Connect with us

Red Pill

News

East Ukraine resistance leader provides amazing military insight on the current conflict

Published

on

0 Views

Their was a scene in the Godfather Part II where Michael Corleone (after just witnessing a Castro revolutionary blow himself and other government officials up in a Havana car bomb) explains to Hyman Roth and other U.S. investors in Cuba why Castro’s guerrilla army would win the Civil War taking place.  

Its a simple and fascinating military insight, from one of my all time favorite movies.

 

The lesson that Michael dispels to all birthday party attendees…the soldiers are paid to fight, the rebels fight for free, they fight for a cause they deeply believe in and thus they can win.

Zerohedge recently ran a translated interview from Igor Strelkov, the man AP dubbed “the face of the insurgency in eastern Ukraine.”  It’s an amazing interview full of insight you will not find in any mass media outlet.  Strelkov shows a logic in his thought and a clarity in his understanding of the military operations that leads a logical man to one conclusion, this is going to be a long drawn out affair that will ultimately be won by the side with the stronger conviction and faith for their cause.  Its a long read, but well worth.

From Zerohedge:

…the fact that he [Igor Strelkov] keeps an ultra low profile certainly doesn’t help his public image, if certainly boosting his shadowy, mystical status. However, yesterday in the aftermath of the swearing in of Ukraine’s new president Poroshenko, Strelkov gave an extensive interview in which he laid out not only the “separatists” take on recent events in Ukraine but how they view the armed resistance strategically, and what, if any, the endgame is.

In any event, the following interview will certainly not be available on any western media outlets so for those who believe in hearing both sides of the story to develop an informed opinion, read on.

What follows is, in my opinion, one of the only times you will be able to cut through the propaganda bullshit being dished out by all sides and get to the heart of the fight for the East Ukraine, Donbass region.

Most Recent Interview by Strelkov, via @Gbazov

I believe that the situation will change for the worse, because now this so-called “legitimate” President immediately will turn to NATO countries, to Western countries, for help, asking, first and foremost, for military help.

We can then expect to be confronted with new NATO tanks, helicopters, aircraft, advisors, instructors, mercenaries. There will be greater numbers of shells, troops and victims. This is all that I expect from this so-called “inauguration.”

This morning [June 7, 2014] there was again artillery shelling of the Artem neighbourhood of Slavyansk. There our checkpoints are located along the perimeter, but the enemy regularly shells homes in civilian neighbourhoods. Specifically, the shells exploded here, here, near the Lenin Hospital, and here.

The enemy can “boast” that they finished off two of their broken-down “BMD” APCs. Well, more accurately, not “BMD” APCs, just APCs. These we had long ago taken apart into spare parts. So they hit these remaining shells; they finished them off, so to say.

With respect to infantry, we are facing a ratio of approximately 5-6 to 1. For one of my fighters there are 5-6 enemy soldiers. This is specifically with respect to the troops stationed directly near the city. Apart from that, there are also 50-60 pieces of heavy artillery, which is dedicated specifically to shelling the city. Also 1-2 Grad systems. A lot of tanks. These elements we cannot, unfortunately, engage directly, given the distance of 1.5-2 kilometres.

All in all, the ratio of forces remains very much not in our favour. So, although the enemy has moved a portion of its forces from our theatre and transferred it, as far as I can tell, to protect the border, nevertheless, we are having a difficult time holding our ground. As a result, first and foremost, we need active help in the form of armoured vehicles, long-range AA elements, and artillery. This is so because the greater part of the enemy artillery force conducts attacks from positions that we are unable to reach.

That is to say, they bombard us from long-range positions of absolute safety. All we can do is dig into the ground, build reinforced installations, but we are unable to counteract them in any way. Unfortunately, our mortars simply do not reach the positions of their heavy howitzers. No wonder, as we are facing such calibres as 240mm. The holes left by shells from these weapons in Semyonovka are easily identifiable.

It has become apparent, long ago, to anyone with even a superficial interest in military affairs that it is far easier to storm an intact city than a destroyed city. The Germans, in their time, got confirmation of this rule at Stalingrad. Yes, they are counting on being able to force the population out of here. And they claim that [once the population evacuates], they would be able to storm the city. In fact, this is simply a way to save face.

A significant part of the population, at least in Semyonovka and Cherevkovka, has already left. Semyonovka has barely anyone left. Same with Cherevkovka. And yet, they do not attempt to storm them. There is one simple reason why: they understand full well that they will suffer significant casualties. Their infantry does not exhibit sufficient fortitude, whether on attack or in defence. In effect, they are simply exacting vengeance against us for precision strikes against their artillery positions, their checkpoints, against their armoured vehicles. They are taking out their anger by carpet-shelling civilian neighbourhoods. In theory, it is possible that they believe they are firing at our positions; however, in 90% of cases they hit areas where we have no fighters present.

They conducted strikes against Nikolaevskaia Power Plant specifically with the intent of taking it out of commission, so at to cut off electrical supplies not only to our city, but to a whole number of cities in the north of Donbass region. In fact, this was a direct attack intended to destroy the infrastructure that feeds urban and industrial regions. The same can be said about the continuing bombardment of industrial locations. In sum, we are witnessing purposeful destruction of the industrial complex. You can draw an analogy to an old joke about a Ukrainian who says “Even if I can’t eat it, at least I’ll bite it.” In other words, if I can’t have you, no one can. About right.

I am predicting that not only the Slavyansk region, which, at this time, acts as a shield for the Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts/provinces, but also the entire territory of Lugansk and Donetsk regions will turn into a battlefield. It is obvious that no one will stop this military operation; no one is intending to terminate it. More than that, military elements are being used that are entirely excessive in fighting against small guerilla units. In fact, these elements are more-or-less useless. In a manner of saying, they are using cannons to shoot down birds. All of this will continue further, it will be transferred to Donetsk, to Gorlovka, to Makeevka, to Lugansk, to all the other cities and parts of the region. At least that’s how the Ukrainian army is acting. These are the conclusion that can be drawn from what the Ukrainian army is doing. This will turn into a humanitarian catastrophe not just at the scale of a city, but on the regional, possibly the world scale. I say this because there are over six (6) million inhabitants [in the region] that will become the targets of this very dumb, very unprofessional, very careless military machine. While guerillas (and we are, in fact, guerillas), i.e. militia, are able to defend cities, are able to repel infantry and even tank attacks by the enemy, we are, unfortunately, incapable of defending the region from airstrikes and artillery shelling. Equally, we are unable to destroy [artillery and aviation] because the ratio of the opposing forces remains disturbingly [not in our favour]. Regardless of how many volunteers we are able to field (and, first of all, we are unable to arm all of them, to this date we lack everything – rifles, ammo, anti-aircraft elements, and, most important, we lack anti-tank defence systems, including anti-tank artillery), and even if we receive all the necessary equipment and are able to match [Ukrainian] regular forces in combat, this would nevertheless lead to a complete humanitarian catastrophe in the region. Unfortunately, without peacekeeping forces (and I obviously mean Russian peacekeepers, as no other peacekeeping force would be accepted by us here, nor considered a “peacekeeping force”), the region will descend into bloody chaos, lawlessness. Everything that was built over decades would be lost, destroyed.

The Lugansk Republic also finds itself in a very difficult military situation, they must think of defending their own territory, their own cities and population. The one thing I can note is that we are coordinating our activities with the garrison in Lesichansk. This garrison made a request to be included in our command structure. Together with this garrison we are defending this part of the front.

Q: Poroshenko promised Putin that, in the nearest future, the war will be either brought to an end or suspended, in some manner. In your opinion, what did he mean when he said this?

A: I believe that what he meant is that the Ukrainian army will steamroll over the entire Donbass region, will eliminate all those who rose up against the illegitimate Kiev government, all those who rebelled against the discrimination directed against the Russian people, and that, in this manner, he would bring the war to an end. I think this is what he had in mind. An oligarch who sponsored the so-called “Maidan,” who made the most warlike claims and adopted extreme positions while still a Presidential candidate, who is a puppet controlled directly by the United States of America, this oligarch cannot change who he is in one day or one night. Of course, what he means is that he plans to “impose order” with an iron fist, the fist of his punitive forces. Put it bluntly, we saw how they “impose order” from the example of what happened in Krasniy Liman. That is why we will, of course, resist to the last man. We will resist successfully, I am emphasizing this again. The real problem is not that we will be unable to defend ourselves or to withstand attacks by the Ukrainian forces, the problem is that if this war continues indefinitely, the region will fall to a humanitarian catastrophe. As a result Russia will become the recipient of millions of disenfranchised, impoverished and angry refugees. Everything that was built, created over decades, if not centuries, will be destroyed.

We continue to prevail over them again and again, on all fronts. Nowhere have they been able to achieve a victory of any real significance. They were able to overwhelm our garrison of one hundred in Krasniy Liman by throwing a force of three thousand (3,000) and coming against them from all sides. Even so … And where they have to square off against a more-or-less trained, numerous, at least somehow provisioned force, they always, regularly suffer defeat. They cannot advance even a step. Their tactic consists of filling the landscape with troops, tanks, APCs, and artillery, and defending themselves, in hopes that, without numerical and equipment parity, we would be unable to push them from their positions. In effect, their positions at Mount Karachun are an example of this approach. We are unable to kick them out of Karachun first and foremost because their force is at least three times the size of my garrison [in Slavyansk].

We are blessed with excellent morale and fighting spirit, our fighters are highly motivated, while they have a great deal of old, but still effective “metal” [Note: i.e. armoured vehicles] that fights against our militia.

Ukrainian mass media lies, lies without end. They lie so unapologetically that Goebbels would have envied their style. He is probably turning in his grave now. And, so, they are interested in ensuring that no one else is able to provide this information. And, because Western media, to a large degree, plays along with its Ukrainian colleagues, and provides only such information that benefits Ukraine, the Russian media becomes their natural enemy. As a result, they consider the Russian media their direct enemy in the field of informational warfare.

With respect to international law and norms, they never cared for them on bit. For example, here they use cluster bombs and similar [illegal] weapons. They shoot, and, as you correctly pointed out, remove entire township from the face of the Earth. They shell cities. They will continue in this manner with ever-increasing [brutality]. This is because they experience no material opposition [to what they do]. They have no other tactic. They are unable to take up their weapons and go on attack, go storm our positions face-to-face with us, despite their profound numerical advantage in troops. As soon as their infantry faces direct combat, it retreats. They retreat even if supported by tanks. They abandon their tanks and retreat. They understand that their infantry is not combat-worthy. Their only option is to shell us from afar, again and again and again, and hope to inflict the greatest possible destruction.

 

References:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-08/shadowy-commander-east-ukraine-insurgency-speaks

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake Opposes Vote on Kavanaugh Until Leftist Accuser Has Her Say

The end of the Republic inches closer as Identity Politics knows no bounds: Republicans join the fight to delay Brett Kavanaugh confirmation vote.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via The Gateway Pundit


FLAKE OUT — ARIZONA SENATOR OPPOSES VOTE ON KAVANAUGH

Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday evening that until he learns more about the sexual assault allegation regarding Brett Kavanaugh, he is “not comfortable voting yes” on Kavanaugh.

It’s Flakes last chance to poke President Trump and the country in the eye before he rides retires and likely finds a job in the liberal media.

Via Mike Cernovich:

Kavanaugh’s accuser is a far left anti-Trump activist.

Via Zerohedge


Over the past few days, what appeared at first to be a merely token resistance to the nomination of Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh has morphed into something entirely more menacing. And for the first time since Kavanaugh’s name was first floated in June, his nomination may be in jeopardy.

After allegations of decades-old sexual improprieties first surfaced last week, it looked as if Kavanaugh would easily surmount this obstacle. But we have to give the Democrats credit: They have lined up their dominoes perfectly. And on Sunday, they set their plan in motion when the Washington Post published an in-depth interview with Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. The story detailed a blow-by-blow accounting of Ford’s allegations, as well as her explanation for why she neglected to share her experience until decades later. Tellingly, the story also noted that Democrats have been sitting on the story since July, and that Ford only decided to out herself after some unscrupulous members of the Judiciary Committee shared her identity with the press – or at least that’s what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office alleges.

While the allegations are relatively tame by #MeToo era standards (the incident allegedly unfolded when Kavanaugh was 17), it has apparently been enough for Democrats and a handful of turncoat moderate Republicans to successfully shut down a planned Thursday vote of the Judiciary Committee. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake effectively shut down the vote last night when he revealed that he wanted to hear more from Ford before voting. Without Flake, the Republicans’ 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee shifts to a 10-11 vote in favor of the Democrats. While Committee Chairman Charles Grassley has said he’d like the vote to proceed as scheduled, media reports say he is quietly working to organize a private call involving Ford and curious Senators in an effort to help mitigate their concerns.

But looking further ahead, Republican leaders might have more difficulty as Tennessee Republican Bob Corker – who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee but could still hold up the final confirmation vote – said Sunday that he’d also like to see Thursday’s committee vote delayed.

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

“I’ve made it clear that I’m not comfortable moving ahead with the vote on Thursday if we have not heard her side of the story or explored this further,” said Flake, who has the power to stall consideration if all Democrats on the panel join him since Republicans only hold an 11-10 majority on the committee. Flake’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Corker of Tennessee, who isn’t a member of the panel but whose vote is critical to confirmation, also doesn’t want the committee to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation until Ford’s allegations can be heard, said his spokeswoman, Micah Johnson. The senator wants the allegations to be heard promptly, she said.

The backlash intensified late Sunday when Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN that Thursday’s hearing should be delayed.

“Well, I think that might be something they might have to consider, at least having that discussion,” Murkowski.

[…]

“This is not something that came up during the hearings. The hearings are now over. And if there is real substance to this it demands a response.”

However, at least one of the Senate’s reputed moderates has stood up to the Democrats in an interview with the New York Times, castigating them for withholding this information until so late in the process (remember: Feinstein justified this decision by saying she had referred Ford’s allegations to the FBI, who reportedly added them to his background check file).

“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” Collins told The New York Times.

Collins asked if Democrats believed Ford, “why didn’t they surface this information earlier,” and if they didn’t believe Ford, “why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it?”

“It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled,” Collins said.

Collins comments come after Ford spoke publicly about the alleged incident for the first time during an interview with The Washington Post that was published on Sunday.

On Monday, in the latest sign that Ford could appear at an embarrassing public hearing, Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, told “Today” that her client would be willing to testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “She’s a credible person. These are serious allegations. And they should be addressed.”

The White House, for its part, is standing by Kavanaugh, and allowing the Senate to sort things out. According to Bloomberg, Kellyanne Conway said Ford should not be “insulted and ignored” in what appears to be an attempt to beat the Democrats at their own virtue-signaling game.

Still, according to a White House spokesperson, Trump isn’t giving an inch. Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim, citing WH spokesperson Kerri Kupec, reported that Judge Kavanaugh “categorically and unequivocally” denied this allegation: “This has not changed. Judge Kavanaugh and the White House both stand by that statement,”she said.

In fact, as Axios reports, Senate Republicans could “play hardball” by calling on Ford to testify before Thursday’s scheduled vote. Though Republicans wouldn’t surprised if Ford holds a press conference or gives a TV interview, which Axios says “would raise the stakes considerably.” Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for an FBI investigation and a postponement of the vote

To be sure, the Democrats’ goals here are obvious. After Sen. Corey Booker’s “selfless” decision to release unauthorized documents about Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush Administration failed to even delay the process, Democrats have now played their Trump card – no pun intended. Their goal: Delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at least until the Oct. 1 mark – the beginning of SCOTUS’s next term – to put a halt to any controversial decisions that could reverse important precedents. Of course, their ultimate goal is to stonewall the White House until after Nov. 6, when a few victories in the midterms might allow them to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination once and for all.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

University announces “White Awake” safe space for white students

The University of Maryland at College Park has set up a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Via Campus Reform:


Update: After publication of this article, University of Maryland-College Park changed the name of the group to “Anti-Racism and Ally Building Group,” along with a shorter description, which reads,  “Do you want to improve your ability to relate to and connect with people different from yourself? Do you want to become a better ally? Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.”

In a statement provided to Campus Reform on Friday, the university explained the name change: “Our Counseling Center acknowledges that we did not choose the right words in raising awareness about this research-based initiative, and how this group has been perceived is counter to the values of inclusiveness and diversity that we embody. Therefore, we are renaming the group to better reflect our intention and values.”


The University of Maryland at College Park announced Friday a new diversity support group to create a “safe space” for white students to discuss their feelings about “interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

The support group, called “White Awake,” will help white students who may “sometimes feel uncomfortable and confused before, during, or after interactions with racial and ethnic minorities.”

“This group offers a safe space for White students to explore their experiences, questions, reactions, and feelings,” the description explains. “Members will support and share feedback with each other as they learn more about themselves and how they can fit into a diverse world.” The description asks students if they want to “improve [their] ability to relate to and connect with people different from [themselves]” or if they want to become a better “ally.” The new group is now one of four in the university’s “Diversity Issues” program series.The group is being led by Noah Collins, who works for the UMD Counseling Center, and will be held once a week. Collins specializes in group therapy and is interested “especially in the areas of racial and cultural awareness,” according to his faculty bio.The safe space has been met with harsh criticism from students on social media.

“I am ashamed over the execution of white awake nor do I fully understand its clause. ‘How they can fit into a diverse world’? Why do they need to attend therapy sessions on how to be a decent human being in society?” a UMD student wrote on Twitter. “Why do they need to have these sessions to learn how to coexist?”

“Just like classes. You can’t take one class and feel like you have all understanding over a certain subject,” the student added. “It takes practice, it takes problems, it takes more than one course, so ‘White Awake’ has good intention but I am skeptical over the fairytale result.”

Campus Reform reached out to Collins and UMD for comment but did not receive a response by time of publication. If and when a comment is received, the article will be updated.


Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @Grace_Gotcha

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Harvard Prof: Merit-based admissions ‘reproduce inequality’

Professor Natasha Warikoo is displeased that students she interviewed are motivated by “self-interest” instead of social justice.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Authored by Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform:


A Harvard University professor claims in a new academic study that merit-based admission processes at elite universities “reproduce inequality.”

Harvard education professor Natasha Warikoo draws on interviews with 98 white, native-born students at Harvard, Brown University, and the University of Oxford in “What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality,” published in the journal Social Sciences.

During interviews Warikoo conducted between 2009 and 2011, these students were asked to sound-off on whether they felt their school had meritocratic admissions and if they supported affirmative action. Many answered the second question affirmatively and hailed the benefits of a diverse student body.

But Warikoo seems concerned with students’ responses. Analyzing data from these interviews years later, Warikoo points out that students’ approaches to diversity suggest that they’ve “internalized” the tokenistic rhetoric of the school admissions office, even if they had disagreed with policies like athletic recruitment or legacy admissions before coming to campus.

“Unlike in other campus domains in which there is a history of social protest among college students, in the realm of admissions, students seem to agree quite strongly with their universities, and come to even more agreement rather than critique upon arriving to campus,” she writes. “They suggest that most actors in elite institutions espouse views that reproduce their elite status, rather than engaging in symbolic politics or protest.”

According to Warikoo, “US students espouse a collective understanding of merit,” but only “value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society.”

“They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups in society, as many scholars define multicultural state policies,” she elaborates.

Notably, Warikoo addressed the same issue in her 2016 book The Diversity Bargain, which criticizes white students for understanding “the value of diversity abstractly, but [ignoring] the real problems that racial inequality causes.”

White students “stand in fear of being labeled a racist, but they are quick to call foul should a diversity program appear at all to hamper their own chances for advancement,” Warikoo claims in that book, asserting for instance that white students “reluctantly agree with affirmative action as long as it benefits them.”

Her new study, too, criticizes white students for believing in meritocracy and supporting affirmative action, suggesting that white students only support affirmative action for selfish reasons.

One white student, Naomi, was criticized for saying “diversity is really how you learn here,” as Warikoo suggested that Naomi only valued diversity because it added to the “collective merit” of her cohort of students.

Warikoo also reports that “some students used the collective merit framework to express support for legacy admissions…even while lamenting the inequality legacy admissions engenders.”

She bemoans that, ultimately, the students she interviewed were more motivated by “self-interest” than a commitment to social justice.

“They value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society,” she writes. “They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups.”

According to Warikoo’s interviews, students who attended elite high schools “no longer see a large number of their peers gaining admission to the likes of Harvard, Brown, and Oxford,” which they interpret “as evidence that the system is fair, even while ignoring the fact that students like them and their peers are vastly overrepresented at elite universities.”

The professor suggests that when the legitimacy of how they obtained seats at elite institutions gets called into question, students only become more convinced that they deserve to occupy those seats.

“This paper shows how admissions systems often reproduce inequality not only by how they select students, but also by defining ‘merit’ for admitted students in ways that will reproduce inequality in the future,” she concludes.

Warikoo claims that schools have “unequal” admission processes because black, working class, and first-generation students are underrepresented in student bodies. To fix this, Warikoo recommends that elite universities employ an “admissions lottery,” which the schools would use to randomly admit students who meet certain minimum standards.

“An admissions lottery would shift the meaning of selection from an absolute sense of merit—the best of the best—to an understanding that admission is somewhat arbitrary,” she predicts.

Warikoo’s study was published in the journal Social Sciences, which boasts of a “rapid peer-review” system. While most articles take months if not a year to be accepted, Warikoo’s article was accepted by reviewers in 48 days.

Though Warikoo initially agreed to answer a few questions by email, she ultimately did not respond to Campus Reform. Harvard University also did not respond.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending