Unprecedented Failure of Russian Leadership
Why has Putin maximized Russian casualties, provocations and humiliations of Russia, and disregard of Russian red lines by keeping a war going for four years that should have been won in one week?
The mindless restrictions Putin has imposed on the Russian military are inexplicable in the context of war. Why have the Russian General Staff and the Russian people tolerated them?
Rumblings are starting to appear. Here is one reported by John Helmer:
A source in a position to know says the restrictions on the electric war have been political, not military, and for the time being Putin appears to have lifted them.
“I have a tough time believing that the General Staff did not have the intelligence, let alone the weapons accuracy and survivability necessary to prosecute the electric war from the start,” the source comments. “First, as the vast majority of the Ukrainian electrical grid, especially the 750kV backbone, was, and still is, more than fifty years old, Soviet-era equipment. Information on the Ukrainian electrical generation, transmission, and distribution network was, and still is, widely available in open source. There is no way that the electrical or civil engineers employed by the General Staff could not know what to target and what firepower was necessary. In terms of weapons, the Russian forces had then, as they do now, stocks of cruise, ballistic, and other air-dropped weapons, not to mention sabotage capabilities, to destroy the critical Ukrainian electrical nodes. There are approximately 35 major Ukrainian substations — so again, the available information for targeting is open source. Looking at the data provided in these sources, the General Staff have had more than enough ordnance to take them all out. They didn’t. Moving forward from this line of thinking, I am curious to know why Ukrainian electrical laydowns [storage areas] and service vehicles have not been targeted. Are we to assume these could not be seen? This defies rudimentary understanding of enemy logistic and repair capabilities. Quite obviously, the delay to date in achieving the complete collapse of the Ukrainian grid was and is the product of political decision-making, not any lack of capability on the Russian military’s part.”
Here is a Russian comment on a recent Gilbert Doctorow podcast:
Russia is tired of the war, that is the Truth! Tired of such a lingering and sticky Strange Military Operation, when strategic military aviation sleeps on airfields or bombs firing ranges. Yes, of course, Russia is tired of Putin’s strange inadequacy (or treachery!??) in this…. Strange Military Operation. Even the actions in Syria were more decisive and effective…. Russia is tired of the small-minded Belousovs, Nabibulins, Gerasimovs, Shoigunutsy, Lavrovs and a number of other weak-willed supporters of its commander-in-chief, whom they will renounce and sell at the first opportunity (the price is the issue) Russia is tired not of the War, the War for itself – but of the strange and slow-moving and some kind of waiting “war.”
What explains Putin’s strange reluctance to win the conflict and get it over with before it spins out of control? It seems that Putin intends to keep the conflict going until the West can widen it into a major conflict that could doom us all.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Off Guardian
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
Feminists Find a New Complaint: Femicide
Dear readers, December has arrived and brings my quarterly request for readers’ support. Readers’ support is the only evidence I have that my efforts are worthwhile.
Feminists Find a New Complaint: Femicide
Paul Craig Roberts
When I hear people talk about saving Western values, I ask them which ones still exist.
I asked a feminist that question and all she could come up with was “male toxicity.” I had just listened to a NPR program on which two feminists talked about Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders being sexually harassed. So why did the cheerleaders fight so hard to get that job? If they thought that their scantily-clad bodies weren’t going to attract male attention, they must have been crazy. And disappointed had no male noticed.
Recently over a beer I listened to a former police officer explain how police departments in Democrat cities were being put in the hands of women and blacks. He said that it was the black police chief and white female in charge of police training in Minneapolis who framed Derek Chauvin. They wanted to get a white male cop and withheld evidence and possibly perjured themselves in order to achieve their goal.
I read recently and reported that “victimized” women now dominate most professions, law, media, education, health care, and are closing in on corporate executives. Today’s reality is toxic femininity. Consider what it means for a “toxic” white male to have a feminist for a boss. Or a black boss who was taught in school to hate white “slave lords” and aversive racists. In the Western world everyone except a white heterosexual male can be a victim. White males can only be oppressors. This is why when you hear a male on NPR or the networks, he speaks very effete in order to suggest that he is queer and not a toxic male.
The feminists were set back by the assault on them by the transgender lobby. But they are now back at work. Italy has just passed a law against Femicide, which means the murder of women. Why do feminists need this law when it is already against the law to murder any gender?
I suppose the reason could be that a misogynist is worse than a murderer and that a man who kills a woman must be a misogynist and deserving of punishment by a special law that includes murder and being a misogynist. I suppose we will soon see laws to forbid transgendercide, homosexualcide, but not for “toxic” white heterosexual men, who will be the one human safe to kill. https://apnews.com/article/italy-femicide-law-crime-gender-violence-women-99e4be4aaba9f6b940d834ed6c7cb4d0
It seems curious that the law only applies to murder and not to rape. For many years European governments, such as the British, Swedish, and Norwegian, have steadfastly refused to protect their women from rape by immigrant-invaders by enforcing the law prohibiting rape. In effect, immigrant-invaders have acquired de facto rights to the bodies of white European women. Possibly this indicates that people of color have higher status than white women in the Tower of Babel that now comprises Western civilization. Not long ago I reported on a European court ruling that dismissed rape charges against two immigrant-invaders on the grounds that their rape of a white woman was just an expression of their cultural values and in their value system did not qualify as a crime. So why isn’t murder just an expression of cultural values?
From the standpoint of the international movement for the Elimination of Violence against Women, it seems that rape does not count as violence against women. The AP writer reporting the story lays the blame for violence against women on “Italy’s patriarchal culture.” In other words, it is the white toxic male’s fault that immigrant-invaders rape white women.
Does the law apply if the murderer of a woman is a woman?
What if an American black woman is raped by immigrant-invaders. Is this the fault of white toxic males?
No comments:
Post a Comment