Muddle, Chaos, and Hysteria

Tanks for Nothing

Western defense chiefs have not been able to agree today on the sending of heavy tanks to Ukraine. A prime sticking point appears to be German unwillingness to release Leopard 2 tanks unless those Leopards that are in the possession of its allies agree to seek German permission before sending them. This may be an indication of growing impatience in western military circles with NATO’s Ukraine policy. The critics rightly perceive that the provision of tanks to Ukraine is not a solution to anything. Rather, it is an indication that NATO has no real solution but is prepared to dump more weapons into Ukraine to make it look as though they have a solution even if they dont really. Tanks to Ukraine - and, for that matter, all the other weapons that the US, in its latest $2.5 billion package (even as the USA hits its debt ceiling!) is proposing to send to Ukraine - will make little to no difference in the battlefield.

Brian Berletic, at New Atlas (Brian Berletic 01.20.2023) explains why, in great detail (as always). The bottom line, however, is this: no matter how many weapons the west is sending to Ukraine at this point they are not going to make up for the loss of Ukraine’s weapons to this point in the war. They started with 1,000 tanks and much else besides, including a working air force, but they have burned through all that (most of it was Soviet era); the west tried to replenish these losses with their stocks of Soviet era weapons and some western air-defense systems, among other things, and those have been burned through; now the west is proposing, among a lot of other stuff that is only barely relevant to Ukraine’s needs, to send some “advanced” western tanks which are, on balance, no more advanced than the equivalent weapons Russia already possesses, but in greater abundance, and for which the Ukrainian army is not yet equipped or trained to handle and which, because the new supplies are coming from a hodgepodge of different sources (bear in mind that effective battlefield weaponry should be part of a coordinated system of weaponry, not a trashcan full of isolated pieces) may be creating more problems than those they are intended to solve.

Battlefields

The battlefield situation appears to be turning in Russia’s favor. What follows is largely taken from today’s broadcast by Alexander Mertcouris. Russia is steadily advancing towards the encirclement of Bakhmut, where Ukraine has over-invested its troops and machines and from which it can retreat only with great difficulty - not only physically, but in terms of morale and optics. And while Ukraine is preoccupied with Bakhmut, Russia has launched an offensive in Zaporizhzhia that so far has gained it a cluster of settlements, and put many others within medium or even short-range Russian artillery fire, and putting Russia in striking distance (60 kms) of the major industrial city of Zaporizhzhia itself, the loss of which would constitute a major blow, a fatal blow possibly to Ukraine’s economy and war effort.

This development will presumably further complicate whatever remains of Ukrainian plans to launch an offensive from Zaporizhzhia down to Melitopol and then to cut across to the Azov. The US head of the CIA was in Kiev last week to brief Zelenskiy on Russian plans, suggesting that Russia’s much talked about major offensive is getting very close. US military officer Vishinin, who has written about the return of industrial warfare in Ukraine’s battlefields indicates that what we are seeing with Russia’s advance in Zaporizhzhia may indeed be the start of the next phase of precisely that form of warfare.

There is still no sign of Ukrainian withdrawal from Sversk or from Bakhmut. General Zaluzhnyi has recommended to President Zelenskiy that Ukraine withdraw from Sversk. A spokesman for the Lugansk militia has reported that strategically the land taken by Russia over the past day or so near Bakhmut is very important. He refers to the road leading into Bakhmut from Ivanovka and the west and says that Russian artillery is now very close to this location and is able to shell it and shell any Ukrainian supplies that try to enter Bakhmut along it. This does seem to confirm that Bakhmut is now almost entirely encircled.

There are air-raid alerts throughout Ukraine (perhaps in response to the take-off of Kinjal hypersonic missile-carrying Mig 31 fighter bombers from Belarus on exercises, and there are reports of a major Russian strike on an ammunition dump in Odessa.

Ukraine Missile Offensive on Moscow?

Russian and international media show Russia is positioning Panzhir air defense systems on the roofs of key buildings in Moscow, suggesting they have received some kind of tip-off about an intended Ukrainian missile strike. Ukrainian missiles do have the range for this as was seen a few weeks ago with a Ukrainian strike on a Russian airfield not far from Moscow. Media (specifically, NYT) reports suggest that the US is becoming more willing to countenance Ukrainian missile strikes on Crimea and is probably giving a green light for attacks deeper into Russia proper. Russia clearly wants the world to see these installations and to know that Moscow is defended.

Russian sources have commented on western plans to send more weapons to Ukraine. War industry leader Medvedev,the Russian ambassador to Washington, and Putin’s spokesman, Peshkov, have all talked about this and Peshkov says that if there are deliveries of advanced tanks by the west, there will be consequences, and that such deliveries will only add to Ukraine’s problems. He warns against over-estimating the significance of such deliveries, as they will not change anything that could hinder Russia from achieving its goals. The US has promised a further 50 Bradleys in addition to these already promised; the British are supplying 50 Bulldog armored personnel vehicles and France is upplying LeClerc tanks. Yet the Russians do not appear to be particularly alarmed by any of this. The main drama for the west, meantime, is around the Leopard 2s.

Biden-Scholz Acrimony

There is a huge, concerted western effort to pressure Germany on delivery of Leopard 2s, which is unpopular in Germany and among the German officer class. The former German defense minister resigned after mounting criticism, perhaps because she feared taking the backlash from German generals if she allowed delivery of Leopards, and the new defense minister has been thrown into the argument almost immediately. Yet it is generally agreed among experts that these tanks are not especially suitable for Ukraine. In the past, at every red line that Germany has faced, it has caved (although on this occasion such a cave-in has not yet happened).

The Leopard 2 is a 70 ton tank. The British Challenger is up to 80 ton. The French LeClerk is lighter, at 50 tones, and has an automatic loader like the one that Russian tanks have. The French have been unwilling to provide LeClerks because it does not have many of them: 400 in total, of which 180 are in store. The most it could safely provide without cutting significantly into its total arsenal would be around 20. Production of these tanks has stopped, and it would take time to tool up production again. The only country that bought a large number of these is the UAE and the UAE would be unwilling to give up what it has got. There are many more Leopard 2s around than LeClerks -perhaps 2,300 across various ministries. They come in various forms and some are in very poor condition; the total number that could be supplied to Ukraine is likely to be fairly small, perhaps around 100 (Berletic has discussed the possibility that it might be many more, say around 200 to 300), but what difference is even 300 going to make?

German General Criticizes US/NATO War on Russia

Germany’s General Kuyak (spelling provisional!) is critical of the supply of Leopard 2s to Ukraine, even more so than General Vad, whose interview was reported recently by John Helmer on Dancing with Bears. Kuyak thinks this war is not a straight forward case of Russian aggression against Ukraine, and asserts that this was a very preventable war. He even published proposals for a settlement in January 2022. Perhaps the question will one day be asked, in effect: who wanted this war, and who stood in the way of stopping it? There were certainly outstanding voices in Britain and elsewhere who were determined that there should be a war. Kuyak expresses his regret that the Istanbul negotiations in March 2022 were called off, because the conditions were relatively light for Ukraine. The future of the Donbass was to be resolved in the space of 15 years. Kuyak blames Boris Johnson for sabotaging those negotiations, and he is angry that this sabotage has not been discussed in German media even though it has been discussed in US media like Foreign Affairts and the Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Kuyak is seriously worried about a confrontation between NATO and Russia. Instead of rebuilding its own armed forces,he says that Germany is in effect, disarming itself, as a result of the Ukraine war, even cannibalizomg its armed forces in order to free up weapons for Ukraine, on the pretext that Germany is fighting for its freedom! (Which, of course, is nonsense). The main players here are Russia and the US; the US’ declared goal is to weaken Russia. for other parties the core issue as to why this war is being fought continues. Kuyak talks bitterly of the sabotage of Minsk (by Merkel and others).

On the Leopard 2s he notes that these tanks may work in combined arms combat when the weaknesses of one system are compensated by the strengths of another. But when there is no such functional coordination, and in difficult operational conditions, this enhances the liklihood of the weapon being knocked out or falling into the hands of the enemy. Kuyak reminds his listeners that Russia has investigated the characteristics of western weapons in order to refine the effectiveness of its own weapons.

For Kuyak there remains the fundamental question of means-end effectiveness. Zelenskiy has repeatedly changed the strategic goals of Ukraine in this war. It currently wants to recapture all Russian held territories including Crimea. Yet Germany promises its support regardless, even though the US is committed only to recovering territories occupied by Russia since February 2022.

Are the means of weapons deliveries suitable for the purposes intended by Ukraine? Ukraine’s commander Zaluzhnyi has listed the weapons he says he needs to push back Russia. He has not yet received these; and it is not clear that even if he had them they would be sufficient to make up for those he has recently lost. It seems likely that were he to be given the weapons he has asked for, this would serve not to give Ukraine victory but only prolong the war. Russia could surpass western escalation at any time. In Germany these connections are not being properly discussed. The kind of pressure that is being imposed on Germany by NATO has never happened before in the history of NATO and it demonstrates lack of western respect for Germany.

Kuyak proposes there is an agenda [but whose agenda, precisely - that of the USA?] of destroying any possibility of a German-Russian rapprochement in the future, and that this is ultimately what a lot of this is all about. The new weapons could help Ukraine in the face of the coming Russian offensive but there is no way that Ukraine is going to recover the Russian occupied territories. US Chief of Staff General Milley has said that Ukraine has already achieved what it is capable of achieving militarily; more is not possible. Diplomatic efforts should be started now.

Military Deliveries: Why?

There is a huge amount of incoherence as to what is the purpose of the promised armoured vehicle deliveries, the hundreds of tanks (Madars, Bradleys, Strykers, AMXs, Ceasar Howitzers, etc….) to be sent.

What does the west say is their purpose? Mercouris has recently read two entirely different explanations. One is that Ukraine needs them so as to stall the expected big Russian offensives. They might help, yes, but it is far from certain that they will. The other explanation is that the machines are needed so as to break the stalemate (if indeed “stalemate” is actually the right description, as opposed to “Russian advances”) so that Ukraine can launch its own offensives. In that event, both Kuyak and Mercouris consider that the number of vehicles to be provided are nowhere near sufficient.

So why send them? Do they actually have a military purpose? One suggestion is that the west has now given up any hope of being able to match Russian artillery power and they have simply transferred as many as they can send. Rather than give up, and having exhausted stocks of air defense systems and missiles, they are turning instead to armoured vehicles because that is all they have left that they can send.

There has been talk of the US sending some combined missile-bomb systems - a recommendation from Raytheon - with a 160km range, a delivery that is pending. Publication of what is going to be in the next US military package does not include this hybrid system, since it would only become available in a few months. The warhead of such a system would be fairly small, and it would probably not be the most powerful system that could be sent. ATACMs and Abrams are off the agenda; we are clearing Israel of its remaining stocks of ammunition rounds. We are looking for Soviet era weapons in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East from the 1970s, scraping the bottom of the barrel, bullying the Germans into supplying Leopard 2s so as to complicate further the relations between Germany and Russia.

There is a general atmosphere of panic and hysteria, and no public willingness to admit that things are not going well for Ukraine on the battlefield, with Zelenskiy still not even admitting that Soledar has fallen. The latest Russian offensive in Zaporizhzhia has been unreported in British media. The Pentagon is said to be “surprised” that the fighting has been as dynamic as it is this winter. None of this comes close to an admission of reality, that Bakhmut, even Zaporizhzhia, may soon fall. All considerations of logistics are being thrown out of the window in the impetuous rush to get something to Ukraine.

It looks very muddled, chaotic, hysterial. And there is another factor that is causing alarm. William Burns, CIA Director, has returned from a secret (why?) visit to Kiev even though the visit has been confirmed. Some reports say that his purpose was to reassure Ukraine that some level of support would continue but that, with the Republicans now in control of the House, there may be enough only up until July, but that there is uncertainty about what will happen beyond that.

What happens if these various weapons systems fail to achieve their purpose? The US keeps talking about air defense systems being the priority (though so far they have not held Russia back) but doesnt have any to offer, so comes up with armored vehicles in their place. Mercouris has never known western policy to be as chaotic and misguided as it is. Even the Polish Chief of Staff is critical. Yet any time critical voices are heard, the hardliners still prevail.