Redefining Victory

It’s not exactly news, but the fact that the story appears in the New York Times makes it pretty official: The US strategy in its war on Russia—at least on the Ukrainian front—has moved to damage control and CYA. Blame shifting would be another apt characterization. And redefining victory is a key to this strategy. Fortunately for the Neocons, the American public’s attention span is notoriously short and their critical skills logically undemanding, so it’s hardly surprising that the Neocons should think they can get away with redefining victory as “not losing”.

Let’s start with a few excerpts that give much of the game away—admissions that by any normal understanding of the term “victory” Ukraine has lost, and lost catastrophically. Further, the amount of money and the types of equipment that the US will be willing to provide to prevent “losing” in the future are dwarfed by the amounts of both that led to catastrophic defeat in the present. Logically, that should mean accelerated losing, a slippery slope, but the article is full of cope and gaslighting. But focus on these excerpts:

U.S. and Ukraine Search for a New Strategy After Failed Counteroffensive

President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Washington at a critical moment, both on the battlefield and on Capitol Hill.

The United States is stepping up the face-to-face military advice it provides to Ukraine

The Americans are pushing for a conservative strategy that focuses on holding the territory Ukraine has, digging in and building up supplies and forces over the course of the year.

American officials say Ukraine will have to fight on a tighter budget.

Some in the U.S. military want Ukraine to pursue a “hold and build” strategy — to focus on holding the territory it has and building its ability to produce weapons over 2024. The United States believes the strategy will improve Ukraine’s self-sufficiency and ensure Kyiv is in a position to repel any new Russian drive.

The goal would be to create enough of a credible threat that Russia might consider engaging in meaningful negotiations at the end of next year or in 2025.

Ukraine does not need to claw back all of the nearly 20 percent of the country it has lost to win the war, American officials say. Scoring some strategic and symbolic victories, while strengthening their defenses and building up their own abilities to produce more weaponry, could be enough to strengthen Ukraine’s hand when calls for peace talks to end the war inevitably restart.

This is the same strategy we’ve been talking about for months. The idea is to somehow sucker Russia into negotiating with Ukraine, and then claiming that that means Ukraine has won and—most importantly—that we haven’t lost. The big problem with this strategy, as it always has been, is that Russia isn’t biting on it. Russia knows that this war is the American Empire’s war on Russia—Ukraine is simply the Neocon’s chump, a pawn in the game, a toad beneath the harrow. Quite reasonably, Russia is demanding face to face negotiations with American officials—what would be the point in pretending that “the Kiev regime” (as Russia refers to Ukraine) has anything to say about their own future? Russia knows that this American ploy is actually all about American electoral politics. They know the Zhou regime’s only interest in Ukraine now is to prevent a loss so catastrophic that even the somnolent American citizenry will notice it—and blame the Dems.

Sharp commentators haven’t been fooled by this gaslighting. Samples:

Alex Christoforou: This is a big deal. NYT is saying: ‘The counteroffensive failed and we're not talking about victory anymore. The best outcome is a negotiated settlement, but for purposes of US/NATO saving face, we need Ukraine--not us--to negotiate with Russia.’

That's not going to happen. Russia will dictate the terms.

What's interesting is that this sounds as if the US/NATO actually thought the UA counteroffensive had a chance to succeed. The article also asserts this--the US thought the massive infusion of NATO equipment really could lead to victory and actually demanded that Ukraine launch its suicidal offensive. This speaks volumes about US military incompetence in conventional warfare.

Alexander Mercouris cuts to the chase—the November elections:

Alexander Mercouris: Western policy remains delusional. Western governments, especially the US, still seem to believe that they can hold things together in Ukraine until the November election. That doesn't reflect military realities in Ukraine. The Ukrainian army has suffered a catastrophic defeat and is crumbling. Pretending that there's some mechanism whereby this conflict can be frozen and put on the back burner until after the election is absurd.

Exactly. Russia has no incentive whatsoever to play along with this charade. On the contrary, Russia is giving every indication that it fully understands that its interests lie in the destruction of the Ukrainian army, such as it is. The sooner the better.

Alex Krainer expresses a bit of a bigger picture view:

Alex Krainer: Ukraine has lost the war. The question is: What will the peace look like? Russia holds all the cards and will dictate terms. The West is in a panic over its loss of face. However, Ukraine is just one battle in the big conflict between the Woke West and Russia. Russia still needs to dismantle the oligarchical cabal that seeks to subjugate other countries for their resources.

Daniel Davis and Doug Macgregor, two former military guys, exchange views and come out on the same side: The Neocons are cruising the American Empire toward a major bruising unless someone wakes up and deals directly with Russia:

DD: At some point we won't have a choice. At some point Russia will simply present us with terms and that'll be it. That'll be the end of the war, that's where we're heading if we don't approach the Russians now.

DM: I think strategically we're set up for a Dunkirk. Instead of leaving Europe amidst fond farewells and wave, I think we're going to end up in a position where people will be telling to get out. As quickly as possible, and don't come back. We've destroyed European economies. Our influence has profoundly affected European societies.

Now, here’s another interesting passage from the NYT article. The authors do note that this development is a bit different. Up to this point the Neocons have tried to avoid the appearance which is the reality—that the US is engaged in war on Russia. To that end, the US has avoided embedding “military advisers” in Ukraine—or so they say. But:

The Pentagon has also decided to dispatch Lt. Gen. Antonio A. Aguto Jr., who commands the support of Ukraine from a base in Germany, to spend lengthy periods of time in Kyiv. General Aguto will work more directly with the country’s military leadership to improve the advice the United States is offering, American officials said. While the White House has opted not to have U.S. military advisers in the country permanently, General Aguto’s frequent rotations in and out of Kyiv would inch toward the end of that restriction.

Is this just more of the usual Neocon hubris: We don’t have to pay any attention to what Russia thinks? Are they so focused on keeping this going till November—against all odds—that they have neglected to consider how Russia might respond? Could their be a Kinzhal in Aguto’s future? Here’s a Russian take on that development, and I’d say it’s hard to gainsay this view:

Victor vicktop55 @vicktop55

The War.

Military expert Alexander Zimovsky: The Pentagon has transferred the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the Eastern Front to manual control.

Now the main commander of the Ukrainian troops will be the American Lieutenant General Antonio Aguto Jr.

He and a group of senior Pentagon staff officers will arrive in Kyiv in the next few days and will take over the planning and management of all combat operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Thus, the Pentagon is deploying a full-fledged apparatus in Ukraine with the constant presence of American military advisers in native units and formations.

General Aguto has experience commanding the Third Infantry Division and commanding the First US Army, which is a training and mobilization (cadre) combined arms reserve army.

So, to further continue the war in Ukraine, the Americans chose the Vietnamese-Afghan template.

De facto, the US war against Russia can be considered officially declared.

https://t.me/vicktop55/19158

What could go wrong with this? Lots! In that light, consider this brief (less than 13 minute) video from the two Alexes at The Duran. They’re talking about the Middle East, but you have to ask yourself: What else is being withheld from the nominal POTUS, and is this any way to manage multiple global wars?

On the one hand, you might say: Better to keep the knucklehead out of this. But on the other hand, Who, then, is accountable? What does this say about the constitutional health of the American Republic?