Crunch Time Approaching In Ukraine?

Armchair Warlord has an excellent tweet out that I urge readers to study in its entirety. Here’s Big Serge’s recommendation:

Big Serge 

@witte_sergei

Lots of us have been arguing (including the head of US Army Command Europe) that Russia is conducting a huge force generation program and has enormous combat power in reserve - here’s AW with a great breakdown of the evidence and the numbers.

Quote

Armchair Warlord

@ArmchairW

The Sword of Damocles - the Russian Army's force buildup through 2023 and what it means for the Ukrainian War going forward. One of the biggest - and certainly the most consequential - question marks in the world right now is the current status of the Russian Army. Some… Show more

Among the points that Armchair Warlord makes are the following, with some extrapolations on my part:

At the start of the Special Military Operation Russia had an army of only about 350,000 troops--of which 100,000 were conscripts, and thus not eligible under Russian law for use in an SMO. That means that Russia went into the SMO at a significant numerical disadvantage to Ukraine. Of course, Russia also had its own very significant advantages, but for offensive purposes sheer manpower does matter. This discrepancy explains why Russia has chosen to wage a tactical defense that prioritizes attrition--an approach that Ukraine and NATO have obligingly played into.

Russia is about 30% more efficient at generating actual combat manpower than is the US, largely because Russia isn't burdened with a world empire:

"This is to be expected given Russia's relative lack of logistical, administrative and command overhead without global commitments."

However, since the start of the SMO Russia has been systematically building up both its manpower as well as its manufacturing base for military materiel. The result at this point? Russia is now fielding

"… an enormous force that could easily secure Russia's borders (particularly its now very-hostile western borders) while simultaneously overwhelming the battered Ukrainian military. Should NATO intervene directly, this force would be able to slug it out with any Western expeditionary force that could be realistically deployed into theater."

This enormous army is now in place and is not temporary. It’s now fully equipped and ready to go.

Armchair Warlord concludes:

"We haven't seen this "doom army" yet because the Russians are still pursuing their Fabian strategy of letting the Ukrainians and their NATO sponsors beat themselves bloody against their defensive line in the Donbass. The Russians can now be expected to launch a large-scale offensive at a time, place, and in circumstances of their choosing - given the exhaustion of the AFU in its monthslong offensive the time for "big red arrows" is, I feel, ripening.

"It should also be noted that the Russians do not seem to be leaving anything at all to chance. In Zaporozhe, for example, they constructed several defensive lines in a deep, complex scheme in preparation for an offensive they ended up stopping close to the line of contact. I would expect similar thoroughness out of their offensive preparations."

I would suggest that the deployment of tactical nukes to Belarus and the announcement that the Sarmat II ("Satan II") missile is now fully operation is not coincidental. Recall Putin's remarks regarding Sarmat, which I quoted just the other day:

"This truly unique weapon will strengthen the combat potential of our armed forces, reliably ensure Russia’s security from external threats and provide food for thought for those who, in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country," Putin added at the time.

Does that sound like Sarmat is intended to deter military responses by NATO when Russia's "Big Arrow" offensive begins? I thought so, too. It looks like the notoriously methodical Putin has been getting his ducks in a row—all of his ducks.

Now consider this. As I keep reminding, back in December, 2021, Putin presented Russia's demands to the West for a new security structure in Europe. The demands were presented in the form of two draft treaties. A key demand was that NATO should withdraw to its pre-Clinton borders--before Poland and the other Eastern countries became the NATO springboard toward Russia. That was the guarantee that Russia received from the US when the Cold War ended—no eastward expansion—and Russia hasn’t forgotten about this broken promise. NATO laughed Putin's demands off because, in December, 2021, they were gleefully scheming to bring Russia to its knees in a matter of weeks through sanctions shock and awe.

Fast forward. Sanctions have failed to shock or awe Russia. Meanwhile, Russia hasn't renounced any of its demands. And now, with the type of water that has gone over the dam in the meantime in terms of NATO military attacks on Russia, any prospective NATO negotiators could be in for a nasty surprise--if Putin ever returns their phone calls. They may find out that those demands remain on the table, as far as the Russians are concerned—and Russia will be calling the shots. Do not rule out the possibility that, considering the way that NATO has been demilitarized in the meantime, Russia might have the wherewithal to make those demands stick. I would definitely not rule that out.

I’ve prepared a fairly severely edited transcript of Napolitano’s latest chat with Alastair Crooke. It provides even more context for the above considerations. In particular, Crooke—an experienced negotiator—goes into the reasons why the West has very little to offer to Russia in terms of incentives to negotiate:

U.S. Seeking Perpetual War in Ukraine?

You have a great piece out titled Hotel Ukraine--you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave. Are you talking about American military support in Ukraine?

I'm talking about the West in Ukraine. I'm talking about the fact that it's much easier to get into these projects, and checking out is much much more difficult. The authors of the Maidan Coup--Mrs Nuland and her crew--they've turned the world inside out. And they are not going to be able to check out or leave the new world order that they've created.

Do you think that President Biden is maybe looking for an off ramp here, maybe freeze the conflict and claim victory?

I think Washington is divided. One faction would like to find an off-ramp to negotiate push Kiev into negotiating directly with Russia, and quickly, so that they can say, 'We've won, it's all over, mission accomplished, now let's get on with the campaign,' and the others who say, 'We can't afford to be seen to be retreating on this issue, we have to keep it going, let's follow the Israeli example and just keep it going with lots of money and weapons.

Neither of these options is workable. There's no off-ramp, there's not going to be a Frozen Conflict. The Russians will not do that, and I don't think that it's feasible to pursue the alternative of a long protracted quagmire type operation against Russia, because that will end up in a war. There's no doubt about it, because the West doesn't have anything new or substantial to throw into this Ukrainian mix that would change the Strategic calculus except by escalation, and an escalation that could easily lead to someone saying, 'Let's just use a tactical nuclear weapon."

American Aid could conceivably dry up. Does does this make sense to you, Alastair?

It makes perfect sense and I would say it's already drying up in Europe. I think the Ukrainians have asked for 89 billion more Euros, and the reaction from some European space was, 'Just forget it. We haven't got that sort of money to hand over.' So I think that is coming.

Zelensky is in a terrible bind. He's caught between the Ultra nationalists and neo-fascists and the Ukrainian military, which is showing very clear signs that it is fed up with NATO's military doctrines. But the hard right will not allow Zelensky to negotiate with Russia. They want the war to go on one way or another. If the troops throw down their arms it could end up in near Civil War--the military and the hard right face off against one another and Zelensky will be in the middle of that, and it's uncertain what the outcome would be. But we are moving towards crunch time in Kiev.

I've learned in the many ceasefires I have had to negotiate, someone from Washington or London says, 'Why can't these people just understand that violence is not in their interest and it's much better to negotiate, cut a deal, find a solution, get out of this.' The reason that doesn't work is because people have been changed by war, they've been changed by the loss of loved ones,

they've been changed by the sheer hardship, attrition, and the stress of war. This might make rational political sense but it doesn't make psychological sense. The space for common negotiating ground becomes very narrow. What was possible last March in Istanbul will no longer be possible today because the mood in Russia, the mood in Ukraine, the mood in the West is different.

[Napolitano plays a clip from the Tucker interview with Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary:

Orban first explains that the entire focus of Russian politics and culture is different than in the West. The focus for Russians "the number one issue is how to keep the country together." The focus in Russia is always on national security issues.

Orban: "But we have to understand that we cannot beat the Russians. It's impossible. They will not kill their leader, they will never give up, they will keep their country together, and they will defend it. If we finance [Ukraine] more, they will invest more. If we send more technical equipments, they will produce more. So don't misunderstand the Russians."

Tucker: "They're not going to get sick of Putin and throw him out?"

Orban: "[Laughs and makes a face] Come on, it's a joke!"

[The problem in any negotiation is to have something to say to the other side. The problem for the West in trying to negotiate with the Russians is that] in Brussels and in the West they don't have a clear idea what to say to Russia, and what they do think they might say just makes no sense. Are you going to seriously say to to Russia, 'Look, we'd like to freeze the conflict and in the meantime we're going to prepare Ukraine to join NATO and in the meantime we're going to build them up with more weapons and more money so that in four years time we can start the war against you again,' and the Russians are supposed to say, 'Yes'? They won't, it's outrageous, and they will not accept any ceasefire so long as the predominant power in Kiev is the ultra Nationalist and neo-fascist groups together with their oligarchic supporters.

Orban: "If United States would like to have a peace, next morning there is a peace. Because it's obvious that the Ukrainians, the poor Ukrainians on their own, they are not competitive in this war. So if there is no money and there is no equipment from the West--and especially from United States--the war is over. The solution is in the hand of your president. No one but you will solve it. The United States can do it. Nobody else. it's not the solution for the Ukrainians. Of course it's about Ukrainians, they cannot be neglected, they must be involved, but the real factor is not Ukraine. The real factor is intention of United States."

[NATO] will follow [the US] the moment the money is cut off. The moment the weapons stop flowing it's over. Now it won't be pretty. It's going to be messy because [Russia will have to find some solution to the neo-fascists in Kiev and Western Ukraine]. There's no easy solution, but all

I'm trying to say is, the idea they have that they can simply sort of go to Russia and say, like Scholz and Macron, 'Look we need a ceasefire. Let's have a ceasefire now.' I mean, they just don't think this through.

The Neocons appear to be somehow betting that they can keep this war going until after Election 2024. The problem is, Russia gets the last say on that.