Friday, January 28, 2022


(ISW) The Institute for the Study of War has knocked out what they feel Putin’s options are if he decides to send Russian troops into the Ukraine. Below is the condensed version, for the one it has been culled from click here:

Executive Summary:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is using the crisis he created by mobilizing a large military force around Ukraine to achieve two major objectives: first, advancing and possibly completing his efforts to regain effective control of Ukraine itself, and second, fragmenting and neutralizing the NATO alliance. Russian military preparations can support a massive invasion of Ukraine from the north, east, and south that could give Putin physical control of Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities, allowing him to dictate terms that would accomplish the first objective. Such an invasion, however, might undermine his efforts to achieve the second objective because it could rally the NATO alliance around the need to respond to such a dramatic act of aggression. An invasion would also entail significant risks and definite high costs. A Russian military action centered around limited military operations in southern and southeastern Ukraine coupled with a brief but widespread and intense air and missile campaign could better position Putin to achieve both aims as well as reduce the likely costs and risks to Russia.

We therefore currently forecast that:

  • Russia will not conduct a full mechanized invasion to conquer all of Ukraine this winter (unchanged).
  • Russian mechanized forces will overtly deploy into occupied Donbas on a large scale by mid-February (increased likelihood).
  • Russia may launch an air and missile campaign throughout unoccupied Ukraine in conjunction with an overt deployment into occupied Donbas (newly identified course of action).
  • Russia may conduct limited ground incursions north and west from occupied Donbas and/or north from Crimea.

Our previous forecast that Russia would deploy mechanized forces to Belarus in early 2022 (which we first made in December 2020 and last updated in December 2021) has transpired.[1]

We have identified a new course of action since our previous examination of Russian options that Putin is preparing and may pursue in conjunction with an overt move into occupied Donbas: an air and missile campaign, possibly extensive, throughout unoccupied Ukraine. We have observed indicators that he is preparing this option. We assess that such an air campaign in unoccupied Ukraine is significantly more likely than an invasion intended to seize large areas of unoccupied Ukraine, including Kyiv and other major cities. Putin could initiate the air and missile campaign and/or limited ground incursions in southeastern and southern Ukraine before Russian forces have completed deployments to and preparations along the northern Ukrainian frontier and in Belarus. We are not yet ready as of January 27, 2022, to forecast that Putin will actually order the air and missile campaign in conjunction with the move into Donbas, but policymakers must be aware of the conditions the Kremlin is setting for that contingency—separate from preparations for a major ground offensive.

A Russian air and missile campaign that targets both occupied and unoccupied Ukraine could pose an even greater short-term challenge to the US and NATO than an invasion to occupy most of Ukraine in the same way that a live hostage situation creates more tension and complexity while in progress than a completed murder. Once Russian mechanized forces have seized Ukraine’s capital and major cities, Putin’s effective leverage on the West drops substantially, as he will have exercised the near-complete extent of his ability to damage Ukraine and left little for the West to try to deter by action or prevent by appeasement.

A partial attack that retains the visible capability to go further, however, increases the pressure on the West to meet some of Putin’s demands to dissuade him from further violence. Holding back from the conquest of Kyiv and major Ukrainian cities allows Putin to continue to demand concessions from the West that transcend Ukrainian issues, such as blanket commitments not to expand NATO further. Russia’s military conquest of Ukraine would seem to make such commitments irrelevant and reduce pressure on the West to make them.

An air and missile campaign that leaves the Ukrainian state nominally independent with a beleaguered and fearful government and people, however, allows Putin to protract the crisis. He can continue his efforts to maximize the tension and friction among Ukraine, the United States, and America’s European allies (especially the Germans, given their extreme vulnerability to Russia’s energy pressure) by using the threats of continuing air attacks, the economic devastation of Ukraine and Europe, or, finally, the invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

An air and missile campaign against unoccupied Ukraine would pose less cost and risk to Russia compared with an invasion and occupation of territory, although an air and missile campaign would incur more cost and risk than simply moving forces overtly into occupied Donbas without attacking beyond the current line of contact. The United States and NATO should prioritize developing a coherent response to this course of action in addition to their other efforts to deter and set conditions to respond to Russian threats.

The objectives of such a Russian air and missile campaign could include:

  • Expanding wedges in the Western alliance;
  • Increasing pressure on the West to make larger concessions regarding NATO expansion in general and the disposition of NATO forces in eastern Europe;
  • Forcing Ukraine to make further concessions to Russian demands regarding occupied Donbas;
  • Coercing Ukraine into accepting a new version of the Minsk Accords or an entirely different agreement making even more concessions that undermine Ukrainian sovereignty;
  • Forcing Ukraine to amend its constitution to rule out NATO membership;
  • Disrupting the Ukrainian government;
  • Creating a governance and stability crisis in Ukraine by forcing concessions that infuriate Ukrainian patriots;
  • Crippling the Ukrainian economy; and
  • Severely degrading the Ukrainian military to set conditions for further demands or Russian military activities if Putin is not able to secure his objectives through this more limited campaign.

An air and missile campaign would be far more likely to achieve these objectives than simply moving Russian forces overtly into occupied Donbas. It would also be more likely to achieve these aims at a cost acceptable to Putin than a mechanized drive along the northern Azov Sea coast would alone.

If the Kremlin can protract the crisis on its terms, it can raise the costs to the United States and NATO. The United States and NATO must prioritize preventing Putin from protracting the crisis by rapidly increasing the risks to his forces and the cost to the Russian economy as soon as he initiates the conflict either by moving forces overtly into occupied Donbas or by attacking unoccupied Ukraine.

The United States and NATO could best deter or disrupt such an attack by deploying and using ground- and sea-based air- and missile- defense systems and stealth fighters to shoot down Russian manned aircraft attacking targets in unoccupied Ukraine. The purpose of such Western military operations would be to impose high-enough costs on Russia to persuade Putin to avoid or terminate the operation.

Overt Russian deployments into Donbas with or without a Russian air campaign in unoccupied Ukraine should trigger the full array of US and European punitive sanctions on Russia. The United States and its allies should also define a threshold at which continued covert Russian deployments into occupied Donbas would trigger a response. But the Russian course of action considered in this essay, including the air and missile campaign, puts tremendous pressure on the US relationship with its reluctant partners, especially Germany, if it does not involve significant Russian forces invading unoccupied Ukraine. The United States and its more-committed allies must prepare now for this challenging contingency.

European responses to US attempts to rally the alliance to deter Putin thus far suggest that a more limited Russian attack is more likely to weaken and fragment NATO than the military conquest of most of Ukraine. A full Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine including Kyiv and/or other major urban centers collapses the West’s decision-space and is the likeliest Russian course of action to trigger a strong, coherent set of Western reactions. Russian military aggression short of a full-scale invasion, even including an extensive air campaign, however, gives Putin the initiative and creates uncertainty about how Putin will ultimately resolve the crisis. Putin has used this approach to great effect in Syria and elsewhere. It opens room for much debate and disagreement about responses among the United States, its European allies, and Ukraine. Continuing Russian economic pressure on Europe, especially Germany, amidst such a crisis may seriously erode alliance cohesion.

The United States and its other NATO partners must nevertheless accept the risk of serious strain and even damage to the US-German and NATO-German relationship to respond decisively to this more-limited form of Russian aggression. Allowing Putin to coerce major concessions from Ukraine or the West through limited aggression poses a greater danger to the NATO alliance’s cohesion, credibility, and even survival than does antagonizing Germany and other recalcitrant NATO members by imposing tough economic penalties on Russia that hurt those allies economically. Repairing strains with Germany and other allies, especially those caused by bad decisions the German government has already made, is a more manageable problem in the long run.


(ISW) The nice people at the Institute for the Study of War have brought out a map which shows the situation around the Ukraine regards Russian troop deployments as of the 25th January 2022:


Thursday, January 27, 2022

Interlude: Joe Walsh - Life's Been Good

US Navy: Loses F35

(South China Sea) On Tuesday a F35C (The carrier variant) ended up in the drink after landing on the USS Carl Vinson, snapping the arrestor cable resulting in the aircraft traversing the entire flight deck before ending up in the drink, thankfully the pilot ejected but not before several crew members were injured by the back lash from the cable. The Navy is currently on a mission to recover the aircraft.

Thursday, January 20, 2022

Interlude: Free - All Right Now

Monday, January 17, 2022

UK: Supplies the Ukraine with light anti tank weapons.

(London)  In a change from not supplying the Ukraine with weapons, the British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace informed Parliament on Monday , that due to the ever increasing threat to the Ukraine from Russia, he has Ok’d the supply of short range anti-tank weapons to the country with the first dispatch landing Monday evening at Kiev on board a British C17 transport aircraft along with military staff who will teach the Ukrainians how to use the weapons.  Whilst he did not specify the number or type of weapons that were being sent, he stated: "

"These are short-range.... but nevertheless it would make people pause and think what they were doing and if tanks were to roll into Ukraine, invade it, then they would be part of the defence mechanism. They are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia. They are to use in self-defence."

Interestingly the C17 flew around Germany to the Ukraine due to Berlins stance not to support Kiev with weapons.

The only short range anti-tank weapon the British uses is the Main Battle Tank and Light Anti-tank Weapon (MBT LAW), also known as the NLAW, it is a joint British and Swedish disposable short-range fire-and-forget anti-tank missile system which builds upon the innovative Swedish Bill missiles which taking note of the heavy armour and explosive plates in use by Russian armour, decided that striking the vehicle from above targeting the much weaker armour  would afford a much better solution of taking it out.

Sunday, January 16, 2022

North Korea: Carries out 4th Missile launch this month

(Pyongyang) It appears that the Biden effect has embolden every man and his dog to flex their stuff in the direction of Washington, in which to proclaim:

 “Come and have a go if think yer hard enough”

So after Russia, China and Iran stuck the finger at the sniffer in chief, North Korea did likewise by launching 2 Short range Ballistic missiles this morning into the Sea of Japan, this being the fourth such missile launch this month alone. Whilst NK claims it is in response to sanctions the US placed on 5 North Korean, what they fail to mention is that the first two missile launches (on the 5th and 10th of Jan 2022) took place before the sanctions were put in place on the 14th. The reverberations from when Biden made a right mess of pulling out of Afghanstan are going to keep on coming for years to come.

Belgium: 23 year old Frenchman arrested for pushing a woman into the path of Subway train

(Brussels) On Friday evening a man snook up and pushed a woman onto the tracks of an oncoming subway at Rogier metro station in the centre of Brussels


Thankfully the train managed to stop just in time, the pusher (a 23 year old Frenchman) was arrested not long after , due to his picture hitting social media within seconds. Currently sitting in a cell, he is under evaluation by a trick cyclist in which to ascertain just why he did so.

US: Hostage taker shot dead at Texas synagogue identified as British

(Colleyville) 44 year old British citizen Malik Faisal Akram decided to up sticks and travel across the pond from Blackburn in Lancashire and take the congregation hostage at a Texas synagogue was shot dead by US security forces after around 12 hours of standoff.

Apparently Akram demanded the release of convicted Pakistani neuroscientist  Aafia Siddiqui, who is currently serving an 86-year prison term in the US, for terrorism.

Malik Faisal Akram 

His family (via the local mosque in the UK have issued a statement apologising to the victims and saying he (Akram)  had been suffering from "mental health issues". But what I find most disturbing is the mosque's facebook message wants him to be rewarded for being a terrorist. 

Thursday, January 13, 2022

Interlude:10cc - The Things We Do For Love

Friday, January 7, 2022

US: VP Kamala Harris causes outrage comparing the 2021 Capitol riot to attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the 9/11 attacks on US

(Washington)  It never fails to amaze me the lengths the left of the political centre will go to in which to character assassinate anybody who doesn’t support them and yesterday Vice President Kamala Harris caused something of an outrage by comparing the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 and the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington by al Qaeda terrorists.

Allow me to quote a few facts;
The attack on Pearl Harbour was an act of war by Japan which saw:

4 battleships sunk

4 battleships damaged

1 ex-battleship sunk

1 harbor tug sunk

3 cruisers damaged

3 destroyers damaged

3 other ships damaged

188 aircraft destroyed

159 aircraft damaged

2,335 killed

1,143 wounded

The attacks on 9/11 was also an act of war which saw Al Qaeda hijack 4 jet airliners and crash 3 into building resulting in the deaths of 2,977 people, over 25000 people injured, the destruction of 3 major buildings

On the 6th of Jan 2021 approximately 2000 people stormed the Capitol building in Washington, of which around 800 have been charged, 5 people died

 1 from gunshot,

 1 from drug overdose,

 3 from natural causes

 140 police officers were injured, with 15 hospitalised and around $30 million in costs regards damages and security costs and the current US administration tries to tell me the above is the same as Pearl Harbour and 9/11. Really?

But what the democrats fail to mention is that 7 months before during the latter part of May and the first 3 weeks of June , thousands of BLMs protesters not only protested across Washington , they attacked the police, broke through cordons and caused  untold damage to national monuments , (including pulling down 2 statues and setting fire to St. John's Episcopal Church)  

Now the only reason they didn’t enter the capitol building was because the following  security forces were deployed 7,600 troops or personnel (5885) in Washington, D.C. or stationed (1,704) nearby. 2,935 National Guard troops, 500 U.S. Capitol Police, 500 Metropolitan Police Department and 500 U.S. Secret Service, 445 Bureau of Prisons staff, 168 U.S. Marshals Service members, 160 Drug Enforcement Administration employees, 80 U.S. Park Police and 32 FBI agents were deployed in Washington, D.C. 1,704 active-duty Army troops were stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, Fort Belvoir and Fort Myer. Even more interesting the following democrat representatives engaged with the protesters:

Congressman John Lewis,

Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Sen. Kamala Harris

Harris , actually tweeted from the protest:

As many police officers were put in hospital on 1 day during that 3 week period (11) as they did during the capitol riots a year ago (15) and yet here we are with POTUS and his VP only mentioning one set of violent protests, funny that eh:

UK: Police investigate visiting Pakistani Imam for praising executed killer Mumtaz Quadri

(Birmingham) Currently Islamic pressure groups are pushing the 'Islamophobia card' at the Government, we have the so caleld Muslim Council of Britain screaming that the British media is biased because of its reporting of  Islamic pedophile gangs, Islamic terrorists etc.. Currently the same org is up in arms over the Goverments Nationality and Borders Bill which is looking at removing British citizenship from dual citizens an act aimed directly at those who decided to pack their bags, burn their passports and join terror groups such as ISIS.  To be fair not all Muslims are nasty evil people who want to do bad stuff, but in the Uk we have more than our fair share and it isn't agaisnt the law to report on such matters, which brings me to a tale from the UK second city. It seems that a major mosque decided to invite over a Paksitani Mullah last week, where he held prayers, problem was he then decided to praise executed killer Mumtaz Quadri.

For those of you who don't know, Quadri decided to murder Paksitani politician Salman Taseer in 2011 after he spoke his view on TV regards the country's blasphemy law and on filing a mercy petition for Pakistani christian Asia Bibi, who had been s entenced to death on trumped up charges of blasphemy law (she drank out of the same cup as muslims)

Well the Police have been brought in to investigate, which they all ready carrying out on the manager of said mosque after it was revealed he was uuploading videos to social media which supports the Taliban and equates Israel to the Nazis. This is on top of an investigation launched 3 weeks ago by Birmigham council after whistleblowers and worshippers began flagging concerns about Central Jamia Mosque Ghamkol Sharif about its governance, social media posts and unclear links to a private funeral company based at the site. which is on top of questions raised about what it has been doing with donations of which it has kept no record.

Iran: Locals torch statue of Gen. Qassem Soleimani hours after the Mullahs unveil it.

(Shahr-e Kord) The Mad mullahs in Iran decided to honour the butcher of Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani who was taken out by a US Hellfire missile 2 years ago with a huge statue in the city of Shahr-e Kord.. Problem was the locals were having none of it and decided to show the mullahs how they really felt about a religious bigot who had more Iranian blood on his hands than anybody else by setting it on fire. Naturally the Mad Mullahs were offended, but then they are offended by everything:

Thursday, January 6, 2022

Interlude: Ike & Tina Turner - Nutbush City Limits

Saturday, January 1, 2022

Happy New Year!