A Ukrainian service member holds a Javelin missile system at a position on the front line in the north Kyiv region [File: Gleb Garanich/Reuters]
Christopher Caldwell, New York Times: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans.
The United States’ recent promise to ship advanced M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine was a swift response to a serious problem. The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.
Such wars tend to be won — as indeed World War I was — by the side with the demographic and industrial resources to hold out longest. Russia has more than three times Ukraine’s population, an intact economy and superior military technology. At the same time, Russia has its own problems; until recently, a shortage of soldiers and the vulnerability of its arms depots to missile strikes have slowed its westward progress. Both sides have incentives to come to the negotiating table.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I see zero prospects of Ukraine and Russia engaging in peace talks. There may be some incentives, but both sides do not trust each other, and I know on the Russian side they are now completely focused on resolving this war through military means.
As for Christopher Caldwell's above opinion post. He is correct that Ukraine is losing the war. But his observation on how this war is now rapidly evolving into a direct U.S. - Russia conflict, especially through the use of targeting and information networks, is spot on ....
.... But the Biden strategy has a bad name: escalation. Beyond a certain point, the United States is no longer “helping” or “advising” or “supplying” the Ukrainians, the way it did, say, the Afghan mujahedeen during the Cold War. It is replacing Ukraine as Russia’s main battlefield adversary. It is hard to say when that point will be reached or whether it has been already. With whom is Russia at war — Ukraine or the United States? Russia started the war between Russia and Ukraine. Who started the war between Russia and the United States?
I know in Russia the overwhelming sentiment is that while Russian soldiers are fighting Ukrainian soldiers, they are actually fighting the U.S. and some of its NATO allies. The news coverage and analysis is 24/7, especially on how this war can escalate into a wider conflict.
But in the US there is little if any debate on the consequences of their support of Ukraine, and how it could lead to a direct conflict between Washington and Moscow. It is a blank check, with President Biden again repeating US commitment to Ukraine during last night's State of the Union speech.
9 comments:
The NYT, is signaling the end. Watch for it...they will be laying the ground of "Who is to Blame" soon, for the Ukrainian defeat.
This circus is so pathetically obvious.
Obviously, TRUMP will be to blame. Biden "inherited" Ukraine too! And at that point people will start to pack his bags for him and look for a new 2024 suitable candidate.
Who started this war between the US and Russia?
Follow the pattern.
Putin offers USA assistance and says " I am behind you" after 9/11. He also opens the Russian airspace for Afghanistan operations.
2001 up to present day. USA (the neocons) push the borders of nato east after promising not to
USA put Missile basses in Romania.
NED and Open Source Foundations support and fund color revolutions in eastern Europe.
2012. funding and supply of ISIS to take down the Russian ally in syria. Operation Timber Sycamore.
2014. Ukraine orchestrated Coup by Nuland as USG after spending 5 billion in the Ukraine
From then on the US forement an anti Russian campaign in Ukrainian to stir up hate.
2015. Bombing of Donbass and killing of Russian nationals.
2022 destruction of Nord stream pipeline by the west
And there is more.... mush more
If you do not see a pattern here, you are blind
The west wants this Ukrainian Russian war. It fills all the neocon objectives to weaken and tie the Russians down. The hope is it will eventually destroy the current Russian government so they can re-install a Yeltson type progressive liberal LBGTQ friendly government.
Trump said he would have bombed Moscow if Putin did this on his watch.
Of course, WNU author and red-coats like him completely ignore this aspect of Trump.
What war ?, nothing but huffing and puffing and bluff and bluster from Putin
Fazman
Are you nuts?
After saying how many tanks have been destroyed and how many Ukies have bravely died in the service for their country. you now say
What war ?,
Is cannabis and LSD legal in Aussie land?
Christopher Caldwell is a journalist and editor. He is one of the pontificating class without any special knowledge of war or Russian/Ukrainian politics. I've read other opinion pieces he's written on this war. I find his opinions to be based on superficial knowledge of the conflict and the political disputes between Russia and Ukraine. So I hold his opinions less than someone like Mark Galeotti or Michael Kofman who are actual experts in these fields and more sanguine (though not overly optimistic).
I think Caldwell's assessment is wrong. Ukraine is not obviously losing the war. The war is just in a transition phase. The winter in Europe has been milder than expected. That has helped Europe survive the winter by reducing demand for gas, but it has also meant the ground has never gotten hard enough to support tank warfare. So rather than seeing serious offensives by either Russia or Ukraine, it has devolved into positional warfare. Caldwell doesn't seem to understand this and thinks static warfare will last forever.
While it is possible for Bakhmut to fall, every military analyst I know (other than whatever pro-Russian propagandists that WNU Editor manages to find and link to) are clear that losing Bakhmut will not lead to a collapse in Ukrainian defense. Ukraine has many strong defensive lines to fall back to. The main reason the Russians are gaining ground (albeit only hundreds of meters) is that while they seem to be throwing everything into the fray (in order to have some kind of victory to announce on the war's one year anniversary), the Ukrainians are holding back their forces in order to preserve a reserve for offensive operations later. It is a deliberate choice.
Wagner PMC has suffered so many losses it's been withdrawn. Estimates seem to be that something like 80% of its penal recruits are dead, and the news has gone out and Wagner is unable to recruit the same number it did earlier and cannot replenish its losses. The ongoing Russian assault is only because Russia has thrown in some of its best remaining troops like its airborne and naval infantry.
On the other hand, Kofman reports much of the Ukrainian defenses in that area are the lower quality Territorial Defense Units, National Guard, and Foreign Legion. I am seeing more analysts believe Ukraine is purposefully choosing to sustain its losses (of its lower grade troops) because it is inflicting far more Russian casualties (on higher grade troops). If Ukraine withdraws, it'll likely be because they expended as much use as they could get out of Bakhmut for its relative benefit.
So a Ukrainian loss at Bakhmut might not be the big defeat WNU Editor thinks it will be, but more like the Russian victories at Lysychansk and Severodonetsk which weakened Russia to the point it lost far more territory to the Ukrainians in Kharkhiv and Kherson than they took. Time will tell.
Ukraine is not losing the war. The war is still very much in contention. And there are lots of reasons to believe the Ukrainians will be launch a major successful offensive in late spring/summer. Will they? Everyone will have a much better idea by August as to the likely future state of the war.
BTW, Michael Kofman is the analysts that I've found to be most accurate in his assessments. He has consistently been at an "A" level for the entire duration of the conflict (including his prediction that Russia would invade back in early February). I haven't read anyone else at that level - only a few are at a "B" level and most are "C" are lower. Kofman is always very sober in his analysis. He does not engage in flag waving. For those interested, check out his podcasts at War On the Rocks website.
Chris
Keep believing the west narrative on this. Korman is a Ukie Academic and his views are slanted that way. The Russians have not even put one third of their combat power into this war. Most pro Ukie guys believe that the Russians are not going to win because they do not have the manpower or armaments to win. All you have to do is look at the size of the available Russian forces to see it is not even close to being true.
The Ukies blew their army out with their offensive this September. In some ways it was an Ardenness offensive type action. The Ukies have no Air force, they are running out of artillery , their own generals say they need hundreds of armored vehicles to be successful.
All the pieces are moving. When ready, the Russians will hit them hard. The Russian goal will be to take the areas they want, stop and begin the long re-build. The west will be fine with that. Guerrilla war will be their fate.
If the Russian military fails, it will be due to their lack /ability to conduct integrated operations. They are at the level of the USA Military in the 1980s...clunky and kluge like
Trump says, after he is no longer a president, I would do this and that. And I would have solved the climate issue if I were still in some office.
Post a Comment