Is there something significant about September 30?
The Russians wiped out entire Ukrainian military phalanxes: One hundred and two dead in Maryinka, Lyman and Kherson
Ukrainian forces have suffered heavy losses in recent clashes with the Russian Army. Videos that have been released show the destruction of entire Ukrainian military phalanxes in the Maryinka, Lyman regions and especially in Kherson.
Paratroopers of the Russian 76th Airborne Division eliminated a phalanx of NATO YPR-756 APCs as Ukrainian casualties in the Pravdino region northwest of Kherson shock.
According to information and newer videos that you can see below, Ukrainian forces were trapped and lost at least 20 tanks. Ukrainians panicked and circled to avoid being hit by Russian drones.
Then we assembled the 56th Airborne Regiment of the Russians. In the fighting, over 120 Ukrainians were killed and 5 captured, while in addition to the 20 tanks, the Ukrainians also lost 13 armored vehicles.
US DEFCON 3 – Russian TV: Russia will not lose -Nuclear war ‘already a given’ – Contingency plans in the West
US: There will be “catastrophic consequences”
The countdown to the use of nukes in the Ukrainian theater of operations has begun. Western capitals have begun implementing contingency plans as Russia escalates threats to show it is very close to “ground zero”.
There is turmoil in the US. The Americans have proceeded with a barrage of statements, warnings and threats in order to prevent Russia from a nuclear escalation. At the same time, satellites scan Russia’s movements on a 24-hour basis and look for signs of moving nuclear warheads and placing them on platforms.
American sources are talking about changing the country’s nuclear preparedness level to DEFCON 3.
The classification of the Defense readiness condition (DEFCON) is: 1 ) Nuclear or conventional war 2) One step before war, 3) Increased readiness of Units, 4) Vigilance and increased security measures and monitoring 5) Normal state of readiness.
It was preceded by nuclear threats from B. Putin himself, S. Lavrov, N. Peskov and other Russian officials, while a few hours ago the Russian state television announced to the viewers that a nuclear war might already be a given!
“Nuclear war is a given”
Hosts and guests on Russian state television have warned the West that if they feel Russia is being pushed into a corner, then it will ensure “everyone is destroyed.”
Military expert Igor Korotchenko and state TV presenter Olga Skabeeva agreed that Russia would use nuclear weapons if it felt threatened to be destroyed.
“The only thing the West fears today is the possibility of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons.
“In this respect, the words spoken by Vladimir Putin are nevertheless very valuable.
“In the West they are looking at them and analyzing what the conditions would be for Russia to use such an argument to avoid any scenarios that Moscow would consider unacceptable.”
“The West must understand: if there are certain weapons, taboos and restrictions on their use could be lifted under certain conditions,” Korotchenko said.
“What do they want? They want a victory over Russia ,” Skabeeva said.
“It is impossible to defeat Russia without a nuclear explosion. No way.
“We will not allow our country to be destroyed, if you try to destroy us, you will be destroyed with us.
“What are our next actions? [Hitting] the decision-making centers? In Kyiv, London, Washington – where?
“What do we have to do to avoid nuclear war or is it already a foregone conclusion?”
It sure looks like it!
“If they don’t stop it will come true, what is the goal of the collective West?”
“Ukraine’s victory and Russia’s defeat. As long as the Russian Federation has nukes [and we do], its defeat is impossible.
“Put us into a corner – everyone will be destroyed. Is that what they are trying to achieve?
“Putin said it so succinctly, so clearly. We do not threaten, we do not want war. We are first in line to stop it.
“We don’t want nuclear winter or nuclear war, but if you declare that we will be destroyed, we will have to destroy you.”
There are no other options. Why can’t they figure it out? Can’t they follow that logical explanation?
Russian media: Putin ultimatum and official declaration of war on Ukraine on September 30 – “Leave immediately from Russian territory”
The point of no return will be September 30, 2022, when President Putin is to send a message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation following the results of referendums in four former regions of Ukraine,” Russian media reported.
The Russians today confirm what WarNews247 wrote yesterday: The Russian president will deliver an ultimatum to Ukraine.
“Seven months after the start of the special military operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine, the conflict between Moscow, on the one hand, and Kiev and its “Western sponsors”, on the other, will move to a completely different level.
The Duma, Russia’s lower house, may discuss bills incorporating Russian-held parts of Ukraine into Russia on Thursday (29/9), state news agency TASS reported, citing an unnamed source.
The Interfax news agency cited a source who said the upper house could consider the bill the same day, and RIA Novosti, also citing an unnamed source, said Putin would address an extraordinary joint session of both houses on Friday.
Putin will declare war on Ukraine on September 30…
Russian media note the following:
“Nowadays, when the course of events has begun to accelerate rapidly and so many important factors are involved, making any long-term predictions seems to be an altogether thankless task. However, it is possible to identify some general trends, which we will try to do.
Time for ultimatums!
The hallmark of modern Russian diplomacy can be recognized as the reluctance to make irrevocable decisions, to keep room for political maneuvers and reconstruction, the desire to solve the issue by compromise, so that it is pleasant ” both for ours and for for yours” . However, this approach, for all its ambiguity, only works if the opponents are ready to seek compromises. The problem is that the “Western partners” no longer want to negotiate anything with the Kremlin.
Seeing that with the support of the NATO bloc, the Armed Forces of Ukraine can not only successfully defend themselves, but also successfully attack, Washington, London and Brussels relied on the military defeat of Russia in the Ukrainian steppes, the subsequent inevitable internal political crisis in Russia itself and the collapse of the Russian Federation into several dozen hostile quasi-states.
A “black spot” for the Kremlin can be considered a message sent from Turkey by a “friend Recep” that any peace agreement with Ukraine is possible only with the return of Crimea and Sevastopol to Kiev.
Further actions of our ruling “elites” show that the message was correctly understood. This includes the start of work on the Power of Siberia-2 project, which will transport “European” volumes of Russian natural gas to China, partial military mobilization, which the Kremlin stubbornly denied earlier, and the rapid launch of reunification referendums with the Russian Federation of four previously postponed regions.
The most important event is the holding of referendums. The actual removal from Ukraine of part of its internationally recognized territory and their annexation to the Russian Federation is an irreversible step.
“Western partners” have already promised not to recognize the results of referendums in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions and to continue military support for the Kiev regime, while President Zelensky bluntly stated in August that holding referendums would preclude the possibility of “negotiation”:
“We will not give anything of ours and if the occupiers follow these fake referendums, then they will single-handedly close any possibility of negotiations with Ukraine and the free world, which the Russian side will definitely need at some point.”
In other words, by the end of the seventh month of the special operation, President Vladimir Putin nevertheless decided to take a politically irreversible step and quite deliberately took the path of escalating the conflict.
The choice to take the Donbass with the Sea of Azov and then pretend that “we are at home” and what is happening around us no longer concerns us, will not work. They just won’t allow it.
The Ukrainian army, which has effectively turned into a NATO army, is too big and powerful to leave Russia alone with its new four regions.
The configuration of the front line, which at the end of next week will become our new state border, is too complex and long to be reliably guarded. Further escalation of the conflict is inevitable.
What will happen next? It is very likely that the events will develop as follows.
On September 27, the referendum process will be completed in the four former regions of Ukraine.
-After counting the results, the bills for their inclusion in the Russian Federation will be submitted to the State Duma on September 28.
-On September 29, the document can be approved in the Council of the Federation.
-On September 30, 2022, a day that will surely go down in the joint history of Russia and Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin is likely to address the Federal Assembly. What can be said?
Of course, the head of state cannot but publicly announce the entry of four new regions into the Russian Federation at the same time.
However, he should simply submit an ultimatum to Ukraine, and perhaps not only to Ukraine. The essence of the ultimatum to the Kiev regime should be the demand for the immediate withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the National Guard from the territory of Russia, which as of September 30 will be Donbas and the Sea of Azov.
Like any ultimatum, it should contain a threat in the event of non-fulfilment. Logic dictates that this should be an official declaration of war on Ukraine, which means a transition from the form of a “special military operation” to a “state of war” with the Kiev regime.
This assumption is supported by the fact that the president will deliver a message to the Federal Assembly, which, according to art. 102 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, has the right to approve a change in the borders of the Russian Federation, to approve Presidential Decrees on the introduction of a state of emergency and martial law, and also to decide on the possibility of using the armament of the Russian Federation Forces abroad .
The fact that martial law will have to be introduced in the Donbass, the Azov region, as well as in the Russian regions bordering Ukraine, does not cause the slightest doubt. This should have been done a long time ago, but better late than never.
The second ultimatum to be issued must be addressed to the “western partners”. The Commander-in-Chief in the event of a declaration of war on Ukraine should demand that the sponsors of the Kiev regime immediately cease all supplies of dual-use weapons and weapon systems for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Otherwise, direct military support will be considered the entry of any specific country that supplies Kyiv with weapons, ammunition, fuel and oil in the war against the Russian Federation on the side of Ukraine. This is a strong and logical move, but will it happen?
We’ll see. In any case, at the end of September 2022, the armed conflict in Ukraine will pass to a fundamentally different level,” the Russians conclude..
Armageddon: Russia prepared a special nuclear weapon for use in Ukraine – Electromagnetic pulse will “cook” the equipment – What the US-NATO are considering
The clock is ticking down on the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield in Ukraine. According to reports, Western and US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia will detonate a “special tactical nuclear weapon” in Ukraine.
The questions that concern NATO are whether Russia will use only one or more tactical nuclear bombs, how powerful they will be, and how it should respond after NATO.
Humanity is entering the most critical period. Everyone is now focusing on what will happen and how the USA and NATO will react immediately after the use of this special tactical nuclear weapon.
Analysts say Moscow will likely use one or more “tactical” nuclear bombs or nuclear warhead bombs.
These are small weapons, ranging from 0.3 kilotons to 100 kilotons of explosive yield, compared to the 1.2 megatons of the largest US strategic warhead or the 58 megaton bomb tested by Russia in 1961.
Tactical bombs are designed to have limited impact on the battlefield, compared to strategic nuclear weapons that are designed to fight and win all wars.
But “small” and “limited” are relative: The atomic bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 with devastating effect was only 15 kilotons.
Electromagnetic pulse will disable electronic equipment
Western analysts say Russia’s goal in using a tactical nuclear bomb on Ukraine would be to scare it into surrendering or submit to negotiations and divide the country’s Western backers.
Mark Cancian, a military expert at the CSIS International Security Program in Washington, said Russia would likely not use nuclear weapons on the front line.
Holding 20 miles (32 km) of land could require 20 small nuclear bombs, small gains for the enormous risks of introducing nuclear weapons and nuclear fallout.
“Using just one will not be enough ,” Cancian said.
Moscow could instead send a strong message and avoid significant casualties by detonating a nuclear bomb over water or high above Ukraine to create an electromagnetic pulse that would disable Ukrainian electronic equipment.
This scenario is also the most likely.
Or Russia could choose greater disaster: attack a Ukrainian military base or strike an urban center like Kyiv, causing mass casualties and possibly killing the country’s political leadership.
Such scenarios “were likely designed to fracture the NATO alliance and global consensus against Putin,” Jon Wolfsthal, a former White House nuclear policy expert, wrote on Substack on Friday.
But “it’s unclear whether it will succeed and it could just as easily be seen as desperation as determination,” he said.
Should the West respond with nukes?
The West has remained ambivalent about how it would respond to a tactical nuclear strike, and the options are complex.
The United States and NATO do not want to appear weak in the face of an implicit nuclear threat.
But they would also want to avoid the possibility that the war in Ukraine — a non-NATO member — would escalate into a much wider, devastating global nuclear war.
Experts say the West would have no choice but to respond, and that the response would have to come from NATO as a whole and as a group, not just the United States.
Any response would have to “ensure that Putin’s military situation was not improved by such a strike and that his political, economic and personal standing suffered as a result ,” Wolfstal said.
The United States has placed about 100 of its own tactical nuclear weapons in NATO countries and could respond with the same kind against Russian forces.
That would show resolve and remind Moscow of the danger of its actions, according to Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council.
However, he added, “it could also provoke Russian nuclear retaliation, raising the risk of a larger nuclear exchange and further humanitarian devastation.”
Another risk is that some NATO members reject a nuclear response, serving Putin’s goals to weaken the alliance.
The response to a Russian nuclear attack could be to give Ukraine more lethal weapons to attack Russia, experts say.
“Russian nuclear use may provide an opening to persuade countries that have so far been reluctant — such as India and possibly even China — to join the escalating sanctions ,” Kroenig said.
In addition, the United States could provide Ukraine with NATO aircraft, Patriot and THAAD anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, and long-range ATACMS missiles that could be used by Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russia.
“Whatever limitations we have on Ukrainian forces — and I think we have some limitations — I think we’re removing them all, ” Kansian said.
Former CIA official and deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Matthew Kroenig, has published his own position in Memo to the President.
It is worth noting that Kroenig has served in the US Department of Defense and Intelligence under the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, specializing in Middle East and Nuclear and Missile Defense strategies.
Escalating sanctions and further isolating Moscow. At the same time, equipping Ukraine with modern weapon systems and military reinforcement of Eastern Europe.
- The use of nukes could also be an opportunity to persuade countries that have so far been reluctant – such as India and possibly even China – to take part in escalating sanctions against Russia.
- The United States could provide Ukraine with more advanced weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory, but also help Ukrainian units operate in a nuclear environment. This may include providing iodine pills, radiation protection suits, Geiger counters and other related equipment.
- Also the United States and NATO could strengthen their military position in Eastern Europe, with the presence of more and more heavily armed forces.
- They could also install nuclear weapons in Poland, but also announce the development of additional types of low-yield nuclear weapons in Europe, such as the development of Standoff Air-to-Surface Missiles (JASSM) or Ground-Ground Missiles (GLCM).
Based on this scenario, the United States will be put on nuclear alert and to prevent possible nuclear attacks against its NATO allies it could overtly and not covertly equip its bombers with nuclear warheads and deploy in various areas their nuclear submarines.
The author of the letter to Joe Biden then presents the pros and cons of this scenario.
The pros: These steps would impose costs on Russia while Washington could reasonably claim to have followed through on its deterrent threat.
The cons: There is a risk that many friends and foes will see these measures as an inadequate response to a nuclear attack.
Should Russia use nukes, the United States could respond with military force, the second scenario notes.
In particular, the United States could conduct a limited conventional strike on Russian forces or Russian military bases that would be directly involved in this attack. Even the US could fight alongside the Ukrainians.
The pros: Immediate US military intervention could be widely perceived as a meaningful deterrent response that would potentially redress the balance and restore the decades-old taboo of nuclear terror.
A US military response increases the risk of escalation and could lead to an immediate Russia-NATO war.
Also, Russia may conclude that the United States is unwilling to use nuclear weapons and that act as an incentive for additional nuclear strikes.
Another negative parameter is that in the event that the US responds to a nuclear attack with conventional means, it may create insecurity among some allies who will consider it as an inadequate response.
In case of use of nuclear weapons by Russia, the United States could retaliate by using nuclear weapons, thus acting as a deterrent to the possibility of further nuclear use by Moscow.
The pros: A US nuclear response is likely to act as a deterrent, reassure allies, and restore the global taboo against nuclear use in the future after the message has been sent that no state can use nuclear weapons. weapons without suffering the consequences.
The disadvantages: If the US decides to nuke Russia it will inevitably be faced with the dilemma of which target to hit and with which nuclear weapon.
Also, a US nuclear strike could lead to Russia retaliating and retaliating, which would lead to an escalation with unforeseeable consequences and would certainly bring about a great humanitarian disaster.
In conclusion, Kroenig believes that the best US response, should deterrence not work, is a combination of Scenario One and Option 2A.
Namely: Escalation of sanctions and further isolation of Moscow. At the same time, equipping Ukraine with modern weapon systems and military reinforcement of Eastern Europe.
Along with an intensification of ongoing efforts to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine and a limited conventional strike against Russian forces or the bases from which the nuclear attack was carried out.