Large scale war in Ukraine

Bild; Finska Yle

So, Ukraine, a state by Kreml and Putin called a pseudo state, is a part of Russia? If you had your family riding in a bus in the vicinity, would you violently, with certainty of collateral damage on your own family members, attack that family because they were riding in a bus together with a corrupt bus driver? Or because there was a known right wing Nazi connection of one of the forty other passengers riding in the bus, way in the back of the bus? Is that what you do with family members in Russia?

Putin is the new Hitler!

That’s it. There is nothing more to say.

Why did he do it?

Because he could? Yes, partly. But also, maybe, because his military, his transport aircraft fleet, his helicopters among other, needs spare parts from the Ukrainian military industry, former USSR military industry. And he needs the money, i.e. the women, that lives in Ukraine for the amusement of Russian men, since he cannot get to the women in the West. Whaaat? ”Did you just say what I thought you said?” Yes I did.

What can Ukraine do?

They can perhaps move their governmental institutions away from Kiev and to the south and let the Russian tanks roll deep into Ukraine, but not let the Russian support vehicles far into their country, by attacking the support vehicles in big scale ambushes with grenade rifles. But I don’t know what the environements look like in Northern Ukraine.

They can also, under controlled forms, demolish totally the industry that can be used for Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

Why did Putin not strike Ukrainian electricity first?

The infrastructure enables rapid operation in Ukraine. The road and railway network is well developed in the country. Russia and Ukraine have the same track gauge on the railway. As far as the road network is concerned, there are 103,150 miles of paved roads and 2,200 miles of unpaved roads. The railway network covers 13,400 miles, 6,400 miles is electrified railway. The railway network is mainly well developed in central and eastern Ukraine and somewhat less developed in western Ukraine. Roads and railways goes in all directions. Economic priorities within Ukraine are basicly its industry, which is mainly located in its eastern area.

What can Ukraine expect?

We need to first look at the near time history. In 2014, Russia launched a ”humanitarian” aid convoy to eastern Ukraine. Ukraine opposed this but eventually agreed to let the aid in if it was reloaded into other vehicles before the border crossing and escorted by the Red Cross. The inspection of the Russian trucks showed that many were almost empty except for a few sacks of flour. Russia chose to drive the convoy into Ukraine without the assistance of the Red Cross and in a completely different place than the one reluctantly approved by Ukraine. This is where the interesting really begins.

After the aid convoy crossed the border, it set course for the industrial city of Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, which Russia identified as in dire need. In for example Luhansk, the trucks were unloaded again without international supervision, but did not return immediately and definitely not empty. Instead, extraction of parts for Russia’s war-critical industry began. During the time the Russian convoy spent in eastern Ukraine, machinery, parts and products were loaded from e.g. a factory in Donetsk that manufactures radar and telecommunications warfare systems, a factory that manufactures parts for some of the Russian nuclear missile systems, and the factory that is the only one in the former Soviet Union, which manufactures turbine blades for aircraft engines and engines for helicopters, and other critical components for some combat aircraft engines.

Don’t know if there is something else the Russians still needs from Ukraine. They would most likely want to control the Ukrainian energy sector and their agricultural sector in order to sell energy and crops to the West and other countries in the world.

Is Russia backed by God?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, not at all! They’re backed by Satan. It’s Satan’s country now. We wash our hands.

Russia is like a mad dog that has grabbed your child and chews on your child’s arm at a distance of ten yards from you. As soon as you make an attempt to move towards the mad dog to grab and pull your child to safety or attack the dog, the crazy dog stops chewing and stares you in your eyes, still with its jaws around your child’s arm, clearly threatening to instantly tear your child in pieces with his jaws if you continue to move forward. So you stop, and the mad dog starts chewing on your baby’s arm again, slowly chewing your baby to death observing all your movements. Your baby will either be eaten slowly or torn to death quickly, it’s up to you, even if the procedure is resumed.

Will Russia quit after Ukraine

No! As a matter of fact, the big Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea is probably next. And then the Baltic states. And then Finland. And then Northern Sweden through Finland. And then Scania, the South end of Sweden. And then parts of Norway and Denmark. And then Romania and Bulgaria perhaps. Something like that.

Where is Putin now?

Probably his palace in Gelendzjik near the Kertj strait between Ukrainian Crimea and Russia is thought to be like an ”Eagles Nest” by Putin and FSB and GRU in a situation like this.

Roger M. Klang

Why there WILL be a major war, and why it’s going to cost a lot of American blood

Joe Biden, the senile old Satan, the Donald Trump follow up, thinks he is going to be able to avoid the coming world war at our expence as a state. Biden is a good little president, he just wants a LIMITED war. Oh how Godly isn’t Biden? I’ll tell you how good he is, not Godly enough to speak about ”God’s chosen nation”, just as didn’t president Trump. Why is that? Because they drained out God in their politics, actually already with Bush the younger. That’s because they cannot defend what they are doing any longer. They are just another rouge state today. But not just any rouge state, they are the mightiest rouge state, militarily speaking. Not morally speaking.

Biden recently said the following:

Quote; ”If you take a look at, you know, gas prices and you take a look at oil prices, that is a consequence of, thus far, the refusal of Russia or the OPEC nations to pump more oil. And we’ll see what happens on that score sooner than later.” End quote.

Biden knows, or has now learned in any case, that you can not fully switch to the production of an electric vehicle park in most places in the US, or anywhere in the world for that matter, which politicians and statesmen have fantasized about in free fall for a while now. This is what Biden says now:

Quote; “Well, on the surface, it seems like an irony, but the truth of the matter is – You’ve all known, everyone knows that the idea we’re going to be able to move to renewable energy over night and not have – from this moment on, not using oil or not using gas or not using hydrogen is just not rational.” End quote.

Biden’s administration has approved 339 permits per month to drill for oil on federal land. So it seems to me that I’m right that America’s installed oil resources are rapidly running out. However, I believe that, since he only granted a permit for oil drilling far out in the Gulf of Mexico where oil is still believed to exist, there can never be a really viable solution. As an example, I can mention that the experimental oil rig “Perdido” is hardly economically profitable. In my book “World policies, how it works” I wrote:

In comparison, the giant American oil rig “Perdido”, which is located 300 km off-shore in the Mexican Gulf, can pump up maybe 86,000 barrels of oil per day. The oil rig itself cost 3,000,000,000 dollars to build. That means a liter price of 4 dollars or 15 dollars per gallon if the oil rig stands for fifteen years. And that’s not counting profit margins, salaries for the oil rig’s personnel and maintenance or production stop, nor do I estimate the deconstruction costs. But on the other hand it is a low estimation of the oil rig’s total lifespan. Imagine that, 15 dollars per gallon! The numbers suggest that Perdido is only an experimental platform. But Perdido is extremely remote.

It is also interesting that he mentions “Hydrogen” a bit like in passing in the video.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the United States and China are in a deadlock. The United States owns the sea routes for warships and several friendly ports to the oil in the Persian Gulf, but China has Taiwan and South Korea in its grip and thus they have more than 75% of the world’s semiconductor industry within reach. Do not think, as the Americans do or have done, that Taiwan’s strategic status is about the Chinese butt being hurt. Even the Japanese have understood. Japan realizes its strategic disadvantage and in November 2021 signed a contract to allow Taiwan’s and the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, TSMC, to open a branch in Japan together with SONY Group. Japan currently imports 64% of its semiconductor components.

China’s naval warships simply do not have the range to reach even the island of Sri Lanka in the southern part of India. Both China and the United States depend on friendly ports and fuel oil for warships. The United States’ allied Australia has its grip on the oil in East Timor, which has historically cost the small island nation blood before it was even a nation.

The Chinese have a more recent, lousy track record with unfavorable loans, which as a rule has meant that poorer nations have bowed under the debt pressure and been forced to set aside ports to transfer them to Chinese ownership/control. Awareness of this has increased among poor nations, but most of them have already learned the hard way.

A quote; “Up to 90% of the semiconductors applied by US technological companies – including Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm – rely on Taiwanese manufacturing.” End quote.

Another quote; ”Today, only 16 percent of the semiconductors used in China are produced in-country, and only half of these are made by Chinese firms. China is very dependent on foreign suppliers for advanced chips.” End quote.

Soon there will be a major war for real. When the United States goes all out for a war against Iran, China will devour Taiwan and perhaps South Korea. At the same time, Russia will devour Ukraine if they do not understand Blinken’s flirtation and the United States’ offer to serve Sweden and perhaps parts of the Nordic region on a platter. Kremlins do not seem to have understood that it is quote; “playbook”, and Biden has a soft spot for Ukraine. Biden hardly has a soft spot for Sweden.

Blinken recently proclaimed regarding Russia and Ukraine, quote in quote;

“But, we do know it is playbook.”

Playbook means in English.

A book containing a team’s plans for a game, especially in American football.

It may be that the Kremlin has understood Blinken’s “But, we do know it is playbook.” nod to Putin. Otherwise, Putin would not build up with 110,000 troops at the border with Ukraine, he would stack up the odds in Syria and Iran.

Of course, the American administration knows who I am. Blinken probably knows that I’m not into sports. And I certainly do not know American football terminology. This statement by Blinken is thus all the more suspicious. Except I looked it up. But judging by Putin’s reaction a little later on in the video where Blinken said this, Putin was taken on the bedside by the US Naval activities in the Black Sea. But Putin quickly seized the opportunity and condemned the US “unplanned exercises” in the Black Sea and, as usual, turned the whole course of events to his favor. However, I can bet that the US Naval activities in the Black Sea came only AFTER Putin’s troop contractions. Otherwise, it would be even more suspicious what the Americans are doing. It’s a little strange that the US Navy and USAF are sending nuclear weapons platforms to the Black Sea, both navy and B-52s. Why?

But perhaps Putin does not see it eye to eye. As far as I know, there are no nuclear weapons on surface ships in the US Navy anymore. But maybe Putin meant submarines?

After watching the video again, I understood that Putin was referring only to the B-52s and not to the warships, but at the same time he took the opportunity to sow the seeds of suspicion by expressing himself vaguely. All the more reason to believe that Putin was taken by the bedside. Check out the causality is my suggestion, who was there first with what. What are the Americans’ motives for sending strategic B-52s? Especially as Blinken says, quote;

“And as we made clear, any escalatorial or aggressive actions would be of great concern to the United States”. End quote.

The whole thing does not seem to be a deescalation, but it seems to be an escalation.

Sources:

World Israel News (WIN)

United With israel (UWI)

Mirror imaging. Lesson thirtytwo

Russia argues that NATOs Kosovo mission in the 1990s was identical to Russia’s takeover of the Crimea. But the Kosovo mission was only implemented after lasting discussions which involved the entire NATO which dealt with a far reaching and long-lasting crisis that caused the UN Security Council to perceive the Kosovo conflict as a threat to international peace and security.

In the Crimea, however, there was no previous crisis, there were no attempts to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government and the UN was not involved, and finally no attempt was made to mediate. In Kosovo, international efforts were made to find a solution over a period of 3,000 days. In the Crimea, Russia annexed parts of Ukraine’s territory in less than 30 days.

Russia has tried to justify its illegal and illegitimate annexation partly by referring to the referendum that took place in the Crimea. But the referendum was incompatible with Ukrainian law and was held under an illegal occupation force, without freedom of expression or media access for the opposition, and without credible international monitoring of the election.

Russia claims that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. Ukrainian President Poroshenko was elected with a clear majority in an election that the OSCE election organization characterized;

”clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms.”

The only areas in which serious restrictions were reported were in areas that were controlled by the pro-russian separatists who undertook; “Increasing attempts to derail the process.” Official Russian administrators continue to claim that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by Nazis and fascists. But in the parliamentary elections, the parties that Russia claimed to be facsist got far less than 5 percent of the votes required for these parties to take their seats in Parliament. The voters in Ukraine voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of parliamentarians reflects it.

In short, the Ukrainian President and Parliament are legitimate while the separatists’ actions were not.

Source; North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Homework:

Is there any possibility that Russia can soak this up? Can you think of a credible pro-russian counterargument if you are pro-russian? Don’t waste my time with pseudo arguments!

Can you add any credible arguments against Russia if you are pro-ukrainian?

Roger M. Klang, defense political Spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden

The Kola peninsula. Lesson thirty

Despite its large land mass and the fact that Russia has ports in all four directions, the number of ports are relatively small. The usefulness of the Russian ports are also often limited due to both climatic conditions and the long transport distances.

In the north, only the larger ports in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk have international status, and of these, only Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula in the furthest north can handle regular traffic all year round. At the Arkhangelsk area in the bay south of the Kola Peninsula, a thick, impenetrable ice is formed in the winter.

A statistical assumption is that the Russian revenue for the ports in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea is four times as large as that for the ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk in the Barents Sea.

The above was written by FOI associates Tomas Malmlöf & Johan Tejpar in their FOI publication ”Ett skepp kommer lastat” published in 2013.

 

Military in Kola

The following information is from 2015 and it gives a picture of the importance Russia attribute to the Barents region. These are bases planned and/or existing in 2015:

The Alakurtti airbase with the Marine bombardiers.

The newly deployed 80:th independent motorised rifle infantry brigade, one of Russias two Arctic brigades at Alakurtti.

The other newly deployed brigade, the Arctic 200:th independent mechanized infantry brigade, is located in Pechenga, former finnish Petsamo, and it is adjacent to Norway.

13 Airbases and 10 air defense radar stations have been constructed or were to be constructed on Russia’s Arctic coast, according to PISM (Polish Institute of International Affairs).

They also have an Air defense division, a coastal missile defense and a missile regiment. At least they were supposed to be built in the Kola peninsula in 2015.

A deployed S-500 Triumph in Kola can cover the Swedish airbase Kallax in Luleå, if the S-500 is deployed near the Finnish border. But it is not optimal, to try to shoot down cargo-airplanes approaching Kallax, with the S-500 system deployed in Russia. If you fly under a certain altitude while coming in to land at Kallax the Russian radarbeam is going to fail to detect you because your flying in radar shadow. We are talking about altitudes under ~9,000 m, so it is not realistic to think that an S-500 can do the job since the cargo-airplane under any circumstances will come in to land under an altitude of 9,000 m, thus under the radar horizon. Both the 400 km range variant of the S-400 and the 600 km range S-500 are optimized for interception of ballistic missiles, not shooting down airplanes, for these reasons. There are other S-400 variants with shorter range for shooting down enemy aircrafts. Air defense missile systems are used or should best be used for defensive purposes. It’s not an offensive weapon.

 

Not even the exit and the entrance to the Baltic Sea through the Danish Great Belt and the Swedish-Danish Öresund or even the Kiel canal plays any absolute role if Russia are developing the infrastructure in the Murmansk region, with its ports, its navy and its Airports.

NATO can lock in Russia in the Baltic region, if Russia tries something fatal in the Baltic region, leading to issues. Has the Murmansk railway to Severomorsk been kept in condition? Has the Port of Severomorsk been developed? Has the airport in Murmansk been developed? And so on.

The actions speak for themselves, according to the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), 16 deep-water ports will be built on Russia’s Arctic coast.

Of course reality is that NATO is probably not going to blockade Russia in the Baltic region, because to many NATO countries are dependent on Russian energy. The Netherlands with its port in Rotterdam is a European energy hub. What remains are sanctions, but how effective would that be? Thus, there would only be one solution if Russia attack the Baltic states – war.

Homework:

What do you think? Do you think the biggest implications with a bypass of the Baltic region will be military and economically coercive in the Barents and/or in the Baltic region, or do you think the implications will be just economical? Explain your conclusions please.

Sources;

PISM (Polish Institute of International Affairs), 2015.

The FOI publication ”Ett skepp kommer lastat”, published in 2013. Cited with permission.

Roger M. Klang, defense political Spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden

4) To be or NATO be. Lesson twentynine

Putin visited Finland in June-July 2016 in conjunction with Russia’s up to date biggest readiness control exercise, which was carried out on August 25-31, 2016. It was an informal visit, and according to Russia, they didn’t sign any agreements. Sauli Niinistö and Putin discussed “the relations between Finland and Russia and the situation in Europe”. Before that Putin and the Finnish president Sauli Niinistö met as recently as March 2016 in Moscow.

Nato held a summit in the first week of July 2016, where it was agreed to deploy four reinforced battalions in the Baltic countries and in Poland, which Russia naturally opposed.

At a previous meeting in Finland the Moderate (Moderaterna = alleged right wing political party in Sweden) Karin Enström, Vice Chairman of the Swedish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized Niinistö for meeting with Putin. Niinistö replied that Sweden does not keep up with what is happening in the world and that, e.g. The United States has an active dialogue with Russia. But you have to understand that Finland is cornered by Russia and that it was no coincidence that Putin took a trip over the border in conjunction with the Russian mass mobilization. What were discussed there can determine Sweden’s fate.

The country that wants to annex the Baltics and is located in the east, gain a huge advantage, if they undisturbed under false pretences that no Natoland is going to be affected, first can seize the large Swedish island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic Sea. If they seize Gotland they can create a total A2AD (Anti Access/Area Denial) over large parts of Scandinavia and the whole of the Baltic Sea with advanced long range air defense systems.

I think that Russia will try to find cracks in the Swedish-Finnish relations. They hope that one country will not apply for NATO membership without the other country also doing so, and that there will therefore be no membership for any of the countries. In one way, the True Finns (political right wing party in Finland) are dangerous which have worked to strip the Swedish-speaking part of the Finnish people of their civil rights. It may come back to haunt them. I believe that Finland is more dependent on hooking on a Swedish membership than Sweden is dependent on hooking on a Finnish membership. Finland, with NATO’s eyes, can probably be more easily sacrificed than Sweden. It can put Finland in a difficult situation if Sweden joins the NATO organization without a co-signing together with Finland. It’s what happened when Sweden joined the EU. The Finns haven’t forgotten.

In the above diagram you can see who the weakest link in the chain is. It’s Germany. For my part, although Sweden is not a member of NATO, I am prepared to help defend a NATO nation in the Nordic region, if it is small, like the Baltic States or Iceland. But promises of military aid without first showing that you are really prepared to follow up on it are not worth much. So I am ready, if I were an authorized statesman, to let our Visby-class corvettes and our submarines, from time to time patrol the waters of the Baltic States in peacetime. I have already made a Baltic ex officer assurances and thus I cannot back down.

I am also ready to support Finland in different ways. But it doesn’t matter what I say, or even what our defense minister Peter Hultqvist says, if we do not have a plan for how the help should be executed in peacetime and in wartime or if we don’t have the means to help in any decisive way. We are not alone in not having a plan. NATO lacks or lacked a functioning plan since the United States doesn’t have any land-based persevering deterrent like medium-range ballistic missile systems with versatile types of war heads, like the Russian Iskander-M, which is deployed in Kaliningrad. The United States has phased out most of its tactical nuclear arsenal and the one that is available is not land-based, it is air and sea based.

This is the fourth and last lesson concerning Sweden, Finland and NATO. I hope I haven’t left the Finns with a grudge towards this patriotic Swede. I am prepared to help the Finns with whatever help we can allow ourselves to give to them, even officers and fighting units in Swedish uniform. A hypothetic war in the twentytwenties will be much more qualitatively materiel focused than in the Russo-Finnish winterwar in 1939-1940, and I am afraid that we are not going to be willing to supply the advanced materiel the Finns are going to need without also controlling its contributive forms. That means that wherever there is advanced Swedish equipment, it is going to be operated by Swedish personnel under Swedish command. At least if I have anything to say about it.

But first we need a solid plan and binding agreements.

Homework:

Can Sweden and Finland prevent that Russia could find cracks in our Swedish-Finnish relations? If so, how?

Please motivate your answer!

Roger M. Klang, defense political Spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden