Bakhmut And Beyond
All Western media seems now to be in agreement: Bakhmut has finally fallen, or is in the last stages of being taken by the Wagner “Musicians”. Some Westerns outlets have even featured video clips of interviews with Wagner supremo Yevgeny Prigozhin. To see where matters stand in what has devolved into a war of attrition, lets turn to some very grim numbers provided by Jeffrey Sachs:
Jeffery Sachs: Ukrainian loss number don't lie
YouTube ^ | March 3, 2023 | Jeffery SachsJeffrey Sachs
23 hours agoCNN, citing its sources in the Ukrainian General Staff, reports that on February 28, 2023, the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine amounted to:
▪️ 259,085 people killed, died from wounds, diseases;
▪️wounded, crippled 246,904;
▪️deserted, as well as missing - 83,952;
▪️ captured - 28 393.
You can lie all you want, but the numbers don't lie.
Bakhmut is a key hub for transport in the western areas of Donbass, so it’s fall will make a difference—give Russia an edge generally—in the areas of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River.
Bear in mind that NATO and Ukraine spent 8 years constructing the defensive fortifications in the urban areas of Donbass (the most urbanized area of Ukraine). In many situations the Russians were compelled to largely level the fortified cities and towns. NATO and the Ukrainians didn’t care, since they knew that the locals were Russian in their sympathies. However, the Russians proceeded methodically, brick by brick if necessary. The numbers that Sachs cites make it clear that the Russians were doing things very right, while the intensity and duration of the conflict indicate the strength and sophistication of the defensive fortifications and operations.
Keep all that in mind as we proceed.
Next we turn to a 20 minute interview with Doug Macgregor. Much of it repeats things he typically emphasizes. However, if I understand him correctly he maintains that NATO seriously underestimated the sophistication of the Russian military. I’ll extrapolate from that a bit and say that I interpret Macgregor to be saying that, while the US was aware that Russia’s military was a very different beast from that of, say, Iraq or Syria, the US expected that the sophisticated fortifications that had been constructed, when coupled with integration of Ukraine’s military with state of the art C4ISR systems operated by NATO personnel, Ukraine would be able to either stop the Russian forces in their tracks or inflict unsustainable casualties on the Russian forces. it is now clear that neither of these objectives were achieved, even though Russia has been forced into a “slow grind.” Macregor believes that will end when the conflict moves toward more open steppe terrain. Here’s a link to the video:
However, before we move on I want to offer a transcript of this exchange, late in the 20 minute video, as a reminder that this global war, world war, is a war of civilizations and cultures:
14:05
Galloway: The two speeches that Putin gave last week began—I think for the first time—to cut through across the censorship, across the iron curtain of censorship, which Western companies--media houses, big tech, and so on--have placed around the Russian side of the story in all of this. In those speeches he posited what I'll call the civilizational issues involved here, and I thought that his arguments were extremely powerful. It is the case that in Russia cultural values--social values--are conservative with a small "c", that religion is still a thing, that a decent, honest patriotism, respect for history, is still a thing. And he posed against that what he called the "degeneracy" and the "depravity", even, that seems to prevail in your society and in mine. You know--the 97 genders, the children being exposed to all kinds of horrific sexualization, the pressure on the age of consent with children, the trans issues and all the rest. He posed the clean, conservative normality of Russian society against the abnormality that seems to dominate in the West. Now, insofar as people have those arguments, I think many people in your country and mine would be with Putin in that dichotomy. What say you?
16:09
Macgregor: I think you're absolutely right, and that's why we have to understand that this war was conceived, launched, and is being conducted by a relatively small number of so-called "globalist" ruling elites in London, Washington, New York City, to a lesser extent in Paris and Berlin, and they are inspired by [George] Soros, not by Christianity. They are inspired by Marx, obviously, much more than they are by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes, and so forth. This is what we're up against. The gap between the ruled and the ruling elite has never been greater than it is today in the United States, and it's a very dangerous thing because we know when that occurs the potential for tremendous upheaval in the event of a dramatic downturn in the economy is huge.
17:10
Y'know, there's another point here that I think your viewers need to understand. The UN indicates that somewheres [sic] between 50 and 60 thousand Ukrainian children have gone missing. Now, we know what that means. We know the sick disease of pedophilia that is widespread in the United States and the West. We have open borders and 2.5 million people have invaded this country. Some of them have come in with criminal intentions. We also know that large numbers of women and children have disappeared in this process. Nobody in Washington, and I can't find anyone in London or New York City, seems remotely concerned about it, but it's a great concern for the American people. We wanna re-establish the rule of law. We want to defend our borders. We want to see an end to the fighting. We would like to see peace talks take place but, as you heard yesterday, Jens Stoltenberg announced--no doubt at the behest of his masters in Washington and London--that Russia will have no peace until, effectively, they withdraw from Ukraine. This is absurd and nonsensical. It has no chance of happening, but it's a signal to Mr. Putin and to the Russians--they have no negotiating partner. What this means is that Ukraine has to be crushed, and that's a tragedy because it's not something we want, I don't think it's something the Russians want, but they have no choice. We've left them no off-ramp.
18:38
Now, keeping in mind what Macrgregor—in my interpretation—said about US expectations going into its war on Russia—that Russia would not be able to match up against the combination of massive fortifications backed up by integration of the Ukrainian forces (through embedded NATO personnel) into NATO C4SIR systems—I want to highly recommend another lengthy article by Simplicius the Thinker:
US/NATO ISR Addendum: Deep Dive Into The Delta Leaks
A detailed overview of how NATO's integrated C4ISR really works in Ukraine.
The article is to long to summarize in any details, however Simplicius begins by explaining the effect that this integration has had on the Russian military effort. His explanation is intended to explain:
1. Why Ukraine has been so ‘successful’ at times, for instance in certain abilities to ambush Russian forces, or effect ‘withdrawals’ like the ‘grand Kharkov counter-offensive’ of last September.
2. Why Russia is forced to fight in a very ‘smoke-like’ fashion, never committing too-large of a force anywhere.
3. How the remnants of the Ukrainian airforce are able to survive this long by evading Russian counter-strikes, and vice versa—how the Russian airforce must remain quite limited in its operations.
Now, reading those three points, you might think that Ukraine would have achieved the objective of inflicting unsustainable losses on Russia—but, as we saw above, courtesy of Jeffery Sachs, that has not been the case. And that is spite of massive, and very direct, US and NATO involvement in the war effort—read the article to get an idea of just how massive an involvement we’re talking about. The explanation for this conundrum is found in this paragraph—but described in lots more detail in the course of the article:
One of the most eye-opening things about the reports is that a huge portion of [NATO’s] computational power is dedicated to unveiling various Russian ‘jammers’. This corroborates the fact that Russia is in fact actively jamming everything on every frontline, to the great dismay of the many skeptics who claimed Russian EW is not active in the SMO.
…
… In light of all this, it’s shocking how well Russia has even been able to do so far—and I believe it’s a testament to the power of Russian EW and AD systems that continue to successfully safeguard the forces.
Lots more at the link.
The Russians aren’t sharing their plans, going forward from Bakhmut. However, interestingly, Stephen Bryen (definitely Neoconnish in orientation) has published an interesting article at Asia Times in which he describes strategic dissension within Neocon ranks. Given Bryen’s CV I have to accept that, when he describes that dissension, he knows what he’s talking about. And he describes this conflict among the Neocons in the process of discussing where the US is headed after the fall of Bakhmut:
A coming wider war with Crimea in US sights
US-NATO response to fall of Bakhmut is likely an assault on Crimea, which in turn will spark Russian attacks on Eastern Europe
Here’s the key part of Bryen’s explanation for believing this new strategy is going to happen.
There are two key signals of a possible US-NATO change in strategy that are perceptible if we understand that NATO, at least so far, does what the US says it needs to do.
New deliveries of special types of long-range ammunition to Kiev are the first signal. The second is the publicized switch by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland to favoring a refocus on retaking Crimea in a new Ukrainian offensive.
“[W]e will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Ukraine is fighting for the return of all of its land within its international borders. We are supporting them, including in preparing a next hard push to regain their territory…Crimea must be—at a minimum, at a minimum—demilitarized.”
Nuland’s view is not supported fully by the State Department or the Pentagon, largely because of concern Russia may choose to attack Western supply lines in retaliation, leading to a broader war in Eastern Europe, starting with Poland and Romania.
Reading between the lines, that sounds like Nuland runs all National Security matters, both diplomatic and military. That should surprise no one.
Fast forward to the present, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is known to worry about a wider conflict but may well have lost out to Nuland, a major proponent of the Ukraine war who wants at a minimum regime change in Moscow.
Regime change in Moscow—at a minimum. Sounds totally crazy to me.
The evidence that Nuland has won the argument starts with the fact Biden has announced a new long-range weapons program for Ukraine and is also sending mobile bridging equipment that could help the Ukrainian army attack Russian forces in a Crimea offensive.
Such an operation itself would start with long-range glide bombs – joint direct attack munitions (JADAM), HIMARS with long-range, ground-launched, small-diameter bombs (GLDSB) and artillery strikes. It would then develop into a land offensive against Crimea.
At this point Bryen attempts to explain some of the impracticalities involved in this strategy, citing the fact that “long range glide bombs” must be launched from very high altitudes, exposing the aircraft to Russian AD. The high altitude is only part of the problem, and you can read about it all, in depth, at Simplicius’ substack:
JDAMs And GLSDBs - Wunderwaffen Or Vaporware?
A brief deep-dive into these two systems, and what chances they stand against Russia's layered AD.
Decide for yourself. Bryen is almost certainly correct in his assessment of the implications:
This would amount to a direct declaration of war, as both Blinken (who is against it) and Nuland (who is for it) understand. To launch such an offensive, for example as soon as this May, there’s no alternative to using Western aircraft.
…
The Nuland threat to Crimea appears more and more to be a foregone conclusion: a US policy with existential implications for Europe and perhaps also for America.
The issue was decided by the new arms shipments (two separate announcements as late as March 3 US time). While no published decision has been made and Biden has been silent, the equipment being sent could only be intended for Nuland’s offensive on Crimea.
If there were a public announcement of a decision supporting Nuland, Blinken would likely have a heart attack – but the US is sending long-range bombs and artillery as well as bridging equipment essential to attack Crimea. If such an attack is not envisioned, the Ukrainians don’t need this kit.
Never a dull moment.
So Garland was the latest to make a pilgrimage to Kiev.
A key takeaway from this is that the Russians haven't been idle since the 2014 Maidan coup. The neocons were so busy pumping up the Ukie military and building massive defences that they forgot that the Russians were also making their preparations. A second takeway is that Nuland is insane and needs to be taken out if we are to avoid a global conflagration. Finally, if Crimea is a risk, this will surely push the Russians to go all the way to Odessa.