It's Ovyr: Pilots For Infantry, Denazification By Bureaucracy, SBU ...

Brilliant Win Level Move:

More Cannon Fodder Catastrophe:

Here's the important bits:

I am told by those working here that many of those lost in the war die while they are being moved back to safety rather than on the front line. The long journeys to hospital, sometimes up to ten hours, can be lethal, and the availability of adequate first aid is the difference between life and death.

Ukrainians believed that the very best care would be available for their soldiers. But the stark truth is emerging: soldiers are dying in their hundreds or even thousands due to poor medical provision. The problem is being ignored by the military hierarchy, whose focus is on sourcing weapons and pushing the counteroffensive rather than prioritising injured fighters.

Another problem is that corruption has been allowed to flourish. One example is the proliferation of low-quality medical supplies being used to treat Ukrainian soldiers. A few weeks ago Volodymyr Prudnikov, the head of Ukraine’s Medical Forces Command’s procurement department, was accused of supplying 11,000 uncertified Chinese tactical medical kits to the front line. It is alleged that Prudnikov awarded £1.5 million-worth of contracts to a company co-founded by his daughter-in-law and was attempting to pass the Chinese kits off as Nato standard. He has been fired and now faces an investigation, but has yet to comment.

It is just one example of the profiteering that is needlessly risking the lives of soldiers. Another example of corruption occurred last year in Lviv, where 10,000 tactical first aid kits worth £700,000 were sent by American volunteers and then mysteriously disappeared. It was recently reported that the US is investigating this case.

Investing in decent tourniquets is money well spent. The medics I speak to say that two-thirds of Ukrainian soldiers die from blood loss.

Medics, she says, try to avoid using the official first aid supplies issued to them, because of the admin that is involved. Each component of a government-issued medical kit must be accounted for, including equipment that is obviously sub-standard. ‘If a drug has expired, the write-off procedure is so difficult that it is easier to record that it has been destroyed by fire,’ she says.

‘The military leadership can even refuse to accept new medical supplies because they are fully stocked with low-quality alternatives. They think that asking charities for help would undermine the authority and reputation of the armed forces.’

When it emerged that 15 per cent of medical supplies donated by the West last year had passed their expiry date, it led to public outcry and criminal prosecutions. Officials from Ukraine’s Medical Forces responded by saying they would inspect all medical kit in the army. But no guidelines or standards for these inspections have been issued. Senior officials in Kyiv do not seem prepared to complain, or bothered enough to do thorough checks before sending the first aid kits they receive on to the front line.

‘The leadership of the old establishment doesn’t truly understand what is wrong,’ says Kubrushko. Inspections are no use if the people commissioned for the task have no idea what to look out for. ‘They won’t suddenly become tactical medicine specialists just because an order came from above.’ As a result, reports are tinkered with, which in turn distorts the statistics on how much medical aid is required. Why should Ukraine ask for more medical equipment, when officially the shortage doesn’t really exist?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, combat medics sent out to rescue injured soldiers under Russian fire often lack both the training and the authority to deliver aid. Some have a medical background, but most must learn in the field, usually at the front line. A senior combat medic will teach junior members. In the whole of Ukraine, only one military base is capable of providing an official qualification for a ‘junior medical personnel’. That base turns out 300 medical cadets a month, but to allow for one medic for every 30 soldiers, Ukraine needs to train at least 15,000 combat medics.

The UK has so far trained 17,000 Ukrainian soldiers since last February, some of whom are medics. But all too often they are used to working with a standard of kit that is unavailable in Ukraine, and the training is not tailored to the war that is being fought. Gurman was trained in York. He tells me about the arguments he has subsequently had with his instructors. ‘The medical course is focused on gunshot wounds. But in Ukraine, soldiers are being blown apart. You need to piece a whole person together,’ he says.

It concludes:

[On top of Denazification] Ukrainian authorities’ neglect of the medical necessities is leading to a far higher death toll.

https://archive.li/phJD6

When They Denazify Themselves Everyone Wins:

Liberation Continues:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-war-takes-dramatic-turn-russian-soldiers-push-recapture-northeast-kharkiv-territory

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/28/7417460/

Strange..

“We had hoped the Ukrainian army would push the Russians further away, but every day we hear them coming closer and closer,” Shapavalova said.

It's almost as if they're waiting for the Russians..

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/evacuation-order-finds-followers-northeast-ukraine-despite-russias-102611719

Time to "forcefully evacuate" some children from their unwilling parents, the Western Elites need that adrenochrome fix:

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/28/7417454/
When Russians evacuate orphans and children it's a War Crime, when Queef does it is humanitarian, nothing like "forced" evacuation to show how much they care. I shared another such story from Avdeevka not long ago: Ukranazi Are Kidnapping Children From Parents Under Guise Of "Forced Evacuation"!

An Excellent Article by Daily Star, akin to the recent Newsweek article:

There is no fairy tale end to the war in Ukraine, in which Ukraine defeats Russia on the battlefield and then joins Nato. The war can end with a safe and secure Ukraine, indeed with Ukraine a member of the European Union. But it cannot end with Ukraine in Nato. Russia has fought the war over that issue, and could possibly escalate to a nuclear war to avoid Nato enlargement to Ukraine.

A lie the West tells itself is that the war was "unprovoked." The word "unprovoked" is invoked incessantly, in President Joe Biden's major speech on the first-year anniversary of the war, in Nato statements, and in the media. TheNew York Times editorial pages alone have included at least 26 editorials, opinion columns and op-ed pieces that have described the Russian invasion as "unprovoked."

Yet, the war and Russian invasion were provoked by the issue of Nato enlargement, just as leading US diplomats had warned about for decades.

There were in fact two Nato-related provocations. The first was the US intention to expand Nato to Ukraine and Georgia, which would surround Russia in the Black Sea region with Nato countries (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia, in counter-clockwise order). The second was the US role in the violent overthrow of Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who had pushed Ukraine's neutrality. The shooting war began nine years ago, with the installation in Ukraine of a US-backed, Russophobic government intent on joining Nato.

The US government refuses to discuss these roots of the war. To recognise them would undermine the Biden administration in three ways. First, it would expose the fact that the war could have been avoided, or stopped early, sparing Ukraine its current devastation, and sparing the US more than $100 billion in outlays to date. Second, it would expose President Biden's own role in the war dating back to 2014 and earlier, as a staunch advocate of Nato enlargement and participant in the overthrow of Yanukovych. Third, it would lead to the negotiating table, which the administration avoids as it continues to push for Nato expansion.

Admitting that Nato expansion provoked the war would also undermine decades of US policy.

In 1990, as the archives show irrefutably, US and Germany repeatedly promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not move "one inch eastward" when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact alliance. Nonetheless, US planning for Nato expansion began in the early 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia's president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski detailed the Nato expansion timeline with remarkable precision.

US diplomats and Ukraine's own leaders knew well that Nato enlargement could lead to war. The great US scholar-statesman George Kennan called enlargement a "fateful error," writing, "Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking." President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Perry considered resigning in protest against Nato enlargement. (Last year, Mr Clinton dismissed out of hand the idea that Nato expansion was to blame for the war. "I think we did the right thing at the right time," he said.

In 1998, then US ambassador to Russia and now CIA director, William Burns, sent a cable to Washington warning at length of grave risks of Nato enlargement, "Ukraine and Georgia's Nato aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over Nato membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or, at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene – a decision Russia does not want to have to face."

Ukraine's leaders knew clearly that pressing for Nato membership would mean war. Former Zelensky adviser Oleksiy Arestovych declared in a 2019 interview that "our price for joining Nato is a big war with Russia."

During 2010-2013, Yanukovych pushed neutrality in line with Ukrainian public opinion. The US worked covertly to overthrow Yanukovych, as captured vividly in the tape of then US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. Nuland makes clear on the call that she was coordinating closely with then Vice-President Biden and his national security adviser Jake Sullivan, the same team now at the centre of US policy vis-a-vis Ukraine.

After Yanukovych's overthrow, the war broke out in the Donbas, while Russia quickly claimed Crimea. The new Ukrainian government appealed for Nato membership, and the US armed and helped restructure the Ukrainian army to make it interoperable with Nato. In 2021, Nato and the Biden administration strongly recommitted to Ukraine's future in Nato.

In the immediate lead-up to Russia's invasion, Nato enlargement was centre stage. In December 2021, Putin proposed a draft Nato-Russia treaty calling for a halt to Nato enlargement. Russia's leaders put Nato enlargement as the cause of war in Russia's National Security Council meeting on February 21, 2022. In his address to the nation that day, Putin declared Nato enlargement to be a central reason for the invasion.

Could a deal to halt Nato expansion in return for guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty have avoided the war? We'll never know, but the Biden administration refused to even try. In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine reported progress towards a quick negotiated end to the war based on Ukraine's neutrality. According to Naftali Bennett, former Israeli prime minister who was a mediator, an agreement was close before the US, UK and France blocked it.

The past shapes the future. Only by understanding the roots of the war can we also understand the way to end it. The US risks an escalation to nuclear war by continuing to push Nato enlargement on the Ukrainian battlefield. The US should push Russia to leave Ukraine in return for a commitment to Ukraine's neutrality, akin to the Soviet army's retreat from Austria in 1955 predicated on that country's neutrality. The way to end the war is through negotiations that secure Ukraine's sovereignty and security without the US simultaneously aiming to surround Russia with Nato states.

Facts:There is no fairy tale end to the war in Ukraine, in which Ukraine defeats Russia on the battlefield and then joins Nato.

Archived in full from: https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/the-war-ukraine-was-not-unprovoked-3335266

The same gargantuan idiots who claimed for over a year that Russians are running out of missiles, something they have revised into "shortages of missiles":

Skibitskyi said DIU's preliminary intelligence data indicates that the Russians plan to produce 1,300 Geran-2 drone units, i.e. Shaheds, in the second half of this year. They plan to use components of both foreign and domestic production.

Hide Your Washing Machines

Remember these are the same insufferable and utterly retarded idiots who said in early July that Russians have 50 lancet drones left, lancets that are not even mentioned in this article: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/28/7417368/

Here's the Published Lancet Strike Numbers:

All Credit For This Goes To NATO & Crew:

Exactly like the Sanctions Backfire, the Covid Vax RedPill, the Trump Deragement, this is yet another spectacular example of unintended consequences, Bravo Globalist Lizurd Overlords, your Unmatched Competence and Strategic Genius continues to exceed itself!

Finally, Lastly, Robot Eno is "officially" liberated, again, again:

New Cope level unlocked:

In 5 days it'll be exactly 3 months since the start of the offendie, still haven't broken the first line,The Memz make themselvz.