the Russian leadership will decide on response measures after analyzing the deployment of Western land-based intermediate-range missiles. The Russian MFA claimed that Russia has “proactively made efforts to maintain restraint” following the US suspension of the INF treaty in 2019. The Russian MFA claimed that Western states have built up “destabilizing” missiles in areas near Russia, creating a “strategic” threat to Russian security. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to the MFA's announcement, stating that Russia is no longer “limited” in any way and that Russia has the right to take “appropriate measures.”[19] Peskov claimed that the West should not expect any announcements about the deployment of Russian shorter- and intermediate-range missiles as this information is “sensitive.”[20] Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev claimed on August 4 on his English-language X (formerly Twitter) account that the Russian MFA's statement is the result of NATO states’ “anti-Russian policy” and that “this is a new reality all [Russia's] opponents will have to reckon with.”[21] Medvedev vaguely threatened that the West should “expect further steps” from Russia. Medvedev’s August 4 threat on his English-language account is the latest in a string of recent nuclear threats against the West that are part of the Kremlin's wider reflexive control campaign that aims to push the West to make decisions that benefit Russia.[22]
Russia has long violated the INF Treaty and publicly flaunted its use of shorter- and intermediate-range missiles banned under the treaty. The United States suspended participation in the INF Treaty on February 1, 2019, and withdrew from the treaty on August 2, 2019, due to Russian violations of the treaty with Russia's development, testing, and deployment of intermediate-range 9M729 (SSC-8) missiles. Russia suspended its participation in the INF in response on February 2, 2019, but had not formally withdrawn from the treaty.[23] Russia conducted a strike against Ukraine using an Oreshnik ballistic missile (reportedly an experimental variant of the RS-26 missile, which has a range of 2,000 to 5,800 kilometers) in November 2024, and Putin publicly claimed on August 1 that Russia produced its first serial Oreshnik complex and missiles and that the missile system entered into service.[24] Russia has also routinely launched Iskander missiles, with a reported range of 400 to 500 kilometers, against Ukraine and permanently deployed Iskanders to Kaliningrad Oblast in 2018.[25] High-ranking Russian officials began to set conditions in the information space for Russia to permanently withdraw from the INF Treaty in June 2025, suggesting that the Kremlin had made the decision to withdraw previously.[26] The Kremlin is attempting to posture its withdrawal from the treaty as a response to Trump's August 1 announcement, however.
European and NATO allies announced that they will purchase over one billion euros worth of US weapons for Ukraine through a new NATO funding mechanism. Ukraine's Minister of Defense (MoD), Denis Shmyhal, announced on August 4 that the United States and NATO launched the Prioritized Ukrainian Requirements List (PURL) initiative, which is a new mechanism that will allow NATO members and partners to finance the supply of American weapons and technology to Ukraine through voluntary contributions.[27] Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans stated on August 4 that the Netherlands is allocating 500 million euros (roughly $570 million) to purchase American weapons systems, including Patriot components and missiles, through the PURL initiative.[28] NATO announced on August 5 that Denmark, Norway, and Sweden will finance a combined $500 million military aid package to purchase air defense systems, Patriot munitions, anti-tank systems, ammunition, and spare parts from the United States through the PURL initiative.[29]
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-5-2025
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-5-2025
The delegation visited two research facilities run by a Russian scientist with nuclear weapons testing expertise, specifically in vacuum technology for implosion mechanisms.[41] Such visits would reportedly require Russian intelligence approval.[42] The United States sanctioned an SPND-affiliated company, Ideal Vacuum, in May for trying to ”procure from foreign suppliers and indigenously fabricate equipment that could be applicable in nuclear weapons research and development.”[43] One of the nuclear scientists tried to purchase three nuclear isotopes, including tritium, which increases the yield of nuclear warheads, from a Russian nuclear isotope supplier in May 2024.[44] The Financial Times was unable to confirm if the scientist completed the sale of these isotopes. Iran has historically pursued nuclear cooperation with Russia through various diplomatic channels, likely including the Russo-Iranian Strategic Comprehensive Agreement signed in January.[45] Newly-appointed SNSC Secretary and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s senior advisor Ali Larijani attempted to muster up support for the Iranian nuclear program in several covert meetings with Russian officials in 2025.[46]
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-august-5-2025
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-august-5-2025
A source in the Kremlin told us this, commenting on publications in the Western press. Enemy media, in particular, have spread the following information: the president is going to continue the SVO, despite any ultimatums. And the General Staff tells Vladimir Putin: the Ukrainian front will collapse in two or three months. “Vladimir Vladimirovich is certainly confident in Victory. And he has no doubt that we will defeat the enemy. At the same time, he is well aware of the situation on the battlefield and understands perfectly well that it is impossible to defeat the troops of the Kiev regime in a few months. I will tell you more - Vladimir Vladimirovich knows for sure that the SVO will not end this year. And that there is still a long struggle ahead,” the channel's interlocutor said. At the same time, he refused to comment on rumors in the same Western press about an “ air truce ” with the Kiev regime (mutual renunciation of missile and drone strikes) and that we could allegedly soon end the SVO due to concerns of some elites related to the crisis in the economy .
A source in the Ministry of Defense confirmed the information of the Presidental Administration representative. And he reminded us: Putin expects the military to provide plans on how the SVO will proceed throughout the next year. As for the “air truce,” the channel's interlocutor knows nothing about it. “It would be a shame if we renounced strikes on Kiev or Lvov. But Moscow is also in great danger now, so I am not ruling anything out,” he said.
Is there any more recent information on Putin executing Alexandr Dugin’s State run population increase plan? This would involve creating a cadre of reproducing females who would be impregnated by select (lucky) favored politicians and war heroes. These manufactured babies to be raised to serve the State as ordered. I wonder how young they would be required to take up arms for Putin’s planned future wars—18, 16, 14 years old? How young have the child soldiers recruited by African war lords been, and how effective? How young have “volunteers” been who have served perversions of Islam by wearing suicide vests?
Last word printed here suggests that Putin plans to go ahead with this monstrosity some time in September. Last question — How old do you think the beautiful young boy shown in this comment might have been?
I wonder how many times Putin was subjected to the “manly” Russin/Soviet Punishment of homosexual rape as a teen and young man? No wonder he needed $200 billion dollars to feel safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
