patrick.net

https://babylonbee.com/cleanArticle/confused-senior-citizen-pledges-1-billion-to-exiled-nigerian-prince

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/strategic-withdrawal-wednesday-december

It’s kind of hard to overstate Zelensky’s inherent absurdity. He played the president on a TV show. They are literally making Wag the Dog into predictive programming.

As an actor, Zelensky performed from scripts written by anonymous scriptwriters. Zelensky came to the job with zero experience helpful for leading a country, much less leading a country in wartime. He’s not even a real history teacher. How does he successfully navigate Ukrainian politics? How did he learn what all the Cabinet positions do? How did this true outsider build constructive relationships with the established political actors and prevent opposition from arising?

Maybe Zelensky is an unrecognized prodigy or genius whose buried talents blossomed in a shock election just as absurd as his scripted election on Servant of the People. That could be. But it seems much more reasonable to believe Zelensky is a Biden-like puppet. Who’s writing his scripts now?

Yet the media never explains any of this or even mentions it at all. And that’s the point. It’s not our job to try to figure out what’s really going on in Eastern Europe and who’s pulling the strings behind the scenes. That’s the media’s job. Or at least it was the media’s job, until they sold out for easy government money and surrendered in cowardice after a few sly threats from the FBI.

Anyway, the point is you should be very suspicious, if not outright unbelieving, when the media boils complicated geopolitical events down into childlike, simplistic personality contrasts. It is not Putin versus Zelensky in Ukraine, don’t make me laugh. And it is just as much not Erdogan versus Assad in Syria.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/strategic-withdrawal-wednesday-december

Anyway, this was just a quirky religious interest story until I reached the paragraph explaining why exactly Russian prosecutors finally decided to ban the Satanic Temple. It wasn’t for being Satanists. Or at least, not just for being Satanists. No, Russia banned the Satanic Temple for being a United States dirty-tricks front group:

In a statement, the Prosecutor General’s Office accused members of The Satanic Temple of “promoting occult ideology” by using Satanic symbols to “discredit traditional spiritual and moral values” as well as “spreading destructive pseudo-theological ideas and justifying violence … with the support of US government agencies.”

Four years ago, I would have never even considered that the Satanic Temple, a demonic deception masquerading as an anti-religion religion, might actually have been started and controlled by the United States government. But after covid, the Twitter files, and after witnessing the Whitmer Fednapping Hoax, I’m pretty much prepared to consider just about anything.

Recall what the 'experts' were saying at the beginning of the Ukraine/Russia conflict?

"Russia is a backward country with an inferior military using antiquated hardware left over from the old failed Soviet Union ... blah, blah, blah."

Fast forward to reality. From the UK Telegraph:

America is defenseless against Russia’s new Oreshnik hypersonic missile
by Rebekah Koffler

The US military is years behind Moscow in this new form of missile warfare

Nato foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss the rapidly escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict. On the agenda, among other things, is Russia’s recent attack on Ukraine with an experimental new hypersonic missile, never used in war before. Neither the US nor the UK currently has the capability to shoot down such a missile. But what threat does the Oreshnik pose to Europe and the US?

Russia first launched the Oreshnik on Nov 21, striking a weapons production plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, in retaliation against Ukrainian strikes on a Russian military facility in Bryansk with US-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles. Following the launch, Putin threatened to target “military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kyiv” with the Oreshnik, characterising such an attack as “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike”. President Zelensky’s residence and Ukrainian Parliament would be included under Putin’s definition of a decision-making centre.

The Oreshnik is unique. An arms-control treaty-breaking missile system, it is an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) masquerading as an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). ICBMs are designed to wage a nuclear war. The Oreshnik’s design is based on the RS-26 Rubezh, an ICBM, and its instrumentation (sensors, electronics, and the data acquisition capabilities installed on the missile) are those of the Rubezh. Flying at hypersonic speeds of Mach 11 (eleven times the speed of sound), the missile can carry either a conventional (non-nuclear) or nuclear payload. It is also a MIRV, or multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, another signature of an ICBM. The Oreshnik fired at Dnipro carried six such warheads.

The range of this missile is between 500 km and 5000 km – enabling it to target most of Europe and the West Coast of the United States. Once launched, it can strike various targets in Europe, including Britain, in 12 to 20 minutes. In other words, the Oreshnik can do the job of an atomic ICBM, but without producing a nuclear mushroom.

Hypersonic missiles are nearly impossible to defend against because they fly many times faster than the speed of sound and, unlike ballistic missiles and slower cruise missiles, are highly maneuverable. Tracking this type of missile is highly problematic as it is designed to evade missile defence interceptors by continuously changing direction in flight.

The detection, characterisation, and tracking of an Oreshnik-type missile – a prerequisite for shooting one down – is also a very tall order. This is because early warning systems (a combination of satellites, hosted payloads in various orbits, ground-based radars, and various supporting computer software) are looking for so-called “signatures”, i.e. unique characteristics to a specific missile (shape, size, speed, heat/temperature, emissions, plume), to determine the type of missile fired. And since Oreshnik’s instrumentation is that of an ICBM, the technical means could interpret it as an ICBM.

Creating confusion – what the pre-eminent Prussian military strategist Carl Von Clausewitz called “The Fog of War” – is an integral part of Russia’s war-fighting strategy. The aim is to seek strategic advantage over the adversary by unbalancing him psychologically, while delaying and complicating his response.

By firing the Oreshnik, Putin sought to send a message to the US and Nato to stop arming Ukraine, without provoking a disproportionate escalation. To prevent a response to what could have been determined to be a nuclear attack, Moscow pre-notified Washington through a nuclear arms control channel prior to striking Ukraine with the Oreshnik. During wartime, if Russia and Nato were in a direct kinetic war, Putin would almost certainly not issue such an alert.

Russia’s growing arsenal of hypersonic missiles also includes the Kinzhal and the Zircon. As of December 2023, Russia also deployed the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), operated by the country’s Strategic Rocket Forces. Launched from an ICBM, Avangard can carry a nuclear warhead. Once the HGV detaches from the ICBM, using its own propulsion system, it glides towards its target at hypersonic speeds, while conducting sharp horizontal and vertical evasive manoeuvres.

The UK currently has no equivalent to the Oreshnik, although the UK Ministry of Defence has a programme aiming to develop “future hypersonic concepts and technologies”. The first UK domestically-produced hypersonic cruise missile is not expected until 2030.

The United States is also behind Russia (and China) when it comes to hypersonics. In an effort to catch up, the US military successfully tested, after multiple delays, the Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), known as Dark Eagle in June, from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, in Kauai, Hawaii. A June Government Accountability Office report, however, blasted the Pentagon for using last-century’s engineering techniques in at least four of its six ongoing hypersonic missile development programmes. The target dates for the US military to field hypersonic missiles are between 2027 and 2029.

Russia’s hypersonic missiles, including the Oreshnik, pose a grave threat to the UK homeland and British Armed Forces as the country’s ballistic missile defence sensor capabilities are very limited. The Royal Air Force does operate an early warning radar at Fylingdales, which is capable of detecting objects 3,000 miles into space, but the facility is hosted by British personnel on behalf of the United States. The UK has no dedicated ballistic missile interceptor of its own.

Russia is highly unlikely to strike the UK with a hypersonic missile, outside of an ongoing direct kinetic conflict between Russia and Nato. Ultimately, however, without the threat of an in-kind retaliation, Putin cannot be deterred from using hypersonic missiles to target Europe until at least 2030.

Rebekah Koffler is a strategic military intelligence analyst, formerly with the US Defense Intelligence Agency. Currently a national security consultant and freelance editorial writer, she is the author of Putin’s Playbook; Regnery 2021. Her podcast Censored But Not Silenced is available on most social media platforms @Rebekah0132

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2024/12/04/america-defenceless-against-russia-new-oreshnik-hypersonic/

RayAmerica says

An arms-control treaty-breaking missile system

What arms control treaty would that be? The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty ended when the US withdrew in 2019.

RayAmerica says

it is an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) masquerading as an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM)

No shit. ALL IRBMs are ICBMs that have just been purposely limited in range. Or, ALL ICBMS are just IRBMs that have expanded range.

DUH.

But the author clearly is counting on the average reader not understanding that in order to smear Russia with 'masquerade'.

RayAmerica says

ICBMs are designed to wage a nuclear war.

Really? Then explain the ones that have chemical and biological payloads?

Jesus. This whole thing is just Deep State Newspeak blah-blah-blah for propaganda purposes.

RayAmerica says

Rebekah Koffler is a strategic military intelligence analyst, formerly with the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

There you go!

RayAmerica says

Currently a national security consultant and freelance editorial writer,

Translation: Deep State propagandist.

Next time you get something like this, please post it here: https://patrick.net/post/1344073/2022-03-11-thread-for-exposing-blatant-propaganda

RayAmerica says

Russia first launched the Oreshnik on Nov 21, striking a weapons production plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, in retaliation against Ukrainian strikes on a Russian military facility in Bryansk with US-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles.

So what's the problem? We have the ability to strike Russia and did? Russia has a few missiles? This is a European problem. They couldn't even strike Alaska if they wanted. They tested a rocket with no payload, conventional or otherwise. Big metal object hits ground says cave man.

Drop a MOAB over Moscow. See how tiny the paper tiger is. Again, I have no pony in this race. Both sides look stupid. We just get to test weapons and they work.

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1864804141735842253

Russia’s longtime foreign minister describes the war with the United States and how to end it.

(0:00) Is the US at War With Russia?
(12:56) Russia’s Message to the West Through Hypersonic Weapons
(17:47) Is There Conversation Happening Between Russia and the US?
(23:18) How Many Have Died in the Ukraine/Russia War?
(28:21) What Would It Take To End the War?
(36:11) What Happened to Alexei Navalny?
(39:45) Boris Johnson Wants the War to Continue
(45:43) Sanctions on Russia
(56:31) The Chinese/Russian Alliance
(1:02:18) Who Is Making Foreign Policy Decisions in the US?
(1:05:05) Biden Pushes the US Toward Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Office
(1:08:52) What’s Happening in Syria?
(1:13:08) Lavrov’s Thoughts on Trump

Remember how we were told that the Abrams Tanks were going to be a 'game changer?'

US admits much-hyped tanks failed in Ukraine

Kiev already retired its dwindling stock of M1 Abrams earlier this year

American-made M1 Abrams tanks were “not useful” to the Ukrainian military, despite being billed as a potential “game changer” in the conflict with Russia, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has admitted.

After months of requests from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and his officials, the White House approved the transfer of 31 M1 Abrams main battle tanks – enough to equip an entire tank battalion – to Ukraine in January 2023. President Joe Biden said the tanks would help “counter Russia’s evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term,” while multiple US media outlets described them as a “game changer” ahead of Kiev’s planned counteroffensive against Russian forces that summer.

This was not the case, Sullivan said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California on Saturday. Asked whether the Biden administration could have better prepared Ukraine for the counteroffensive had it supplied Kiev with more heavy weapons, he cited the Abrams tanks as an example of how not everything in America’s arsenal worked in Ukraine.

”When it comes to Abrams tanks, we sent Abrams tanks to Ukraine,” he replied. “These Abrams tank units are actually undermanned because it’s not the most useful piece of equipment for them in this fight.”

Shortly after their deployment, the Russian Defense Ministry began releasing videos of Abrams tanks burning on the battlefield. According to some estimates, as many as 20 of the 31 tanks sent to Ukraine in 2023 have since been destroyed, and Ukrainian commanders began withdrawing the rest from service earlier this year, American officials told AP.

The M1A1 variants sent to Ukraine were first stripped of their depleted uranium armor, leaving them vulnerable to Russian drones and anti-tank missiles.

One of the heaviest main battle tanks in service worldwide, the M1 Abrams weighs in at 60 tons, with the latest M1A2 variant increasing this heft to more than 73 tons. An M1 Abrams tank costs more than $450 per mile in fuel and repairs, according to a 1991 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report adjusted for inflation.

The GAO report stated that the average M1 Abrams needs its track replaced after as little as 710 miles, with engines typically suffering catastrophic “blowouts” after 350 hours of operation.

Even before Biden authorized their delivery to Ukraine, US military officials warned that the Abrams tanks would prove unsuitable for Kiev’s needs.

“The challenge with the Abrams is, it’s expensive. It’s difficult to train on. It is very difficult to sustain. It has a huge, complicated turbine engine that requires jet fuel,” US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl warned in early January 2023. “Frankly, our assessment is just that the Abrams is not the right capability at this time.”

https://www.rt.com/news/608990-abrams-tanks-failed-ukraine/