The dazzling effects of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s battlefield acrobatics are wearing thin. His incursion into Russia’s border region of Kursk, hailed back in August as a military feat, has failed in its objective of drawing Russian forces away from the central front in Donetsk where their envelopment of eastern Ukraine’s industrial heartland remains relentless. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s electrical grid, which is already 60 percent destroyed, could collapse totally under renewed waves of Russian missile strikes this winter that may leave the already suffering population in freezing darkness, according to top NATO analysts. “Russia has destroyed every thermal power plant and almost every hydroelectric plant,” said former CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, following a recent visit to Kyiv. “They are now going after the transmission capacity of the nuclear power plants” supplying the remaining third of Ukraine’s power generation, according to Petraeus, who has been one of the main advocates of outright victory over Russia. He’s “very worried,” he said in a television interview. In a gamble clearly intended to impress his western backers, Zelensky committed four elite mechanized brigades of his much depleted army to invade a lightly defended sector of Russia’s extensive border region in Kursk, which was site of the biggest tank battle of World War II that resulted in a decisive Russia victory over Germany. While managing to occupy some 2,000 square kilometers of Russian territory, capturing a pumping station transporting Russian gas to Europe, and causing some embarrassment to Putin, the incursion appears to have had little effect on the course of the war, which keeps moving in Russia’s favor. Putin has managed to successfully counterattack the overstretched Ukrainian invasion force with Russian reserve units of light infantry backed by ground attack aircraft launching thermobaric bombs. According to the latest reports, the Russians have taken back about half the territory initially occupied by Ukrainian forces while keeping his heavy armor and artillery concentrated in Donetsk. Over recent days, the Russians have captured Ukraine’s stronghold of Toretsk and fought their way to the outskirts of Pokrovsk, a city of 60,000 people and key logistical hub. Its capture would force Ukraine to fall back from current defensive lines, opening the way for Russia to advance on the main industrial center of Kramatorsk from the south, bypassing the hilltop fortress of Chasiv Yar that has been under siege for months by Russian forces moving west from Bakhmut. According to Petraeus, Ukraine is compensating for its manpower shortage in Donetsk by relying on unmanned systems. Aerial drones “cranked out” by its domestic arms industry at a projected volume of one million this year are being enhanced with AI systems impervious to electronic jamming. They attack Russian infantry groups and destroy tanks and artillery in great numbers. Ukrainian “drone battalions” are also experimenting with remotely fired machine guns and explosives packed robot dogs to maximize Russian casualties that run at a daily average of 1,300. But high casualty tolls haven’t deterred Putin in the past. He took Bakhmut in 2022 and Avdiivka in 2023 suffering similar losses during months of heavy fighting. North Korean troops are also now arriving to fill gaps in Russian manpower. Their presence in Ukraine is currently estimated at 10,000. New long-range weapons being supplied to Ukraine by NATO countries, including F-16 fighter aircraft and a growing number of ATACM and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, are inflicting painful damage to Russia’s logistics but the extent to which they can blunt Moscow’s offensive is questionable. Their strategic use is subject to veto by NATO members fearful of provoking an escalation that could lead to nuclear confrontation. The much prized F-16s, which have been arriving in small batches from Denmark and the Netherlands, are too few in number and limited in capacity to risk in bombing operations. They are being held largely in reserve to intercept Russian cruise missiles and aircraft threatening what remains of the electrical grid and other critical infrastructure. As it is, at least one F-16 has been shot down and several others may have been destroyed or damaged by missile strikes on Ukrainian airfields. The U.S. is withholding provision of the F-16 link communication system required for complex airstrikes or deep missions, saying that the sensitive software allowing realtime cockpit triangulation of satellite data could fall into Russian hands. Western long-range missiles have recently scored some devastating blows against Russia. ATACMS destroyed an ammunition depot containing about one million artillery shells freshly delivered by North Korea last week. But NATO allies are divided over authorizing use of the sophisticated weapon systems in attacks on Russian territory that Putin has warned he would consider as an “act of war” by NATO. While the U.K., France, and the Netherlands tend to favor lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of their donated weapons, Germany is strongly opposed and has been cutting its military aid to Ukraine since strikes on Russia began. The Pentagon is studying a list of over 250 Russian targets presented by Zelensky in his recent meeting with President Joe Biden, who has withheld giving a green light to an expanded air campaign over Russia out of caution of escalating the war and dividing NATO. Zelensky’s target list is believed to include Russian arms factories, command centers, and possibly residences and bunkers used by Putin. Petraeus says it’s “ridiculous” to restrict Ukraine’s use of Western cruise missiles when it’s been hitting Russian oil refineries and other critical targets for months using domestically produced Neptune missiles and kamikaze drones. British military leaders concur, and six former defense ministers met with newly elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week to convince him to unilaterally lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadows. They argue that Ukraine has already crossed several “red lines” drawn by Putin and that intensified attacks focused on Russia’s arms production network could yet turn the tide of the war. Russia is already unable to produce new tanks and needs to rely on old T-55s taken out of mothballs for its armored brigades. Some artillery pieces dating back to World War II have also recently been observed replacing the thousands of modern Howitzers destroyed by Ukrainian drones along the front lines. Russia’s arms industry is managing to replace only a fraction of the main workhorse Su-34 fighter bombers shot down in growing numbers since the U.S. replenished Ukraine’s air defenses earlier this year. Production of fifth-generation Su-57 stealth fighters equivalent to American Raptors has been halted due to lack of parts and technological components caused by western sanctions. NATO planners hope that focused Ukrainian airstrikes on Russia’s missile and drone production facilities could degrade Putin’s capacity to obliterate Ukraine’s power grid and allow Kyiv breathing space in eventual negotiations. Iran has recently been supplying ballistic missiles to Russia to fill growing shortfalls and a newly built factory in Russia producing enhanced versions Iranian Shahed attack drones is vital for continuing the air assault on Ukraine’s infrastructure. The expanding war in the Middle East could constrain Iran’s ability to aid Russia, and Tehran might well demand reciprocity from Moscow to defend against anticipated Israeli air strikes. Iran’s air defenses are largely composed of Russian S-300 systems that would need replenishment and combat maintenance in the event of prolonged hostilities. They have already requested more advanced S-400 missile systems and Su-35 fighter interceptor jets to counter Israel’s air fleet of F-35s. Moscow could find itself in the difficult position of choosing between diverting much needed resources to protect Iran or risk its vital alliance with the Ayatollahs. There are glaring weaknesses in Russia’s military situation and geopolitical alignments that can be exploited by the West. But Kursk was not one of them. Zelensky’s decision to expose the cream of his army to occupy a piece of vacant wasteland in the world’s largest country, to supposedly strengthen his bargaining power with Putin could backfire. Russia can now threaten to annihilate his crack troops struggling to hang on to their shrinking Kursk perimeter while swallowing eastern Ukraine piecemeal. The post Swallowing Eastern Ukraine Piecemeal appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Hoover Institution’s Elizabeth Economy, one of our country’s best Sinologists, has written an important essay in the Diplomat about the continuities in the domestic and foreign policies of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping. It is titled “The 75-Year Quest to Make China Great Again,” and Economy concludes that “a closer examination of Xi’s rejuvenation strategy reveals that contemporary China is not only rooted in an enduring set of political and economic principles and institutions established at the inception of the country … but also reflects a high degree of continuity” in the policies pursued by Communist China’s most consequential leaders. Many U.S. China experts emphasize the differences between Mao, Deng, and Xi, especially when they assess the wisdom or futility of American foreign policy vis-a-vis China. And there have been differences. Mao imposed radical experimentation on the Chinese people with the disastrous Great Leap Forward and the horrific Cultural Revolution. Deng imposed economic reforms while maintaining tight political control, which enabled China to grow economically and militarily. Xi has transformed China’s economic and military growth into geopolitical ambition, most notably via the Belt and Road Initiative and the buildup of China’s naval and nuclear weapons power.  The most important aspect of continuity between these three leaders is their unstinting adherence to the centralized control of China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Thought, and Xi Jinping Thought share this common characteristic — it is the basis for CCP control of the country. Economy notes that highly centralized party rule, party control over social and political life, education, media and the legal system, and state control of economic institutions were/are reflected in the policies of all three leaders. Economy believes that President Xi sees himself as following in the political tradition of Mao and the economic tradition of Deng. But Deng also acted politically Mao-like, especially during the Tiananmen Square uprising and in his “anti-corruption” or party purge campaigns.  Xi Jinping’s push for the “liberation” of Taiwan is likewise firmly in the tradition of Mao and Deng. Economy writes, however, that Mao and Deng evidenced a degree of flexibility on the timing of Taiwan’s “liberation” or “reunification” that is lacking in Xi’s approach. Mao, of course, in the 1950s sought to forcibly “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland. The first attempt was foiled when President Truman sent the Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait at the beginning of the Korean War. The next two attempts involved the shelling of Kinmen and Matsu in the mid and late 1950s, but President Eisenhower successfully ended those threats. Thereafter, Mao, consumed by internal turmoil that he caused within China and later needing the help of the United States to deter the  Soviet Union, was less belligerent about Taiwan. Deng, Economy notes, “evinced a similar degree of long-term strategic patience” on this issue. Xi, on the other hand, appears to be reverting to Mao’s impatience of the 1950s. Newsweek reports that China just a few days ago “mobilized its army, navy, air force, and rocket force, including one of its aircraft carriers, for a joint military exercise around … Taiwan” that replicated a blockade of the island. Economy writes that Xi has “ramped up military exercises around Taiwan, meddled in Taiwan’s elections, halted formal political dialogue with Taiwan, and reduced tourism to bring economic pressure to bear on the island nation.” Xi, Economy notes, evidences a greater sense of urgency about reunification with Taiwan than post-1950s Mao and Deng. And Xi now possesses much greater relative military power than Mao or Deng ever did.  Economy’s assessment supports Bradley Thayer’s and James Fanell’s conclusion that when post-Cold War American political, financial, and business leaders embraced China, it was “America’s greatest strategic failure.” It was very much politically a bipartisan failure from Bill Clinton’s administration through Joe Biden’s administration, with the exception of the last two years of the Trump administration when the national security focus shifted from peripheral conflicts to great power competition, and the administration rhetorically emphasized the China threat. The bipartisan failure resulted from wishful thinking and greed, and it has placed the United States in a geopolitical disadvantage in the western Pacific.  Economy concludes her valuable essay by suggesting that Xi’s economic policies may slow China’s economy to such an extent that it will undermine his credibility and perhaps the legitimacy of communist rule. But if that happens, Xi may divert China’s attention from domestic ills by appeals to nationalism and patriotism connected to the reunification of Taiwan. We’d better be prepared for all such contingencies.    READ MORE: 46 Years Ago, the Soviet Empire’s End Was Set in Motion Bob Woodward’s War on Trump The post Xi Jinping’s Policies Are a Continuation of Mao’s and Deng’s appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by J.B. Shurk, All News Pipeline: It appears that the slow-witted political operatives behind this season’s production of “Harris/Walz: Lights, Camera, Cackle” have finally figured out that they have a serious “man problem” — as in no man with a modicum of testosterone running through his veins would dare be caught bearing the brand of […]

by Patrick Lawrence, The Unz Review: This is an edited version of the second of two lectures the author gave recently on “Defending the Humanity of Humanity.” He spoke Oct. 10 at Mut zur Ethik, a twice-yearly conference held in Sirnach, near Zurich. His first lecture can be read here. The barbarities of Zionist Israel force […]