By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a July 3rd phone call, Vladimir Putin informed Donald Trump of his plans to escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine within the next two months, aiming to seize territory up to the administrative borders of regions he considers Russian. Trump subsequently relayed Putin’s intentions to French President Emmanuel Macron, noting Putin’s broader ambition to “take all of it.” In response to the anticipated escalation, Trump is preparing a new aid package for Ukraine, slated to include offensive weapons like long-range missiles, and is expected to announce the plan on July 14th. This move is part of a larger effort to support Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, with Senator Lindsey Graham anticipating a significant increase in weapon deliveries.
Read the original article here
Putin’s warning, as relayed by Axios, is generating a lot of chatter, especially concerning his plans for an escalation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine within a timeframe of 60 days. The language used, specifically the term “escalation” rather than a full-blown “new offensive,” has immediately raised eyebrows. What does this actually mean? Is this a sign of a desperate move from a leader running out of options, or a carefully calculated strategy?
It’s reasonable to speculate that this escalation could be another in a series of poorly planned and executed offensives, resulting in significant casualties on the Russian side. The prediction of “lots of death” for Russians and North Koreans seems to be quite a somber assessment, and the possibility of minimal territorial gains doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the success of the supposed upcoming actions. The question also surfaces: considering the “huge success” of the previous attempts, how will the next one pan out?
The skepticism surrounding the potential for significant gains, particularly given the perceived lack of manpower, raises important questions. If resources are stretched thin, how can they possibly launch something new? The scenario of Putin making an uninspiring speech to his troops and the potential for them to be sent to their deaths is not encouraging, to say the least.
The core issue seems to be the repeated cycle of bluster, minimal results, and the grim reality of body bags. It’s an unfortunate pattern. The suggestion that Ukraine will likely prevail this year certainly challenges the narrative.
The involvement of Trump in this situation, as highlighted by the “warns Trump” aspect, is interesting, to say the least. Whether he cares about Ukrainian lives or feels any negative sentiment toward Russian aggression is a significant point of discussion. Is this all just a distraction, perhaps to take the focus off of other activities? And if not, why is he involved?
The focus is that the Ukrainian forces are ramping up their efforts and keeping the Russian forces on defense. Russia appears to have trouble establishing air superiority, and their infrastructure is being hit on a global scale. The implication is that any escalation by Putin would ultimately backfire, strengthening Ukraine and its allies, possibly leading to the end of Russia as we know it.
The assertion of a constant supply of North Korean “meat barriers” is a sobering reminder of the human cost. There’s also a nod to the ongoing supply of resources to Ukraine. This highlights the importance of external support in this conflict.
The idea that “the real deal is yet to start” is an echo of past sentiments. It’s a bit like waiting for the “real army” to arrive, only to find out it’s a cheap imitation, like the North Korean contingent. The mention of potential new recruits from Cuba and the possibility of the dead Chinese soldiers speaks volumes about the human cost.
The comment about “another garden shed” is a sharp, sarcastic take on the territorial gains that may be achieved. The slow but steady advance raises the question: is it even possible for Russia to make any gains with their current approach?
Ultimately, the central question remains: what does “escalation” truly mean, and what are the implications? The speculation about a severe Russian recession and Putin’s eventual removal paints a picture of potential long-term consequences. With no real incentives to end the war, is this conflict going to keep dragging on, with the unfortunate inevitables postponed?