![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sJYg5dVf8pTbF4ewWjdM8WobW-oNzMDDD3Q7nYoLKY9eOPT_2cuHf0dv38ZnXM14QSa-ZpF2R90je2BrJx0tAcfP5WYKpUPcXXmNr9EnmSHQfXg4oS-dSp_cA=s0-d)
I know what awaits us. As soon as Vladimir Putin has done his work in Seversk, Bakhmut and Soledar, after reaching the second line Slaviansk-Kramatorsk-Avdeevka, he will come up with a proposal. And if they [the West] don’t accept it, – and they won’t – all hell will break loose...RT: Ukraine conflict is already a world war – SerbiaPresident of Serbia Alexander Vucic.
Moon of Alabama: Ukraine SitRep - Additional Defense Lines, A Failed Counterattack, Weapon Deliveries
The artillery preparations for the next push had began immediately after the fall of Lysichansk. The 'week or two' have passed and the attack on the next defensive line (yellow line in the east) from Siversk to Kurdiumivka has begun. Yesterday ground fighting was reported within Siversk and Soledar.I see two of the cities mentioned by the Serbian President are on that line. Avdeevka (Google map spelling) is due south of Petrivka, slightly past the bottom of the yellow line on the left. Google maps says Avdeevka is about 1 hour away by car. Since Russia is already moving on these cities, how long until they fall? How long after that could Putin make his offer?
In a week or two the line down from Siversk to Krasna Hora will probably be under Russian control. Bakhmut, which is very fortified, may take a few more days to fall. The battle will then move to the next defensive line further west (also marked in yellow). That line is anchored in the north on Sloviansk which has a railway line (black) coming in from the west. That railway line allows the Ukrainians to supply their current frontline with heavy artillery ammunition and fuel. Sloviansk will be attacked from the northwest, the northeast and southeast. The force disposition map below shows that the Ukrainian defenses in that area are rather weak.There are military maps at the link along with many more details.....The two in the east (right side) will fall within the next two or three weeks.
Without going into all the details, the rally is mainly predicated on a pullback in inflation, recession risk, increasing expectation of a Fed "pivot" of some kind (see the Eurodollar curve Jeff Snider is always watching) along with an old fashioned short-squeeze.
If Putin makes a peace offer of any kind, the immediate impact on the markets would be plummeting commodity prices, most importantly oil. This would alleviate recession risk, but also inflation risk and general fear in markets. Investors would become extremely bullish when it hits the wire. Depending on where markets are at the time, it could be the fuel for a peak in a bear market rally. I suspect stretch rally targets (20 to 25 percent off the low) would be hit in a Russia peace offer scenario.
The next move would be based on the Western response. Sadly, I'm with the Serbian President at the moment. The West has shown no sign it is willing to pull back from this war. That would guarantee the Russian offer might top-tick a rally. However, even Western sources have reported on the lack of weapons and manufacturing capacity in NATO countries. If the war escalated right now and NATO didn't achieve a quick victory, maybe they could stalemate Russia because there's a lot of territory Russia would have to cover. Maybe Russia would sit back and fight a defensive war. Would China open a second front in the Pacific though? Or openly support Russia with an economic blockade of the West? Western leaders are psychotic and seem insane, but are they that stupid? One can make a lot of stupid assumptions, but "we don't have enough weapons, we can only fight for about X weeks" is not something that can be brushed off. I don't have enough area knowledge to speculate on these matters, so will leave it at that. I pray that peace will come to Ukraine, Russia and the West. Whether is does or does not, you have been forewarned about a potentially major event coming as soon as August.
"we don't have enough weapons, we can only fight for about X weeks" — I hope it’s not an instance of “appear weak when you are strong”, because that would imply a longer and probably wider war.
ReplyDeleteRe Russia’s offer: You might’ve seen it. But, in case not, they did so back in December: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/12/russia-details-secruity-demands-to-us-and-nato.html. Maybe you already read that and expect an “easier” list. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if the list remains the same or grows, in its detail if not breadth.
ReplyDeleteOceania ignored decades of Russian security complaints, ignored the Minsk agreements, and seems committed to continue its belligerence in Ukraine and everywhere else. Russia concluded it had no alternative to using force and establishing facts on the ground. Why would they stop now and sign any agreement with people and institutions that never abide by their agreements and, in one instance in one public debate against Mearsheimer, even flaunt their dishonor as an attempt to excuse their dishonor (‘diplomats always lie, so the Russians should never have trusted the “not one inch eastward” agreement’)? Russians would have to be retarded.
That’s probably not the case. Russia seems to have learned there can be no rapprochement after this. For years, they used the term “agreement incapable” as a polite way to refer to the serial treaty breakers. Their tone has hardened in a way that suggests they now view past investment into relations with Oceania as sunk cost and, per Oceania misbehavior, unrecoverable. (By now, Russia has probably noticed Oceania attacks it once every couple of generations, regardless of Russia’s choice of internal political economy.) Russia will invest elsewhere — with the rest of the wider world. So, even after a “peace”, Western Europe will have to adapt to live with less and less Russian energy.
To change this outcome, Oceania would have to agree right now to Russian terms and dramatically follow through. That ain’t going to happen. Certainly not in time (which Kissinger at Davos suggested is measured in “months”, which by now might be “weeks” ). Having consumed too much of its own propaganda for generations, Oceania probably wont relent for at least a few Friedman units. It’s less likely for them to “find the reverse gear” than for riots and possibly regime change itself in some of its own provinces to force their hand. Maybe Orlov will be proven correct.
As for the war as it’s currently scoped, I expect deliberately slow and steady Russian progress until some “surprise”, like Oceania escalation (with all attendant possibilities and risks) or the emergence of a pro-Ukrainian leader to replace Elensky — yes, a pro-Ukrainian leader who doesn’t sacrifice his people to continue to fight one of Oceania‘s many aggressive wars in violation of their own legal ratifications of the UN charter and of the principles established at Nuremberg.
It’s too much to hope for thousands of Oceania VIP’s and “think tank” plotters to wind up in new trials in The Hague or Nuremberg. But, IMHO that’s what should happen.
Hope I’m wrong about the magnitude of Oceania arrogance, so that the loss of life is far lower than I fear.
“Would China open a second front in the Pacific though?” I bet you’d respond with “probably not” to your own question. If not, here’s my speculation.
ReplyDeleteIsn’t time on the side of that STEM-graduating powerhouse with the world’s largest economy — non-PPP comparisons are silly — and mostly functional regime rather than the baizuo regime? Would you desire to “open a second front”, if you led China? Or would you let your enemy continue compounding their errors elsewhere and tire themselves out before focusing on you? If the latter, then i suggest the more important question is whether someone else might, out of desperation, open a second front for them by escalating the adjacent threats to their security or, as China sees it, functionally invading one of their provinces.
Speaking of STEM, I find it depressingly humorous to read various jingoistic comments claim that China steals IP. What are these commenters implicitly saying? Do they think Chinese people can’t innovate? If so, have they not seen a classroom of elite STEM students or the names of many inventors on patents developed in the commenters’ own countries? Or do they think China’s government, run by Chinese people, doesn’t provide an environment for its people to innovate? To the extent China has supposedly moved ahead on some tech, did they travel into the future to steal it? Did China force baizuo at gunpoint to enter into sharing agreements or, instead, did the baizuo greedily decide it was more profitable to impoverish their own countries’ workers? If nothing else, has China done anything differently than other countries — other than invade fewer countries? …. I’m not the kind of person to see obvious or latent “racism” as the explanation for everything. But, I suspect it in those comments.
Similarly, I also shake my head at the ubiquitous smears about China’s civil war. It was as bloody as it was because the baizuo of the time backed one side in order to try to retain their control over China. In all cases of uprising against foreign occupation, we should judge foreign powers as “far more culpable” for the misery than the “home team”. However many people died there and then, I add to the tally in the Oceania column.
People think China is communist, so not innovative in their mind. There are a lot of idiots who seem to think Russia is still communist too. Americans are legit retarded by their media and politics. I remember my father commenting to me about how the CCTV-9 coverage of the 2016 Presidential Election was far more informative and knowledgeable of what was actually happening than any American news network. I said yeah, China is more objective about all news that isn't directly related to the CCP.
Delete“People think China is communist, so not innovative in their mind.” That sounds reasonable. But, I don’t much recall hearing people level the accusation at (not)-“communist” Russia lately or communist USSR decades ago — that is, even when they were “communist”. Given my own jingoistic personal views and social circles at the time, I think I should’ve heard it. But, I didn’t. So, the difference today might still stem from racism. At least, this is my vague sense after trying to coalesce observations across different decades and media…. ;-)
Delete