re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

This is the other logical fallacy that I am surprised people fall into.

---

quote:

---

.
When this is all over, it will be interesting to learn what really happened.

---

quote:

---

That sounds a little high and I haven't seen anything that backs that up. Most are saying it's more like 3:1 in Ukraine's favor.

---

quote:

---

Served in 1st Armoured division in Texas for 2 years.

Claims there was a lot of drinking, weed, a member caught with bricks of cocaine, prostitutes, etc, all on base during his time there.

---

quote:

---

Statement by an alleged participant of the 2 March Bryansk incident
Posted on 03 March 2023
|

in Media
|
by WarTranslated


We found a post on a pro-Ukrainian telegram channel “Skrynka Pandory” which contains a short Q&A with an alleged participant of the 2 March incident in Bryansk Obl, Russia.

The Q&A is provided in the Russian language, and the author calls himself a medic of the group. According to this individual, the group took a month to prepare for the operation, acted rapidly despite the enemy presence, and withdrew before the Russians were able to respond effectively. It appears that the goal of the mission was to shock the Russians and test their defensive measures in the areas bordering Ukraine.

We do not have a way to confirm that the below information is true.

Translation of the post provided below:

“An interview with a fighter who participated in today’s battles in the Bryansk region.

Due to the incident having some secret details, the interview will be divided into two parts. In the second part, there will be other interesting and funny details of today’s events.

We will write about them when it will be possible.

The main quote of the interview: they thought that we weren’t doing it because we could not. We showed that we did not do this before because we just didn’t want to.

Question: How long did the preparation for the operation take?

Answer: A very long time, about a month. The air reconnaissance was carried out literally across the entire sector for several weeks, all the routes of the movement of border guards, local law enforcement agencies were studied, and in general, anything that could be studied, was studied, up to the permanent schedule of shifts at the posts. A separate problem was to organise medics: due to the secrecy of the operation, it was impossible to disclose where, how and what it would be. That is, a prepared crew of medevac had, upon request, to go to an unknown location, not knowing what to do. There were also problems with local hospitals due to the aforementioned secrecy, it was impossible to openly prepare them for the possible intake of patients.

Question: Who were you in the group?

Answer: I am one of the group’s medics.

Question: What emotions did you experience at the stage of operation planning? And what emotions did you have during the battle in the Russian Federation?

Answer: At the stage of planning the operation, there was a great surprise and shock at the arrogance of those who volunteered to do this. During the battle, emotions were rather absent, the situation developed rapidly and complete concentration was necessary. Nearly at the very beginning of the operation, the f*ggots [Russians] turned on the electronic suppression and the connection with the groups disappeared almost completely. Because of this, there were difficulties with understanding the situation on the battlefield, it was impossible to convey to groups the information from birds [drones], and coordination between the groups also went to sh*t.

Question: How did you and your combat comrades react to the clowning of propagandists about the capture of hostages, the murder of children, and the shooting of a school bus? Obviously, they tried to make terrorists out of you, and interestingly, the local authorities later refuted this information.

As a result, they even refuted the seizure of settlements.

What really happened?

Answer: We are still exchanging posts from the Z-channels and laughing.

In fact, the operation was almost bloodless. A whole one border guard was neutralised, and then the groups moved around without any active resistance.

Closer to half of the time we spent there, a fight with f*ggots on vehicles broke out, but what is particularly funny is that vehicles were suppressed by grenade launchers and retreated, and never emerged again.

Question: Is it possible to draw conclusions about the real defense capability of Russians based on the results of today’s events? Or could you say that they did not expect such a “turn of events”?

There is a feeling that they are absolutely not ready for the defense of their lands.

Answer: Real defense capacity at the border is a hundred times worse than what we have organised. Apparently, there are still many areas where ordinary border guards are located without reinforcements of mobilised.

Yes, indeed, they were not even ready for such a turn of events. Judging by their further behavior after our departure, they had no idea what happened and what to do next.

They are actually not ready for the defense of their regions, but if necessary, I think, they will do the same distribution of weapons as we had at the beginning of the war, and hope will be placed on the forces of the local militia, and this will deliver quite a lot of problems. I think that the capture of the regions of the Russian Federation through direct action is difficult to carry out, and will be accompanied by large losses on our part. Given thei

---

quote:

---

The Kremlin accused Ukraine of conducting a border incursion in Bryansk Oblast, Russia on March 2 — a claim that Ukrainian officials denied. Bryansk Oblast Governor Alexander Bogomaz claimed that “several dozen” Ukrainian saboteurs conducted an armed incursion into the villages of Lyubenchane and Sushany on the international border.[1] The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) doubled down on Bogomaz’s accusation and claimed that the Russian National Guard (Rosgvardia) conducted an operation to “eliminate” Ukrainian saboteurs who reportedly killed one individual and took up to six individuals hostage.[2] Russian milbloggers and news aggregators offered differing information about the number of casualties and hostages, including claims that Ukrainian saboteurs fired on a school bus.[3] Russian President Vladimir Putin then responded unusually quickly to these claims, alleging that “neo-Nazis and their owners” carried out a “terrorist attack” against Bryansk Oblast.[4] Putin did not directly name Ukraine as the perpetrator of the attack in his televised statement, prompting Russian state media to later clarify that Putin meant ”Ukrainian neo-Nazis.”[5] Putin also claimed that Russia will "crush” neo-Nazis that have consistently aimed to deprive Russia of its history, killed the daughter of Russian nationalist ideolog Alexander Dugin, and ”killed people in Donbas.”[6]

Ukrainian officials denied the Kremlin’s accusations of Ukraine’s involvement in Bryansk Oblast and claimed that Russian officials might be facing problems with increasing partisan activity in Russia. Ukrainian Presidential Adviser Mykhailo Podolyak stated that Russian accusations are a deliberate “provocation” aimed at scaring the Russian people into believing that Russia needs to continue to fight in Ukraine.[7] Representative of the Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Andriy Yusov stated that the incident in Bryansk Oblast is “part of transformative processes in Russia” and pointed to inter-ethnic, inter-religious, and socio-economic conflicts among Russian citizens in Russia.[8] Yusov also noted that the March 2 public statements of the Russian Volunteer Corps’, which claimed responsibility for the incursion, further show that “Russia is beginning to wake up against Putin’s bloody dictatorship.”

---

quote:

---

The Bryansk incident generated speculation by Russian officials and ultranationalist groups about the Kremlin’s response to the situation. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov refused to comment on questions regarding any change of the “special military operation” status to “war” because of the incident.[13] Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin sarcastically observed that Russia had been allowing Ukraine to violate its “red lines” and used the opportunity to promote Wagner mercenaries.[14] Russian officials such as Crimean occupation head Sergey Aksyonov and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov along with milbloggers called on the Kremlin to expand security measures and conduct retaliatory operations.[15] Kadyrov, for example, called on the Kremlin to target civilians to punish the perpetrators of this incident - effectively calling for Russia to conduct war crimes. Kremlin-affiliated milbloggers and former proxy officials also called on the Kremlin to designate the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Russian Volunteer Corps, and Ukrainian armed organizations as terrorist organizations and compared the incident to the Beslan school siege in North Ossetia in 2004.

---

quote:

---

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stated on March 2 that Germany is negotiating with allies about providing security guarantees to Ukraine but provided no further details on these proposed guarantees.[21] Scholz emphasized that the pact would only work if Ukraine prevailed in the war. Scholz mentioned the security guarantees while criticizing China for failing to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and calling on Chinese authorities to pressure Russia into withdrawing Russian forces from Ukraine. Scholz’ statements are consistent with reports of a proposed Ukraine-NATO defense pact that would provide enough arms to Ukraine to force Russia to the negotiation table, but would not offer Article V protection or obligate NATO states to deploy forces to Ukraine.

---

quote:

---

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken briefly spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the G20 summit in New Delhi, India on March 2 about Russia’s suspension of the New Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).[23] Blinken stated that he urged Lavrov to reverse Russia’s February 28 suspension of Russian cooperation with New START, which imposes verifiable limits on the number of Russian and US intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. Blinken expressed US readiness to collaborate with Russia on strategic nuclear arms control regardless of the status of the war in Ukraine or the US-Russia relationship.[24] Blinken separately called on Russia to stop its war in Ukraine and come to the negotiating table and to release detained American Paul Whelan.[25] Russian officials are highly unlikely to pursue meaningful discussions to restore New START, however. The Kremlin very probably is weaponizing fears of nuclear escalation and the suspension of New START in hopes of deterring Western support for Ukraine and slowing down pledged Western military aid transfers. The Kremlin remains extremely unlikely to use nuclear weapons but routinely makes low-credibility threats of nuclear escalation in an effort to intimidate the West and appeal to its ultranationalist base

---

quote:

---

Russian authorities appear to be concerned over a growing loss of leverage in Serbia, which Russia has worked to integrate into the Russian sphere of influence for many years. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on March 2 that reports of Serbian authorities secretly transferring multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS) ammunition to Ukraine are a matter of “deepest concern.”[27] Russian state-affiliated news aggregator Mash claimed on February 27 that Serbian defense company Krusik supplied over 3,500 Grad MLRS rockets to Ukraine but claimed that it is not clear that Krusik knew that Ukraine was the final buyer of the rockets.[28] Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin responded to Serbian President Alexander Vucic’s prior complaint that Wagner Group is recruiting in Serbia, claiming that no Serbian personnel have served in Wagner Group in 2023 and characterizing Vucic as having “thrown a tantrum in vain.”

---