Moscow Times, 9/20/24

Over 70,000 Russian soldiers have been confirmed killed in Ukraine since the Kremlin launched its invasion more than two and a half years ago, according to an independent tally by the BBC’s Russian service and the independent Mediazona news website.

The two outlets have been verifying the number of Russian troops killed through open-source information including official statements, newspaper obituaries and social media posts.

The latest death toll update, published Friday by the BBC’s Russian service, highlights how the demographic profile of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine has shifted since the full-scale invasion. Currently, one in five of the dead had signed a contract with the Russian army or the National Guard (Rosgvardia) after the war started, and more than half were not affiliated with the military before Feb. 24, 2022.

In 2022, the average Russian soldier killed was a 21-year-old contract serviceman in elite units like Special Forces, Airborne Forces or the Marines. Now, those dying in the conflict tend to be men in their 40s, 50s or even 60s, often lacking combat experience or specialized training.

The report found a steady rise in casualties among volunteers since October 2023, coinciding with a renewed Russian offensive in the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka. Meanwhile, losses among mobilized troops and prisoners have remained steady.

As of Sept. 20, the republic of Bashkortostan has reported the highest confirmed losses, with 2,775 deaths, while the far northern Nenets Autonomous District has the lowest, with 55 residents confirmed killed.

Russia has lost 4,104 officers in Ukraine, including seven generals. Among the fallen are 458 high-ranking officers, including lieutenant colonels and above, and 1,142 elite command specialists.

The BBC estimates that their count covers only 45% to 65% of the actual death toll. This suggests that the real number of Russian military deaths could range from 107,864 to 155,804.

The tally does not account for fighters from the self-proclaimed Luhansk or Donetsk People’s Republics of occupied eastern Ukraine — the BBC estimates the fighter death toll from there at between 21,000 and 23,500.

The Russian Defense Ministry last updated its official death toll for the war in Ukraine in September 2022, placing the figure at fewer than 6,000 killed.

By Kyle Anzalone, Libertarian Institute, 9/25/24

As the North Atlantic alliance ramps up preparations for war with Russia, Brussels is considering how it might remove a large number of wounded NATO soldiers from the frontlines should conflict with Moscow breakout. 

Lieutenant-General Alexander Sollfrank, the head of NATO’s logistics command, discussed the plans with Reuters. “The challenge will be to swiftly ensure high-quality care for, in the worst case, a great number of wounded,” he said.

Sollfrank believes that NATO will be unable to have air superiority over the frontlines in a conflict with Russia. He said the bloc is considering using hospital trains and buses to move the wounded soldiers. Sollfrank explained, “For planning reasons, all options to take a great number of wounded to medical installations need to be considered, which includes trains but potentially also buses.”

At the end of the Cold War, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, war between Russia and NATO was unthinkable. However, over the past three decades, the North Atlantic alliance has expanded up to Russia’s borders. 

At the start of the Joe Biden administration, Washington and Brussels began treating Kiev as a de facto member of the alliance. The ties between Ukraine and NATO provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Throughout the war in Ukraine, the West has steadily escalated its support for Ukraine. The Kremlin has increasingly viewed itself in a direct conflict with the West. 

President Biden is considering giving Ukraine the green light to conduct long-range missile attacks inside of Russia with American weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that if the White House approves the attack, it would mean direct war with NATO. 

By Gilbert Doctorow, Website, 9/14/24

I have not seen any comments on what I am about to describe in alternative media recently, not to mention in mainstream, which by definition only takes an interest in Vladimir Putin and could not care less about who is who in the Kremlin line-up below Number One. So much the worse for mainstream, because watching the musical chairs in Moscow is no less valuable open source intelligence on where policy is headed than it would be with respect to leading politicians and statesmen in London or Washington or Berlin.

As we all know, Sergei Shoigu, who is as close a friend to Vladimir Putin as anyone in Russia may be said to be, was this past spring unceremoniously removed from his position as Defense Minister, which he occupied for more than a decade, and was made Secretary of the Security Council; which took him out of the line of command and entrusted him with unclear responsibilities of an advisory nature. The reasons for his removal were fairly clear, namely a number of corruption scandals among his direct subordinates, which suggested that it was high time for cleaning house. Moreover, no one had forgotten how Shoigu and the head of the Russian general staff General Gerasimov had been denounced publicly for incompetence and corruption by head of the Wagner Group Pavel Prigozhin in the months before Prigozhin staged his insurrection.

In the intervening period, I would say not so much that Shoigu’s star has risen on its own as that the luster of his successor, Andrei Belousov, and of the aforementioned Valery Gerasimov has been tarnished by the stunning failure of the Russian military leadership to anticipate and prevent the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk Oblast, which has been a big embarrassment for the Putin government even if it is ending badly for Kiev. It should never have happened.

Now in the past several days we have seen proof positive that wind is once again in the sails of Mr. Shoigu. He was present, as a silent witness, to be sure, but present nonetheless as the senior representative of Russia’s siloviki (security and defense apparatus) when Putin received the directors of national security from the BRICS countries at the Konstantinovsky Palace outside Petersburg on Thursday. He was present at the sidelines meeting there of Putin and the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presumably Belousov was not there because he was busy managing Russia’s largest global naval exercise in 30 years, Ocean 2024, with large scale Chinese naval participation and a great many foreign observers.

Now today’s news indicates that Mr Shoigu is in Pyongyang negotiating directly with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. This can only be about the most serious defense issues, including further shipments of armaments to Moscow.

All of these moves of personnel on the chessboard are yet further proof of Vladimir Putin’s remarkable skills in Human Resources. He never completely discards any of his underperforming subordinates. They are not simply ‘fired’ in the spirit of Donald Trump. No they are held close to him so that their talents may be used at some future point as needed for the country’s greater benefit. And if I may be allowed a side glance at what The Donald was saying in his debate with Kamala, none of those removed from high positions is given the opportunity or the incentive to write a denunciation of The Boss.

By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 9/25/24

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday outlined changes that will be made to Russia’s nuclear doctrine as the US and NATO consider supporting long-range Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Putin said in a meeting with the Russian Security Council that under the new doctrine, an attack on Russia by a non-nuclear state that’s supported by a nuclear-armed power would be treated as a joint attack, a clear reference to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory that use NATO weapons and intelligence.

Based on Putin’s comments, it’s unclear if that means such an attack would trigger a nuclear response. But the new doctrine will allow the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that poses a “critical threat to Russian sovereignty.”

According to TASS, the doctrine will also allow the use of nuclear weapons in response to “aggression” against Russia and Belarus, and if Russia becomes aware of plans to launch massive airstrikes against its territory.

“Reliable information about a massive takeoff of strategic or tactical planes towards Russia, or the launch of cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic weapons towards its territory may be interpreted as a sufficient reason for a nuclear response by Moscow,” TASS reported.

The new language is more vague than Russia’s current nuclear doctrine, which allows the use of nuclear weapons “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

The US has supported Ukraine’s attack on Kursk, which came a few months after President Biden gave Ukraine the greenlight to use US weapons on the Russian border region. But the Biden administration is still holding out on supporting long-range strikes.

Putin has said that if the US supports long-range Ukrainian strikes inside Russian territory, it would mean NATO is at war with Russia. Despite the clear warning and risk of nuclear war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and many hawks in the US and Europe are pushing hard for the escalation.

By Fyodor Lukyanov, RT, 9/12/24

There’s a reason why 2024 has been called the year of the big elections. More than half of the world’s population will be called to the ballot boxes, but this time it goes deeper than normal. Voting has always been important, of course, but in calmer – or rather more orderly – times, not every election was considered crucial. Now, on the contrary, consequential elections are routine. Almost every contest is capable of shaking up, if not changing, the course of events. And it’s not just about who wins. More important is the sense of legitimacy, and the recognition by citizens that the results themselves are legitimate.

This should be a well-established, self-evident truth. Firstly, it has always been the case, and secondly, political institutions exist to ensure it. The era of rule by force alone is long gone, and even openly authoritarian regimes have to take account of the interests and demands of the population. And entrenched democracies have to find sophisticated ways to maintain stability and continuity in the face of mistrust of procedures.

Twenty years ago, one of the dominant trends was ‘promoting democracy’. The policy of the neo-conservative US administration (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) was based on the ideological postulate that the spread of the democratic form of government around the world is the most reliable guarantee not only of the national interests of the US, but also of a positive universal order. They felt that one was inseparable from the other.

The range of tools they had was wide: From actively supporting certain social processes (color revolutions – which raged from the post-Soviet space to the Middle East and North Africa) to direct military intervention to effect regime change (from the Balkans to the Middle East again). Whether Washington wanted it or not, democracy became a political and economic tool for external rather than internal use. The notion of the fundamental importance of having elections recognized by an external arbiter – with the right to certify the result – was what emerged. And if that arbiter wasn’t happy with the outcome, it empowered itself to demand a revision, even by force.

The implication was that problems with electoral legitimacy were only possible in fragile young democracies. However, even in stable, well established democracies, things do not always run smoothly – even if generally institutions guarantee order.

Now, two decades later, the focus has shifted to those same older democracies. Many of these countries are undergoing changes that involve the erosion, if not the loss, of familiar ways of life and ideas about the future. The capitalist economy seems to be solving the problems not of society but rather its own issues. And technology may work wonders, but whether it is to the benefit or detriment of man, is less and less obvious.

Political mechanisms carry a heavy burden. They have to keep the system afloat, and prove its effectiveness and legitimacy. After all, the parties may once have reflected the composition of societies, but many no longer do so. Trust in institutions is falling, as it almost always does in times of great change. And the nature of the mistrust is similar to that which created the conditions for color revolutions in more fragile states. Hence the constant fears (and they may be genuine) of outside interference and influence. The American and Western European establishment knows very well how to intervene in and influence troubled societies – now they think the same will happen to them.

So far, the ruling elites have been strong enough to cope. On the one hand, there are still considerable economic reserves that can be used to plug holes, and on the other hand, there is the adroit use of manipulation that makes it possible not to allow alternatives to take the helm. But these resources are not infinite. Paradoxically, systems accused of being undemocratic are probably better equipped to survive, at least in the short and medium term. They have to constantly demonstrate to citizens that they are capable of solving their problems, whereas a traditional democracy believes that democratic turnover itself is a remedy for problems. In reality, swapping out one party in power for another changes almost nothing, which only exacerbates discontent.

All signs suggest we are now in a transition period, and it is impossible to predict what the future will look like. But the process promises to be long and uneven, and much depends on how – and in what form – the new reality is embraced. What is happening now are attempts to maintain an acceptable status quo in spite of all the obstacles.

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team:

https://rg.ru/2024/09/10/cvetnye-revoliucii-naoborot.html