MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The Ukrainian armed forces have lost more than 4,130 servicemen since the beginning of the operation in the Kursk direction, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said on Tuesday.

"In total, during the fighting in the Kursk area, the enemy has lost more than 4,130 servicemen, 58 tanks, 27 infantry fighting vehicles, 50 armored personnel carriers," the MoD said in a statement.

Over the past day, Ukraine lost up to 350 soldiers, 25 armored vehicles, including four tanks, in the Kursk region, the ministry said.

WATCH: Russia’s Defense Ministry has shown footage of Ukrainian equipment destroyed by Russian Marines in the Kursk region, as well as how an Mi-28 crew eliminated Ukrainian militants near the region’s border pic.twitter.com/adpfrols1O

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) August 20, 2024

Units of the Russian Battlegroup Sever thwarted attempts by Ukrainian assault groups to attack in five directions in the Kursk region, the MoD noted, adding that Kiev lost more than 60 people and two tanks.

Russian forces also hit four Ukrainian armed forces brigades near eight settlements, the statement read.

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240820/ukraine-loses-over-4130-troops-during-operation-in-kursk-area---mod-1119843144.html

 

TOTAL LOSSES BY YUCKRAINE (THE NAZI KIEV REGIME) APPROACH ONE MILLION SOLDIERS..... LOSING AROUND 1,900 PER DAY AT THE LINE OF CONTACT... PLUS 450 A DAY IN KURSK...

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.rt.com/russia/602844-sumy-region-command-post/

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

BY Brian Berletic

Kursk: Fighting Russia to the Last Ukrainian

 

In the lead up to the Ukrainian military’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, even Western headlines were dominated by reports of Ukraine’s gradual demise. Ukraine is admittedly suffering arms and ammunition shortages, as well as facing an unsolvable manpower crisis. Russia has been destroying Ukrainian military power faster than Ukraine and its Western sponsors can reconstitute it.

Western headlines have also been admitting the scale on which Russia is expanding its own military power as its Special Military Operation (SMO) continues into its third year.

While the launch of Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has diverted attention away from Ukraine’s collapsing fighting capacity, the incursion itself has not only failed to address the factors leading to this collapse, it is already accelerating it.

Politico in an August 15, 2024 article titled, “As Kyiv makes gains in Kursk, Russia strikes back in Donetsk,” cites the spokesman of Ukraine’s 110th Mechanized Brigade who would admit, “since Ukraine launched the Kursk offensive I would say things have become worse in our part of the front. We have been getting even less ammo than before, and the Russians are pushing.”

The same article would also cite “Deep State,” a mapping project Politico claims is “close” to Ukraine Ministry of Defense, claiming, “over the past 24 hours, Russia occupied the villages of Zhelanne and Orlivka and made advances in New York, Krasnohorivka, Mykolaivka and Zhuravka in Donetsk.”

Thus, while Ukraine claims gains in Kursk, it comes at the expense of territory everywhere else along the line of contact.

Because of the nature of the fighting in Kursk where Ukrainian forces have come out from behind extensive defensive lines and are operating out in the open, they are suffering much greater losses than Ukrainian units being pushed back along the line of contact, according to even the Western media.

Superficial Success, Strategic Suicide  

Despite this reality, the Western media has invested heavily in depicting Ukraine’s Kursk incursion as a turning point in the fighting.
CNN in its August 15, 2024 article, “Russia appears to have diverted several thousand troops from occupied Ukraine to counter Kursk offensive, US officials say,” attempts at first glance to portray the Ukrainian operation as having successfully diverted Russian forces from the front lines.

Buried deeper in the article, however, CNN reveals that whatever troops Russia is moving are relatively insignificant compared to the number of Russian forces still fighting along the line of contact primarily in Kherson, Zaporozhye, the Donbass, and Kharkov.

In the short-term, experienced forces utilized as a mobile reserve are likely being moved to Kursk until Russian reserves within Russia itself can be sufficiently mobilized and moved to the area of fighting. The vast majority of Russia’s forces not only remain along the actual line of contact, they continue making progress at an accelerated rate.

The same CNN article would quote US officials, saying:

Some officials also raised concerns that Ukraine, which one western official said has sent some of its more experienced forces into Kursk, may have created weaknesses along its own frontlines that Russia may be able to exploit to gain more ground inside Ukraine. 

“It’s impressive from a military point of view,” the official said of the Kursk operation. But Ukraine is “committing pretty experienced troops to this, and they can’t afford to lose those troops.” 

“And having diverted them from the front line creates opportunities for Russia to seize advantage and break through,” this person added. 

Buried under optimistic headlines across the Western media regarding this latest incursion is an ominous truth – that an operation aimed at humiliating Russia, boosting morale, and raising the political, territorial, and military costs for Russia, has only brought Ukraine deeper into its growing arms, ammunition, and manpower crisis.

Toward what end does an incursion accelerating the collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity serve?

Washington’s, Not Kiev’s Ends  

CNN would also attempt to convince readers that the Kursk incursion took the US itself entirely by surprise. This is untrue.

The United States, following its political capture of Ukraine in 2014, admittedly took over Ukraine’s intelligence networks. These are the same networks that would have been required to organize this most recent incursion.

A New York Times article, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” not only admits to the CIA’s role in training, shaping, and directing Ukrainian intelligence operations, but also admits to a network of CIA bases along the Ukrainian-Russian border and the fact that the CIA stood up covert military units specifically for crossing over into Russian territory and conducting operations there.

The CIA and other US military and intelligence agencies have been involved in Ukrainian military operations leading up to and all throughout the duration of Russia’s SMO.  The Washington Post admits that the US worked with Ukraine to “build a campaign plan” ahead of the failed 2023 Ukrainian offensive.

It is inconceivable Ukraine moved multiple brigades of manpower and equipment, including US-European trained soldiers and Western military equipment to Sumy where the Kursk incursion was launched without Washington’s involvement, let alone without Washington’s knowledge.

Why then did the US organize such an incursion, one admittedly overstretching Ukrainian forces already crumbling under the growing weight of Russian military power? Why, amid Russia’s strategy of attrition, have US planners decided to launch an incursion that will accelerate the loss of Ukrainian manpower, arms, and ammunition it does not have to spare?

In a much wider geopolitical context – Washington’s geopolitical context – the incursion helps raise the cost of victory for Russia in Ukraine as the US seeks to place pressure on and overextend Russia elsewhere within and along its borders.

Years before the SMO even began, as far back as at least 2019, US policymakers openly sought to draw Russia into a costly conflict in Ukraine, just one among many other proposals meant to overextend Russia.

The RAND Corporation in its 2019 paper “Extending Russia” would explain the benefits of “providing lethal aid to Ukraine,”stating:

Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has – at a minimum – raised the political cost of Russia’s ongoing SMO. This most recent incursion into Kursk almost certainly had hoped to reach the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, just 35 kilometers beyond the furthest extent the incursion has reached as of this writing. Had Ukrainian forces reached the power plant, the price would have been even higher.

In many ways, however, the Kursk incursion has created a much greater strategic dilemma for Ukraine that it has for Russia. While it has unfolded on the wrong side of the border, the outcome is the same as the Kharkov front Russia opened earlier this year.

Regarding the Kharkov front, the New York Times in its May 2024 article, “Facing Russian Advance, a Top Ukrainian General Paints a Bleak Picture,” would admit, “the Russian attacks in the northeast are intended to stretch Ukraine’s already thin reserves of soldiers and divert them from fighting elsewhere,” and that, “the Ukrainian army was trying to redirect troops from other front-line areas to shore up its defenses in the northeast, but that it had been difficult to find the personnel.” 

By committing thousands of Ukrainian troops and large amounts of Ukraine’s best military equipment to an incursion into Kursk, it is creating the same overextension of its own forces Russia had created in Kharkov last May, but with the added complication of needing to extend logistics and other means of supporting Ukrainian operations beyond Ukrainian territory itself.
The same RAND Corporation paper proposing to draw Russia into a costly conflict with Ukraine would also discuss the consequences this conflict would have for Ukraine itself, explaining:

…such a move might also come at a significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility. This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.

The plan from the very beginning was to lure Russia into a costly conflict in the hopes of precipitating a Soviet-style collapse, but at the expense of Ukraine’s own survival. Thus, what we see unfolding in Ukraine today is simply the consequences predicted by the RAND Corporation in 2019.

Dangerous Escalation and the Long Game 

Perhaps most concerning of all is the looming prospect of the US intervening more directly, including in the form of a “buffer zone” similar to that created by the US and its Turkish allies in the east and north of Syria during Washington’s proxy war there.

For this intervention to succeed, Russia would have to be compelled to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine.

The possibility of this happening is difficult to predict.

On one hand, Russia has demonstrated immense patience amid other US proxy wars. Russian patience in Syria is finally paying off after almost a decade of enduring US provocations and the presence of US troops east of the Euphrates River. The US now finds itself isolated and vulnerable in Syria, its forces under regular attack there, and a disproportionate amount of US military hardware remains committed to both Syria and the surrounding region, limiting US combat power ahead of a potential conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the Asia-Pacific.

Moscow may determine that a Western intervention directly into Ukraine will, over time, collapse under its own weight in a similar manner. In the long term, the US is only going to grow weaker and more isolated as a result of its unsustainable, overreaching foreign policy. Initiating direct conflict with the US now, when it is inevitably going to be weaker later, would be permitting the US a potential and unnecessary advantage.

Instead, Russia and its allies may find an opportunity to exercise many of the means of escalation (short of direct conflict with the US itself) they have held in reserve throughout the duration of this conflict. This includes more open and direct military cooperation between Russia and China, including the arming of Russian forces with Chinese manufactured weapons and ammunition.

On the other hand, Russia may decide to restrain itself from attacking Western forces arriving in Ukraine’s westernmost regions, but continue military operations along the line of contact and obviously within Kursk itself to expel Ukrainian forces. The US would seek to test the limits of Russian resolve, seeking to constrain Russian operations as much as possible, just as the US did in Syria from 2015 onward.

Throughout this process, the potential for escalation and direct conflict between Russia and the US will grow.

Despite the continued collapse of Ukraine’s fighting capacity because Ukraine is ultimately a proxy of the United States, a difficult and dangerous transition period lies ahead dependent on the extent to which the US seeks to mitigate Ukraine’s subsequent political and territorial collapse.

Only time will tell whether the US cuts and runs as it did in Afghanistan, or doubles down as it did in Syria. It should be pointed out, however, that the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 to redirect its resources ahead of Russia’s SMO in 2022. Were the US to cut Ukraine loose, it would only be because the US requires resources for a larger, more dangerous conflict elsewhere – namely in the Asia-Pacific region against China.

Either way, when Ukraine’s fighting capacity nears its end, it is likely only wider conflict awaits.

 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

https://journal-neo.su/2024/08/21/kursk-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.rt.com/russia/602904-ukrainian-troops-massacred-civilians-kursk/

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.rt.com/russia/602890-medvedev-kursk-peace-talks/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia's Battlegroup Yug eliminated more than 700 Ukrainian servicemen over the past 24 hours, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said on Wednesday.

"The Ukrainian armed forces lost over 700 servicemen, three vehicles [in battles with the Yug group]," the MoD said in a statement.

Battlegroup Tsentr liberated the settlement of Zhelannoye in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and repelled six counterattacks, eliminating over 630 Ukrainian troops, the statement read, adding that Battlegroup Zapad repelled six counterattacks and eliminated up to 470 Ukrainian troops.

Kiev lost up to 130 fighters in battles with Battlegroup Vostok and up to 100 soldiers in battles with Battlegroup Sever, the ministry added.

 

Anti-drone ‘barbecue’ protection doesn’t save Ukrainian vehicles from destruction

Sputnik has obtained a video of an armored HMMWV vehicle struck by Russian drone. It was destroyed despite anti-drone protection made of a metal structure referred to as a "barbeque."… pic.twitter.com/5BLTTV3n8B

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) August 21, 2024

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240821/ukraine-loses-over-700-soldiers-in-fights-with-russias-battlegroup-yug---mod-1119858778.html

 

THIS AMOUNTS TO ANOTHER 2,030 YUCKRAINIAN SOLDIERS ELIMINATED IN 24 HOURS — WITHOUT COUNTING THE 450/500 ELIMINATED DAILY IN THE KURSK REGION.... 

 

MEANWHILE:

As Many Of Us Have Been Saying This... 

 ... for a long time (visit Larry's SONAR 21 in his latest with Judge) — patience and prudence of Russia are mistaken for weakness. Well, you cannot culture up Washington whose MO is set by hysterical emotive media and overall clownish nature of contemporary American politics. But you also cannot explain what Operational ART is, because most of operations of the US Armed Forces have been against weak opponents. Well, Kursk incursion and catastrophe which befell all those VSU "forces", including a bunch of "volunteers" is the latest demonstration of sheer incompetence of NATO's "planning", forget about executing any serious operations of scale. It took Akhmat, 810th Brigade of marines some elements of SSO with the help of VKS to turn those roughly 120-150 sq. kilometers of Kursk Oblast into the mass grave for VSU. 

 

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

Ukrainian Invasion of Russia: Kampfgruppe Peiper 2.0 “Having a BAD Day!”

 

BY Seth Ferris

 

Initially, the collective West was celebrating the Ukrainian invasion of Russia in the Kursk border region. This ill-advised action, so much so … that [they] soon realized was premature. When I use they—sarcastically, I mean Ukraine and NATO collectively, as it is clear that such an operation was planned by outsiders, as even Ukrainian soldiers themselves were in awe of the thought of participating in an attack on Russia—as even simple soldiers knew it would not end well.

It is as if various news outlets with rather bombastic story titles, such as this “How Ukraine turned the war on its head with surprise attack on southern Russia,” by such purported military geniuses as Tim Lister, Eve Brennan and Allegra Goodwin of CNN, describe this as a “war winning” move by Ukraine with such catchy paragraphs as:

“[Ukraine has] demonstrated that they can pull off such a secretive and significant operation successfully, they can penetrate Russian territory so this is no longer the red line, and they … are still very much committed to fight for their country, that there is no such thing as war fatigue, and they’re willing to take these, in a way, extreme measures for the sake of defending their country,” Natia Seskuria, an associate fellow at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies (RUSI), told CNN.

Even the Flagship BBC leads with over-inflated story lines “Ukraine hopes its incursion into Russia changes the outcome of war” with such clever ideas as the offensive being launched to create, of all things, a Buffer Zone to protect the city of Sumy, and:

“The main purpose of this offensive into Kursk is to divert Russia’s attention from its occupied territories in Ukraine,”

Unfortunately, they are rather let down by President Biden himself, who said:

“I’ve been talking to my staff every four to five hours for the past six to eight days, and that’s creating a real dilemma for Putin.” “We are in direct communication with Ukraine,”

While western media has been full of claims of Ukrainian “victories” in during the invasion of “Old Russia,” and boasting of Ukraine achieving its objectives, particularly the diversion of Russian troops from other areas of the front line in the South and East, and rumors circulate, including form Ukrainian POWs captured by Russian forces, that a second day objective was the capture of the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant in order to bargain it in exchange for the Zaparozhe Nuclear Power Plant held by Russia.

Facts speak louder the rhetoric

In fact, the opposite appears to be the reality, with Russian troops taking the opportunity to advance on strategic targets in Ukraine, such a Pokrovsk and Toretsk, while Ukrainian advances have been contained, and in many areas, now reversed with Ukrainian shock troops surrendering in mass

Many observers are talking about this invasion as a “game changer” and that may well be true, but not in the way that most western propaganda outlets would like us to think. But now Russian can take its gloves off in how it manages a SMO, and fielding more troops to conflict.

Remember Operation Citadel?

Likely not, as few, still alive today, were even born. That was going to be a “Game Changer” too, and that is why more realistic, analysts are comparing this offensive with that of Operation Citadel, the Nazi plan for the battle of Kursk in 1943, where a tempting Soviet salient was intended to be captured by a pincer attack.

Unfortunately for the Germans, STAVKA, the Soviet high command, was well aware of German intentions-both from British supplied ENIGMA intelligence, and their own agents inside Germany.  The titanic battle around Kursk resulted in a clear Soviet victory, and the German loss of strategic initiative on the Eastern front for the rest of the war, which sealed the fate of Nazi Germany for all practical purposes, in the wake of Stalingrad, the infamous defeat of a whole Germany Army.

While this analogy is attractive from a geographic point of view, I am more inclined to think that the 2023 Ukrainian late summer offensive in the Donbass was this war’s equivalent of Kursk in 1943, being a forlorn drive into well-prepared Soviet defenses, with the accordingly horrendous casualties one would expect when the enemy is well-prepared and dug in.

The Kursk offensive of August 2024 more reminds me of a couple of other battles. Firstly, the desperation of the German 1918 “Kaiserschlagt” offensives, where the cream of the German infantry was siphoned off into the infamous Stosstruppen units, which despite initial successes, were stopped, and destroyed by the combined British and French forces in France and Belgium, leaving the German army severely weakened and ultimately unable to defend against the allied counter-attack that won the first world war. Secondly, the battle of the bulge, a desperate German bid to drive through the Ardennes to Antwerp and force the western allies to negotiate.

In that case, again, the cream of the German Army was thrown into battle, and again, despite initial successes, particularly by Kampfgruppe Peiper, were stopped by stubborn American resistance, and destroyed by Anglo-American air power and ground forces. It is often estimated that, if the German forces thus thrown away in offence, had been used more defensively on the eastern front, the Germans could have held out far longer.

Are we seeing a re-run here in Kursk?

Firstly, the idea that this attack will “Change the nature of the SMO” will likely be fulfilled, but not by Ukraine, but by Russia. Such an attack on Russian territory gives Moscow the right, and incentive, to treat the current conflict not as a Special Military Operation, but as an all-out war.

Secondly, western crowing about the use of western equipment, particularly German tanks, and Western training, particularly by the British, is made even more obscene by the pedantic comments that western governments are issuing trying to divert blame, such as this piece of sophistry from the Nazis….. I mean Germans:

“Ukraine has the right to self-defense enshrined in international law,” Germany’s foreign ministry told POLITICO in a statement. “This is not limited to its own territory.”

They go on to say:

“The question of whether Western weapons are involved doesn’t come up because, after they are delivered, they are Ukrainian weapons,” said Kiesewetter.

Meanwhile, the British, ever the most antagonistic to Russia, are pushing for the removal of restrictions on the use of western weapons by Ukriane, with new Defence secretary John Healy mouthing off in suicidal pub argument fashion:

The UK “should be proud” of British weapons being used by Ukraine, despite the country’s incursion into Russia, Defence Secretary John Healey has said.

What stupidity

Needless to say, the Russians are not taking this laying down, with Dmitry Medvedev responding on X:

The German newspaper Bild has published a revanchist article where it proudly announces German tanks’ comeback to the Russian land. In response, we’re going to do everything to bring the newest Russian tanks to Platz d. Republik.

It seems now, however, that the initial euphoria in Ukraine and the west is wearing off in the face of the harsh reality of Russian military superiority and human resolve. Ukraine is suffering immense losses, desperately trying to hold on to the limited, one would say pyrrhic, gains it has made initially. Equipment losses are deemed to be twice as high as the already disastrous front line in the Donbass, including the unfolding disaster near Pokrovsk, as shown by this “morale boosting” announcement:

“The enemy is rapidly approaching the outskirts of Pokrovsk,” Serhii Dobriak, the head of the military administration. “Evacuation is underway in the community. Don’t delay!”

It is widely acknowledged now that transfers of Russian troops from the main line of battle to Kursk have been, at best, minimal, if not non-existent. The Russian government appears to have been content to contain the elite of the Ukrainian army with use of relatively inexperienced Rosguard volunteers and regular army conscripts, while their real hardened troops seeks to finish the job in Ukraine, where the UAF is suffering badly from being stripped of elite units and their equipment for what appears increasingly to have been a doomed gamble.

What remains to be seen is whether the Ukrainian high command is brave enough to cut its losses and pull back from Kursk, or whether they will continue to reinforce what is rapidly becoming another bloody failure. Based on previous experience, such as Bakhmut, I have my doubts that either the Ukrainians, or their NATO masters will see sense.

It is as if this incursion into Russia was a PR stunt, similar to the August 2008 Georgian-Russian conflict, so to help out Ukraine’s BIG patron, the Biden Administration, during a presidential election year.

I have a suspicion that this offensive may, in fact, have been expected to fail from the start, but is simply an attempt to delay the collapse of Ukrainian resistance until after the November elections in the United States.

Regardless, Kampfgruppe Peiper 2.0 is having a very bad day, indeed.

 

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine «New Eastern Outlook».

 

https://journal-neo.su/2024/08/28/ukrainian-invasion-of-russia-kampfgruppe-peiper-2-0-having-a-bad-day/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

In a recent interview, commander of the "Akhmat" special forces, Absiyarunush Alaudinov, discussed the growing conflict in Kursk, stating that his unit is fully prepared to repel the NATO offensive. He framed the battle as a larger struggle against significant Western support, stressing his strategy of allowing the enemy to advance before launching a decisive counteroffensive. Alaudinov criticised NATO’s use of advanced weaponry and civilian captives for propaganda purposes. Watch the full broadcast for more. INTERNATIONAL NEWS

Putin’s Chechen Commander’s Bombshell Revelation On Kursk From Ground Zero: ‘Zelensky Just A Pawn…’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNFt9pI63B0&t=59s

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.