Status Of The War On Russia

It’s a bit of a slow news day. On the Ukraine front of the Global War not much, if anything, has changed. The Ukrainians have attempted to resume offensive operations, after suffering massive losses, but appear to remain bogged down in the no-man’s kill zone land—unable to even reach the first line of three Russian defensive lines. So let’s review some of the past from a big picture perspective and then tie that to the current situation.

Readers will recall that the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine began in the context of US/NATO prepping Ukraine’s military for a full invasion of the two Donbass republics that had seceded from Ukraine in the wake of the 2014 US sponsored coup in Kiev. The accession of Ukraine to full NATO membership also remained in play. Behind this was a bigger geopolitical scheme, which the Neocons had been preparing for since the end of the Cold War, but which had gained in intensity since 2008 when the Neocons realized the challenge that Putin’s rebuilding of Russia posed to Neocon dreams of world hegemony (2008 was the year of the Russian preemptive military action in Georgia, also Bush’s declared intention of bringing Ukraine and Georgia—former Soviet republics—into NATO). Pepe Escobar summarizes that bigger dream and scheme as it had crystallized by late 2021—Putin And What Really Matters On The Chessboard:

It’s been a long way since Putin examined the chessboard in the early 2000s and then unleashed a crash missile program for defensive and offensive missiles.

Over the next 23 ... Russia won the missile race. Period. The Hegemon – …– was completely blindsided and made no material missile advances in nearly two and a half decades.

Now the “strategy” is to invent a Taiwan Question out of nothing, which is configuring the chessboard as the ante-chamber of no holds barred Hybrid War against Russia-China.

The proxy attack – via Kiev hyenas – against Russophone Donbass, egged on by the Straussian neocon psychos in charge of US foreign policy, murdered at least 14,000 men, women and children between 2014 to 2022. That was also an attack on China. The ultimate aim of this Divide and Rule gambit was to inflict defeat on China’s ally in the Heartland, so Beijing would be isolated.

According to the neocon dream, all of the above would have enabled the Hegemon, once it had taken over Russia again as it did with Yeltsin, to blockade China from Russian natural resources using eleven US aircraft carrier task forces plus numerous submarines.

Obviously military science-impaired neocons are oblivious to the fact that Russia is now the strongest military power on the planet.

In that context Putin, in December, 2021, demanded, in two draft treaty proposals, no less than “a new security architecture in Europe.” Putin was explicit that the new security architecture would have to reject the US “rules based order” in favor of the rule of international law. He also warned that the rebuilding of Russia’s military had reached the point that Russia could enforce a solution to the confrontation that the West had been forcing on Russia. NATO laughed.

Regarding Escobar’s last point regarding relative military power, Will Schryver yesterday drew attention to one of his previous substack articles dating back to July, 2022—after the SMO had begun: The United States Could Not Win and Will Not Fight a War Against Russia. Schryver has been one of the most consistently percipient observers of the conflict in Ukraine, so he his views carry weight. For our purposes it’s not necessary to go full Escobar—Schryver provides the strategic lay of the land as it was then and as it is even more so now. In the light of continued Neocon escalatory provocations against Russia, Schryver reminds us of the madness of it all—I excerpt what Schryver requoted on Twitter:

… let’s turn to the primary question: could NATO fight and win a war against the Russians on this same battlefield?

My answer is an emphatic NO – for three distinct but equally disqualifying reasons:

1. There is zero persuasive evidence that NATO soldiers, weaponry, training, logistics, and command are superior to that of the Russians.

2. Sufficient NATO forces could NEVER be assembled, equipped, and sustained to defeat the Russians in their own backyard.

3. The very attempt to concentrate sufficient US forces in the region in order to take on the Russians would very likely result in the disintegration of the global American Empire and its massive network of overseas bases – thereby rapidly accelerating the already-in-progress transition to a multipolar world.

As to point #1 above, it bears repeating what I have argued multiple times in recent weeks: this war has seen the Russian military quickly evolve into a battle-hardened and quick-to-adapt fighting force.  The US has not faced such a force since World War II.

Many believe the US is a “battle-hardened” force. This is utter nonsense. Of the many thousands of troops currently manning US combat units, only a minute fraction has experienced ANY battle whatsoever, and NONE have experienced high-intensity conflict such as is taking place in Ukraine.

Indeed, I submit that one of the inadvertent and unforeseen byproducts of this war is that, even as the NATO-trained and equipped Ukrainian army has been devastated, the Russian army has been transformed into the single most experienced army on the planet.

Needless to say, this is NOT what US/NATO strategists intended to achieve. But it does explain why we now see them doubling-down on efforts to prolong this war – both to (hopefully) degrade Russian capabilities, and to buy time for themselves to determine what to do next.

You see, if NATO had to go to war today against Russia, and all their troops and equipment could be magically teleported to the battlefield, they simply could not sustain high-intensity conflict for more than about a month, as this excellent analysis persuasively argues: The Return of Industrial Warfare.

So among other acute observations, Schryver had already realized by July, 2022, that the US—having failed to crush Russia with sanctions shock and awe and having seen the first Ukraine proxy army destroyed—found itself in the position of needing to prolong the war while trying to come up with some credible policy. In the meantime a second Ukraine proxy army has been destroyed and the sanctions boomerang is starting to bite with a degree of real ferocity:

3 Crises – Germany In Freefall, Africa Pursues Peace, NATO Seeks Permawar

A theory is something that might happen: this is real-time

The collective West has ginned up a third Ukraine proxy army—largely with castoff Western equipment that is unsuited for the purpose in Ukraine—which is now in the process of being crushed on the Zaporozhye front. MoA quotes extensively from an eye opening article in the Washington Post that fully exposes the criminality of the US strategy of sacrificing Ukrainian lives to buy time—under cover of Milley’s cynical gaslighting that “morale trumps superior military power”. The detail in the article is horrific, but was entirely foreseen before the suicidal “offensive” ever began. Notable in MoA’s quotes from the WaPo is the account of the fate of the French AMX-10RC—presented as “light tanks” in the Western MSM:

The AMX-10 isn't a tank and can not be used as one. It is a wheeled light reconnaissance vehicle built by France 50 years ago to dominate insurgents in its former African colonies. One of its main features is to have a good speed when in reverse gear. This to bail out as soon as serious counter forces are detected.

Read the full account here: On The Failure Of The Ukrainian Counterattack. However, in the conclusion we see a reflection of the preceding considerations, especially those of Will Schryver:

The long promoted Ukrainian counterattack is likely to end with high Ukrainian losses and no gains.

This then will soon become a huge political problem:

As he heads into next year’s reelection campaign, Biden needs a major battlefield victory to show that his unqualified support for Ukraine has burnished U.S. global leadership, reinvigorated a strong foreign policy with bipartisan support and demonstrated the prudent use of American military strength abroad.
...
A muddled outcome of limited gains in Ukraine would provide grist for all of those critiques and further cloud the already murky waters of NATO and European Union debate over future posture toward both Ukraine and Russia. A less than “overwhelming” success would probably also increase pressure in the West to push Kyiv to negotiate a territorial settlement that may not be to its liking.

There is little the Biden administration can do to change the grim picture. Congress will likely prevent it from openly using the U.S. military in Ukraine. The European NATO allies have now seen what the Russian army can do to its enemies. They will not be eager to see the same done to their own troops.

That leaves negotiations as the only way out.

The question for Russia is when and with whom. Talks with only Ukraine, a mere U.S. proxy with no real say, would be insufficient. It is the U.S. government that must agree to a new security architecture in Europe. The Russian conditions for peace will be harsh and it will still take a lot of time, and many dead Ukrainians, until the U.S. agrees to them.

The Neocons and the US political and military establishment have boxed the US and Europe into a corner, out of which the Neocons are attempting to finesse and exit strategy. Two weeks ago Kyle Anzalone wrote a perceptive article that presents the then and now of how the Neocons got the collective West to this point:

Blinken Dismisses Calls for a Ceasefire, Says US Must Build Up Ukraine’s Military

The Secretary of State called for Washington to continue to put militarism before diplomacy

Anzalone recapitulates a typically delusional Blinken speech in Finland. Blinken protests that the US was always ready to talk with Russia, but Putin was totally unreasonable—it was all Putin’s land-grabbing fault that the US finds itself at this pass of events. However, it was the US position not to talk to Russia about the issues that actually were matters of existential concern for Russia. In other words, the Neocons were intent on pushing Russia to the breaking point. They got what they were asking for, but it blew up in Neocon faces:

Blinken justified the Biden administration’s commitment to a militaristic approach by claiming the White House attempted to engage the Kremlin in meaningful diplomacy before the invasion of Ukraine. "President Biden told President Putin that we were prepared to discuss our mutual security concerns – a message that I reaffirmed repeatedly – including in person, with Foreign Minister Lavrov." The Secretary of State continued, "We offered written proposals to reduce tensions. Together with our allies and partners, we used every forum to try to prevent war, from the NATO-Russia Council to the OSCE, from the UN to our direct channels."

In April 2022, Biden administration official Derek Chollet admitted that the White House refused to negotiate with the Kremin on Putin’s core concern, Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. "We made clear to the Russians that we were willing to talk to them on issues that we thought were genuine concerns," Chollet said, adding that the administration didn’t think that "the future of Ukraine" was one of those issues and that its potential NATO membership was a "non-issue."

Blinken’s solution to the impasse the Neocons have landed the West in is simply to double down, using magic words that have no real connection to the reality that has emerged, and forced itself on the Western consciousness, after over a year of war. The Russians are fully aware of the delusional nature of US policy and have undoubtedly been planning carefully with that in mind:

Blinken stated, "The United States – together with our allies and partners – is firmly committed to supporting Ukraine’s defense today, tomorrow, for as long as it takes." He continued, "We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression."

Blinken dismissed the idea of even a temporary pause in the fighting. "Some countries will call for a ceasefire. And on the surface, that sounds sensible – attractive, even. After all, who doesn’t want warring parties to lay down their arms? Who doesn’t want the killing to stop?" He said. "But a ceasefire that simply freezes current lines in place and enables Putin to consolidate control over the territory he’s seized…It would legitimize Russia’s land grab. It would reward the aggressor and punish the victim."

The Secretary of State offered an ambitious vision of Kiev’s future military capabilities. "America and our allies are helping meet Ukraine’s needs on the current battlefield while developing a force that can deter and defend against aggression for years to come." He added, "That means helping build a Ukrainian military of the future, with long-term funding, a strong air force centered on modern combat aircraft, an integrated air and missile defense network, advanced tanks and armored vehicles, national capacity to produce ammunition, and the training and support to keep forces and equipment combat-ready."

Anzalone drily observes:

It is unclear how long it would take to build the deterrence force envisioned by Blinken. American arms stockpiles are dwindling as Washington attempts to transfer Kiev enough military equipment to keep its army fighting.

In the meantime, Seymour Hersh warns that the most extreme Neocons are tightening their grip on US policy:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has resigned, and her last day in office is June 30. Her departure has triggered near panic inside the State Department about the person many there fear will be chosen to replace her: Victoria Nuland. Nuland’s hawkishness on Russia and antipathy for Vladimir Putin fits perfectly with the views of President Biden. Nuland is now the undersecretary for political affairs and has been described as “running amok,” in the words of a person with direct knowledge of the situation, among the various bureaus of the State Department while Secretary of State Antony Blinken is on the road.

Where this will lead is anyone’s guess, except that it’s not going to end well.