RUNNING UPDATES ON THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE - 03.12.2024
Including geopolitical issues affecting the balance of power in the ongoing end game war to establish our common future, a closely monitored prison planet or tolerance for diverse modes of governance.
THE COLLECTIVE EAST MUST PROVE ITSELF SUPERIOR TO THE MILITARY MIGHT & SCHEMES OF THE COLLECTIVE WEST… IF NOT, DREAM OF MULTIPOLARITY IS OVER.
COLLECTIVE WEST | RUSSIA
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS of THE DURAN: Putin Sends Wagner to Syria, Russia Iran Agree Turkey Talks; BBC: Ukraine Troops Kursk Despair.
ALEX CHRISTOFOROU of THE DURAN: Erdogan ready for deal. Baltics sanction GEORGIA. BBC, cling on to KURSK. ANGRY Scholz ELENSKY photo.
Dr. GILBERT DOCTOROW: Russia's Solid Response Coming!
Russian Army Liberates Two Settlements in Zaporozhye Region and Donetsk People's Republic.
Russian forces took control of Romanovka settlement in the Donetsk People's Republic and Novodarovka in the Zaporozhye region, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
Russia's Battlegroup Tsentr has repelled 12 Ukrainian counterattacks and eliminated over 555 servicepeople in the past day, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
"The enemy lost more than 555 soldiers, four armored combat vehicles, five vehicles, a 152-mm Msta-B gun and two 122-mm D-30 howitzers," the ministry said.
Russian Forces Liberate Two Key Settlements in Donetsk Region and Advance Westward
Ukraine lost up to 370 soldiers in battles with Russia's Battlegroup Yug in the past day, and Russia's Battlegroup Zapad repelled 11 counterattacks, making Kiev lose up to 460 soldiers, the ministry said.
Units of Battlegroup Sever have struck the Ukrainian armed forces in the areas of Neskuchnoe and Slatino in the Kharkov region, the enemy has lost more than 40 servicemen, the ministry said.
Ukraine desperate to hold Kursk land until Trump arrives – BBC.
Kiev has redefined the objective of its incursion into Russian territory.
A Ukrainian soldier near the Russia-Ukraine border, September 30, 2024.
Ukrainian troops fighting in Russia’s Kursk Region have been given orders to hold out until the new US president is sworn in, according to the BBC.
Several brigades pushed into the border region in early August, heading towards a nuclear power plant. The incursion’s objective was to divert Russian forces from the Donbass front, the Ukrainian military admitted to Western media.
“The situation is getting worse every day,” one of the soldiers told the BBC in a text message, according to an article published on Monday.
Messages received from Ukrainian soldiers via Telegram “paint a dismal picture of a battle they don’t properly understand and fear they might be losing,” the UK state broadcaster said.
The messages were “almost uniformly bleak,” according to the BBC. One soldier said defeat was “only a matter of time.”
“They speak of dire weather conditions and a chronic lack of sleep caused by Russia’s constant bombardment, which includes the use of terrifying, 3,000kg glide bombs,” the outlet noted. “They’re also in retreat.”
Some soldiers argued that the original mission to divert Moscow’s resources had failed. Russian forces have made major advances in southern Donbass since early August. Either way, the current mission is to hold on until US President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in at the end of January.
“The main task facing us is to hold the maximum territory until Trump’s inauguration and the start of negotiations,” said one soldier, identified as Pavel. “In order to exchange it for something later. No-one knows what.”
Russian soldiers pray at church damaged by Ukrainian troops – MOD (VIDEO)
About 40% of the Kursk territory the Ukrainians initially seized has been retaken by Russia, the BBC said. One soldier, Vadim, said they were “struggling a bit” to hold positions.
Asked whether Western long-range missiles that Vladimir Zelensky wanted permission to use have helped the situation, the troops said they had not noticed.
“We don’t talk about missiles,” said a marine identified as Miroslav.
He compared the fighting to Krynki, where he fought previously. Hundreds of Ukrainian marines perished trying to take and hold the village on the left bank of the Dnieper, in an operation reportedly planned and pushed on Kiev by the UK.
“Good idea but bad implementation,” Miroslav said. “Media effect, but no military result.”
Kiev has claimed that up to 10,000 North Korean soldiers have been deployed to Kursk to help the Russians. Western capitals have cited this to justify the missile policy change. Ukrainian soldiers have been offered drones or extra leave if they bring in a Korean prisoner. They have yet to encounter any.
“It’s very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest,” Pavel messaged the BBC. “Especially if he’s not here.”
Commanders in Kiev, however, insisted to the BBC that the Kursk incursion still had a purpose.
“This situation annoys [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” one officer said, on condition of anonymity.
SCOTT RITTER: Ukraine Nearing Its End.
CYRUS JANSSEN: Ukraine Just Lost the War (But Not How You Think).
DANIEL DAVIS: Zelensky Seems to Know the WAR is LOST.
RAY MCGOVERN: Taking Russia Seriously.
LEVAN GUDADZE: Kiev wants another $120 billion for 2025. Trump-Kellogg Ukraine peace plan. Middle East crisis...
EMIL COSMAN: "Rus fights Imperialist West in Ukr." Malema. Lviv eliminates Rur Orthodox Church. US' war on BRICS.
PATRICK LANCASTER: LIVE from war-torn eastern Ukraine/Russia.
KATIE HALPER: Ukrainian Reporter REVEALS Why Zelensky NEEDS War To Continue.
SEBASTIAN SAS: Zelensky DEMANDS NATO Membership With Partial Article 5.
ANATOL LIEVEN: Ukraine– Nuclear War or Diplomacy?
WILLY OAM: Reality & Misconceptions In Syria & My Time In Ukraine | First Hand Experience - Civ Div.
COLLECTIVE WEST | GLOBAL MAJORITY
Fyodor Lukyanov: Can the West still engineer a ‘color revolution’? We’re about to find out.
Georgia’s partially on fire, but this is not 2003 and the US and EU may find things rather more difficult this time.
By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
Protesters wave Georgian, Ukrainian, and EU flags in Tbilisi, Georgia, November 29, 2024.
A ‘color revolution’, as we define it, is a mass uprising fueled by the rejection of official election results, backed by political, diplomatic, and financial support from external forces. This idea first took root in Serbia in 2000, with the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic. The term itself emerged three years later in Georgia, where protesters led by Mikhail Saakashvili adopted roses as their symbol. Another three years later, Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution marked the color shift to orange.
A decade ago, ‘color revolutions’ seemed to have peaked, especially after the bloody Euromaidan in Ukraine, which plunged the country into a prolonged series of armed conflicts. This development made previous uprisings appear relatively tame. The phenomenon appeared to have receded, only to reemerge in Armenia in 2018 – though this was more of an internal shift than an externally influenced one. Meanwhile, Belarus’s failed 2020 revolution, met with stern resistance from authorities and a clear warning from Moscow, looked like a line in the sand.
Yet, the situation in Georgia today – with large pro-Western opposition protests – suggests the possibility of a new mass protest, though it is dramatically different from the past. The ruling Georgian Dream party has locked itself into an intense standoff with the political West, particularly with the US and EU. It is surprising to see Georgia’s government stand so firmly against its Western partners, but there is little choice; as history has shown, the US-led bloc does not tolerate half-measures when its interests are at stake.
Three key calculations driving Georgian Dream’s strategy
Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of Georgian Dream, and his party base their strategy on three main conclusions:
Firstly, Western Europe and the US, preoccupied with issues far beyond the South Caucasus, are unlikely to direct the same level of political and material resources to Georgia as they did in previous revolutions. In today’s global environment, Tbilisi is simply not a priority.
Kremlin compares Georgia protests to Maidan coup
Secondly, the context has changed. When the Rose Revolution unfolded in 2003, Georgia was in a dire state. The government, led by Eduard Shevardnadze, was deeply unpopular, and the country was in disarray. Today, Georgia enjoys relative stability and economic growth. While challenges persist, the choice between “real prosperity” and a fleeting, uncertain promise of Western-led change has shifted the balance of opinion in favor of continuity.
Thirdly, a regime change in Georgia now would almost certainly lead to chaos. The experience of countries in the region shows that compromises and yielding to external pressure lead to the collapse of governments. Ivanishvili’s strategy is clear: resist Western influence, as succumbing to it has proven disastrous for others.
The risks and dynamics at play
However, the Tbilisi authorities’ calculations could be flawed. The significance of events in Georgia now extends beyond its borders, especially in light of the escalating tensions over Ukraine and political shifts in the US. The West’s desire to undermine what it perceives as pro-Russian forces has made Georgia a symbolic battleground, amplifying the consequences of any perceived defiance. The fact that Georgian Dream is in no way pro-Russian, but simply seeks to maintain a detached position, does not change the situation.
Tbilisi’s decision to freeze EU accession talks was a bold move, signaling its willingness to challenge Western demands. The EU sees its ability to influence its applicants as a point of pride, and any setback, like Georgia’s hesitation, will be seen as a failure of its policies. Those who are seen as clients of the West must now swear an oath. And unwillingness to follow the common path is equated with treason.
WATCH Pro-EU protesters use ‘fireworks mini-gun’ in Tbilisi
This situation raises questions about the degree of public support for the government’s stance. The Georgian population has long been divided on the issue of European integration. The government’s position resonates with some, particularly those who see the West’s influence as counterproductive, while others demand a clearer path toward EU membership.
What’s next for the country?
For the opposition, this is an opportunity to exploit popular discontent and mobilize protests. The key challenge for both sides will be managing the potential for violence. ‘Color revolutions’ have always relied on the ability to escalate tensions and frame the government as authoritarian. The authorities, for their part, must maintain a delicate balance, avoiding provocations while standing firm against external pressure.
The ‘European future’ is a popular image among Georgians, and the majority of Georgian Dream supporters share this aspiration too. The party itself is firmly committed to the goals of European integration, but with its own conditions. The opposition’s argument is that the government is blocking the European path, which automatically means that Tbilisi will return to Moscow’s sphere of influence. The only question is how persistently and passionately this argument will be repeated.
The future of Georgia’s sovereignty
The ‘color revolution’ model, once a symbol of democratic aspirations, risks being used as a blunt tool in geopolitical maneuvering. Whether these external forces can still effectively destabilize governments in the region remains to be seen.
Democracy promotion (in various guises) was relevant as long as the Western idea of socio-political progress was seen as essentially the only option. Now, as the global order undergoes significant change, this era of unchallenged Western influence is ending, replaced by a fierce struggle for a place in the new geopolitical system. The term ‘color revolution’ has evolved from a symbol of popular democratic uprisings to a tool of political engineering used by the West for influence. The question now is whether these revolutions still have the power to destabilize countries like Georgia – or if the state can resist the pressure and secure its sovereignty in a new world order.
DANNY HAIPHONG - SCOTT RITTER - ANDREI MARTYANOV: Syria War IGNITES, Aleppo OVERRUN by Turkey & Israel-Backed Forces.
GEOPOLITICAL TRENDS: Why the US Stands No Chance Against this Alliance?
GARLAND NIXON - CALEB MAUPIN: SYRIA - YEMEN - IRAN & THE NEOCONS WEST ASIAN WAR ON RUSSIA.
ALEPPO & DAMASCUS STAND, THE PSYCHOLOGICAL & GROUND WAR ON SYRIA w/ Vanessa Beeley.
GARLAND NIXON: NEOLIBERAL MELTDOWN IN THE WEST - POLITICAL, CULTURAL, & ECONOMIC.
KIM IVERSEN: US-Backed Al-Qaeda Takes Over Syria: Israel the Biggest Beneficiary — Were They Responsible?
THROUGH THE EYES OF... ANIA - LARRY JOHNSON: SYRIA, ERDOGAN BETRAYING RUSSIA and KASH PATEL as the new DIRECTOR of FBI.
RACHEL BLEVINS: Biden Pardons Hunter, As His Officials Respond to Terrorist Attacks in Syria.
DANIEL DAVIS: Rebel Offensive in Syria / Russian Jets Strike the Rebels.
EMPIRE FILES - ABBY MARTIN - ROGER WATERS: Roger Waters Calls Out Thom Yorke Over Palestine.
WILLY OAM: Reality & Misconceptions In Syria & My Time In Ukraine | First Hand Experience - Civ Div.
MILITARY TUBE TODAY: Tochka missile flattens Jabhat al Nusra command headquarters in Idlib.
COLLECTIVE WEST | BRICS
‘Find another sucker’: Trump threatens BRICS with massive tariffs, but who will suffer the most?
The US president-elect has demanded global allegiance to the US dollar, threatening to punish all who want an alternative currency.
By Abbas Duncan, RT editor
Donald Trump listen during an America First Policy Institute gala at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Thursday, November 14, 2024.
US President-elect Donald Trump has fired a warning shot at the BRICS group of nations, which have been outspoken on confronting the dominance of the dollar in global trade. If the idea gains traction, Trump has promised to impose “100% tariffs,” cutting them off from the “wonderful US economy.” Which country will feel the heat the most? RT explores the economic ties and dependencies to uncover which nations are in the line of fire.
The threat
“We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty US Dollar, or they will face 100% Tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US Economy,” Trump said in a post on Saturday on Truth Social.
“They can go find another ‘sucker.’ There is no chance that the BRICS will replace the US Dollar in International Trade, and any country that tries should wave goodbye to America,” he added.
The warning came just days after Trump, whose inauguration is set to take place on January 20, 2025, vowed to slap tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China upon taking office. China has already been the target of his rhetoric. Trump previously threatened to impose from 60% to 100% tariffs on imports from the country – however, this burden would have to be carried by American companies and consumers that buy from China, as they would have to pay the new costs.
China was an original member of the BRICS bloc, which also initially included Brazil, Russia, India, and later South Africa, but has since expanded to include Egypt, UAE, Ethiopia, and Iran. Türkiye, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia have submitted applications to join BRICS, and several other nations have also expressed interest in joining.
READ MORE: BRICS works in full consensus – South African diplomat
Some members are eager to reduce their reliance on the US dollar, which has dominated global finance as the world’s reserve currency since after World War II, powering over 80% of international trade.
In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin advocated countering the US ability to wield the dollar as a political weapon. He appeared on the stage of this year’s BRICS Summit holding what looked like a prototype of the bloc’s own banknote. However, he stressed that BRICS’ goal is not to abandon the dollar-dominated SWIFT system completely, but rather to build an alternative.
“We are not refusing, not fighting the dollar, but if they don’t let us work with it, what can we do? We then have to look for other alternatives, which is happening,” Putin said.
In 2023, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva openly questioned why global trade should revolve around the dollar. At the same time, a top Russian official hinted that BRICS nations were actively exploring the creation of their own currency – potentially rewriting the rules of international commerce.
Trump, fresh off an electoral victory fueled in part by his pledge to impose strict tariffs on foreign imports, doubled down on his tough stance by threatening the entire BRICS bloc with 100% tariffs if they proceed with their currency plans. Who’s taking the biggest risk?
The risks for BRICS
Iran
Exports to the US: Minimal, due to existing sanctions.
The US as export destination: Not a significant partner.
Risk assessment: Low. Existing sanctions have already curtailed trade, so additional tariffs would have a negligible impact.
Ethiopia
Exports to the US: Limited, primarily agricultural products.
The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
Risk assessment: Low. The US is a market for Ethiopian goods, but the overall trade volume is modest, reducing the potential impact.
Russia
Exports to the US: Focused on mineral fuels and precious metals.
The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
Risk assessment: Low to moderate. Although the US is a significant market, Russia has a diversified export portfolio and the current geopolitical landscape doesn’t allow Moscow to engage in trade with the US as much as it used to before the flare-up in Ukraine in 2022, which may soften additional tariff impacts.
Egypt
Exports to the US: Mainly textiles and agricultural products.
The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
Risk assessment: Moderate. The US is a key market for Egyptian textiles, so tariffs could negatively affect this sector.
South Africa
Exports to the US: Vehicles and minerals are top exports.
The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
Risk assessment: Moderate to High. The automotive sector, a major part of South Africa’s economy, could face significant challenges due to tariffs.
United Arab Emirates
Exports to the US: Mainly petroleum products, aluminum and precious metals.
The US as export destination: Not one of the top five partners.
Risk assessment: Moderate to High. Key export sectors like aluminum could take a big blow, disrupting the UAE’s trade balance.
India
Exports to the US: Exports include pharmaceuticals, textiles, and machinery.
The US as export destination: Top export partner.
Risk assessment: High. The US is a major market for Indian goods. Tariffs could disrupt multiple industries, especially IT services and textiles.
Brazil
Exports to the US: Crude petroleum and aircraft are leading exports.
The US as export destination: Second-largest export partner.
Risk assessment: High. The country has a significant reliance on the US market, especially for high-value goods like aircraft. This makes Brazil highly vulnerable to tariffs.
China
Exports to the US: Exports encompass electronics, machinery, and textiles.
The US as export destination: Largest export partner.
Risk assessment: Very High. As the largest exporter to the US, China would face substantial economic repercussions from a 100% tariff, affecting numerous sectors. Outside the BRICS context, Trump has already threatened China with tariffs, so Beijing may already be considering its options, with or without a dollar alternative.
While BRICS nations are mulling challenging US economic dominance, they should tread carefully, since the US holds a formidable trade position, especially under the assertive policies of President-elect Trump. The US remains a top export destination for key BRICS members – China, India and Brazil. Those countries rely heavily on US markets. America’s strong economic leverage, combined with Trump’s history of aggressive trade tactics, positions Washington to exert significant pressure on individual members of the group.
The risks for the US
If imposed, Trump’s tariffs would not only affect certain BRICS economies, but also the US itself. Here’s how it could play out:
Higher costs for US consumers
China: As the largest exporter to the US, a 100% tariff on Chinese goods (electronics, machinery, textiles) would lead to serious price hikes.
Impact: Higher costs for essential consumer goods would contribute to inflation. The cost of living for Americans would rise, which would disproportionately affect low- and middle-income households.
Supply chain disruptions
India and Brazil: India is a key supplier of pharmaceuticals, and Brazil exports crude oil, agricultural products, and aircraft components.
Impact: 100% tariffs would lead to shortages or increased costs in critical industries like healthcare and aviation. US manufacturers might find it quite tough to replace these imports quickly.
READ MORE: Trump threatens BRICS
Retaliatory tariffs
BRICS+ nations are likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US exports, including agricultural products, machinery, and technology.
Impact: US farmers and manufacturers would have to face a decrease in access to key international markets. This would reduce their competitiveness and lead to potential job losses in these sectors.
Geopolitical consequences
Economic Isolation: By targeting BRICS+, the US risks accelerating their efforts to de-dollarize the global economy, which would in time reduce the dollar’s power.
Impact: This could erode the US position in global finance, diminishing its ability to use economic weight to influence geopolitics.
Stock market volatility
The combination of inflation, supply chain disruptions, and declining international trade would likely send financial markets into chaos.
Impact: Investors may pull back, leading to volatility in stock prices and potentially dampening business investment.
The US industries which would feel the heat the most are the following:
Electronics and technology
Main source: China
Impact: China accounts for a significant share of electronics imports (such as smartphones, computers, and semiconductors), and a 100% tariff would dramatically increase costs. Domestic technology companies would struggle to source affordable components, leading to higher consumer prices and slowed innovation.
Pharmaceuticals
Main source: India
Impact: India is a major supplier of generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients to the US. Tariffs would raise healthcare costs, potentially creating shortages and increasing reliance on expensive alternatives.
Automotive
Main source: South Africa and Brazil
Impact: South Africa exports vehicles and parts, while Brazil supplies steel and aluminum. Tariffs would disrupt supply chains, raising manufacturing costs for cars and trucks and pushing prices higher for consumers.
Aerospace
Main source: Brazil
Impact: Brazil’s aircraft industry, particularly Embraer, provides parts and planes to US companies. Tariffs would disrupt this collaboration, increasing costs for airlines and aerospace manufacturers.
Agriculture and food
Main source: BRICS countries
Impact: Imports like coffee (Brazil), tea (India), fruits, and seafood from BRICS countries would face sharp price increases, making these staples more expensive for US consumers and disrupting food supply chains.
Even though imposing 100% tariffs might align with Trump’s ‘America First’ policy and may even give a short-term boost to the domestic industries, the long-term risks outweigh the benefits significantly. Prices for consumers would be higher, supply chains would be disrupted, and BRICS could retaliate – all of which could hamper US economic growth, increase inflation, and weaken the dollar’s dominance.
The prospects
Could BRICS counter the tariffs?
Yes, and there are several strategies they might use. Firstly, they could strengthen trade ties within the bloc, reducing reliance on US markets. Additionally, they could explore deeper trade relationships with non-aligned nations. The use of local currencies in trade could further push BRICS to pursue the creation of a payment system outside of the dollar. Countries that rely the most on US imports could try to subsidize the affected industries to maintain their competitiveness while they transition to alternative markets. On top of that, BRICS members could increase their global economic weight by framing the US tariffs as poisonous to global trade stability.
Kremlin responds to Trump’s BRICS threat
Is de-dollarization actually possible?
The idea of reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance is gaining momentum. However, even if the BRICS countries try to move forward with that strategy, it is not going to be easy, as US dollar dominance is deeply rooted in trust, liquidity, and the widespread use of dollar-denominated assets. Its replacement, or even the reduction of its use in world trade, requires not just new technical infrastructure, but also widespread agreement to adopt it by global trading partners. Recent developments – increased trade in local currencies and BRICS currency discussions – reflect serious intent, but the road ahead will likely be a slow one. For now, the group can prioritize small steps, such as creating and implementing independent digital payment platforms.
A mathematical model published in 2023 in ‘Applied Network Science’ predicts that BRICS has strong potential to establish dominance in international trade through a unified currency. According to this study, based purely on trade flows and excluding political factors, about 58% of countries would already prefer a BRICS-backed currency over the US dollar (19%) or euro (23%).
Could Trump actually introduce tariffs?
It seems moderately possible. Protectionist policies align with his campaign promises, and his previous term showed that he was willing to use tariffs to achieve his political and economic goals – for example, a trade war with China. However, the potential price hikes may lead to public backlash, which could deter the move. US allies in Europe and other regions may also oppose the tariffs if they destabilize global trade and economic relations. Notably, Trump has previously used threats as a geopolitical tool without actually following through on them. He could be employing a similar tactic again.
CARL ZHA: Why did Xi Jinping stop in Morocco?
USA
SABBY SABS: INSANE: Joe Biden PARDONS Hunter Biden!
RACHEL BLEVINS: Biden Pardons Hunter, As His Officials Respond to Terrorist Attacks in Syria.
EUROPE | BRITAIN
EMIL COSMAN: EU threatens Georgia. US+Germany promiss Massive $ to Ukr. Maidan-style Coup in Georgia. Putin+Modi.
SEBASTIAN SAS: THEY Have SACRIFICED Germany’s Future To Save Themselves.
NON-ENGLISH NEWS
LIU SIVAYA: EXPLOSIONES KILOMÉTRICAS Y CAOS POR DOQUIER: ASÍ ESTÁN FRENANDO RUSIA E IRÁN EL AVANCE DE OCCIDENTE.
USA publient plan de paix🌏 Russes prennent contrôle de Novy Komar🎖 Raports militaires du 02.12.2024
Haos u Svijetu⚔️3.Svjetski Rat☢️⚔️Kritične Borbe za Toreck-Časov Jar⚔️Kurahove pred Padom.03.12.2024
दूसरा शीतयुद्ध | अमेरिका और जर्मनी ने यूक्रेन के लिए नई मदद की घोषणा की | रूस का घातक आक्रमण
कुराखोव में यूक्रेन के लिए गंभीर स्थिति | क्रिंकी की खूनी कहानी
MAPPING CHANNEL UPDATES
Cold War II, Strike Back: Martial Law In Korea, Ukraine's Final Offensive. Military Summary 2024.12.3
The West Is Arming Ukraine To The Teeth, Toretsk Citadel Has Fallen. Military Summary For 2024.12.03
Road To Pokrovsk Is Wide Open l RUSSIA Takes Control Of Novodarivka.
Decisive Toretsk Breakthrough Overcomes The Stalemate | RUAF Storm Kurakhove Strongholds.
Soldiers Refuse To Fight 'Dying For PR' | Not Enough Power - Zelensky Changes Tune | Ukraine Update.
V. Novosilka's end is nigh | Ukraine War SITREP.
Toretsk Defenses Collapsed l Russian Advance In Central Kurakhove.
THE COLLECTIVE EAST MUST PROVE ITSELF SUPERIOR TO THE MILITARY MIGHT & SCHEMES OF THE COLLECTIVE WEST… IF NOT, DREAM OF MULTIPOLARITY IS OVER.
