Realism, Bluff and Chinese Balloons: Who's Afraid of F16s?
BAKHMUT
According to the broadcast today from Alexander Mercouris (Mercouris 02.04.2023), there are fewer reports from the Ukraine battlefields, perhaps because Russia is tightening up control on the gaggle of Russian frontline reports. Kadyrov, head of the Chechyan government, has reported that Russian forces have seized a significant settlement in the Kreminna-Svatove area. A TASS report discusses the possibility of a Ukrainian withdrawal from Bakhmut, along the same (disordered) lines they withdrew from Soledar. A traditional retreat will be impossible, and those in central Bakhmut will be doomed.
It is still too early to talk about a full encirclement of Bakhmut by Russia. President Zelenzkiy is under pressure from the US to pull out of Bakhmut, but he has resisted doing so. He said yesterday that Ukraine would not surrender Bakhmut and that Ukrainian forces would fight for as long as they can. This suggests that when they can no longer fight effectively, perhaps then Ukraine will pull out the best troops and put in young reserves as a shield to maintain the simulation of defense in the center and hold some kind of rearguard - a strategy for which there is confirmation in a recent NYT article. So Ukraine may put its least trained troops on the frontline, where they will be exposed to severe artillery attacks from Russia. These reserves will include older men in their 50s and 60s, some of them even mildly infirm, some of them perhaps snatched off the streets in recent days as western media have conceded now happens, but Ukraine will be sacrificing these soldiers in order to preserve its better trained formations. Thousands of lives sacrificed to hold the front lines for a matter of hours or days, to achieve….what, exactly?
CASUALTIES
A recenrt NYT article claims that Russian casualties, killed and wounded, is approaching 200,000. It is not at all clear how these figures are calculated. Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and a member of VIPS, was told by one of his sources that these ballpark figures come from Ukraine. [In other words they are raw propaganda]. They are very unlikely to be accurate. Russians, when they tabulate Ukrainian losses every day, as they do, break down the figures and provide some explanation as to how they have been arrived at. Official Ukrainian and western sources never do.
One western agency, the BBC, with the help of Latvian-based Russian language website Madusa, has made a serious attempt to count Russian casualties on the basis of death registrations and cementary records. Its figures do not come anywhere close to the Ukrainian numbers parroted in the NYT. The most recent BBC/Medusa estimate as of around two weeks ago found concrete evidence of 12,000 dead Russian soldiers but allowed for a range of uncertainty whose maximum would be under 20,000, and this is in line with what one would expect, as extrapolated from previous calculations provided by senior Russian military sources. These numbers almost certainly do not include casualties of the Wagner Group or the Donbass militia. The Ministry’s own figures do include these but they still come nowhere near the NYT/Ukrainian figures. 20,000 dead, and 60,000 (using the formula of three wounded for every one killed) wounded might be about right. Russia’s commander Shoigu has said that most of the wounded, around 90%, eventually rejoin their units.
It may be that Ukraine is engineering figures for Russia that match those that are true for Ukraine [and as readers of this Substack will know, some more reliable estimates for Ukraine reach up to 157,000 Ukrainian dead as mentioned in an interview earlier this week by Col. Macgregor]. There is no evidence inside Russia that would support the NYT/Ukrainian figures.
Bernhardt at Moon of Alabama has pointed out that a Ukrainian source had identified the number of Ukrainian brigades in the vicinity of Bakhmut at 28, but the latest update shows the number has fallen to 18, suggesting that some kind of pullout is going on - not for the purpose of being redeployed in central and west ukraine, but for reallocation to other parts of the frontline, such as Vuhledar (which Russia now claims to have partially encircled). Russian troops meanwhile are heading towards Sversk with a view to encircling that town as well.
Realist US-German Intrigue
An article in a Swiss publication claims that according to certain high ranking German politicians, William Burns, CIA Director, in a visit to Germany in December, proffered a peace plan in which Russia would be ceded 20% of Ukrainian territory which, if it did not include Crimea, would be consistent with the four newly Russia-assimilated regions of eastern Donbass region. This was rejected by Russia and Ukraine, a rejection that led to the push to transfer tanks to Ukraine. Both the US and Russia have categorically denied that any such communication occurred, and Mercouris is also doubtful about the origin of this story.
But the outline proposal referred to in the Swiss publication reads essentially the same that which John Helmer (Moscow based foreign correspondent) recently identified as the one floated by the US and which formed the basis of an interview between Blinken and journalist David Ignatius a few days ago.The Blinken-Ignatius interview did not make reference to any surrender of territory, but maybe Helmer has additional sources that might render the Swiss article more credible.
If so, this might point to some kind of diplomatic initiative or some US-German discussion among the “realists” (perhaps including Burns, who as US ambassor to Russia once warned the US, back in 2008, that any further NATO move eastwards would constitute a violtion of a Russian red line). Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has called for an end to the war by the summer and other Pentagon sources have said there is no chance of a return of Crimea to Ukraine, also warning that the US would come out of a prolonged war a loser, with its weapons stocks seriously depleted.
We also know that German chancellor Scholz is very unhappy about being corralled into permiting the transfer of Leopard IIs to Ukraine and there is (finally!) increasing signs of a German inclination to admit that a “western entity” was behind the Nord Stream attacks and that the Germans have not found any evidence of Russian involvement.
So perhaps elements in both Washington and Berlin are looking for a pathway [what I would call a “peace logic”] out of the current Ukraine predicament,which is becoming increasingly dangerous for them.
British media [rabid warmongers as always] have been attacking Scholz, and attacking Germany more generically, suggesting perhaps that the British have got wind of this US-German “realistic” dialog. There are also rumors about whether the much vaunted recent promises of new weapons supplies to Ukraine may constitute bluff. This includes rumors that the new long-range missiles [to be used on HIMARS launchers, and to which I referred in my previous post today] have not even been built yet (!). The HIMARS launchers would have to be suitably adapted; and even if such adaptation ever occurs, they will be fairly vulnerable to Russian artillery. Besides, the small warheads that these new weapons carry might not inflict as much damage as is being claimed.
Leopard II: a Syrian Caution
On the question of Leapord IIs, the available pool of these is around 2,500 nominally in service. Elements within western and US militaries are becoming fed up with these tanks’ transfers. Greece and Turkey have about 700 of the pool; Greece has ruled out providing any of these, since they might be needed for engagement with Turkey. Erdogan of Turkey has said delivery of NATO weapons to Ukraine has been a serious mistake. Germany is strongly opposed to further Leopard II transfers. It may be able to come up with a few more, 29, but these are in need of refurbishment, so who knows how long that would take. Spain has only a handful andthese are not in very good shape. Britian is unlikely to go beyond the 14 Challengers it has already committed.
Amidst all the chatter about tanks, there has been a cascade of reports in western media about the need for better air defenses (fighter aircraft) if these newly delivered tanks are to have any chance of making an offensive difference.
A pity this discussion did come earlier!
Mercouris recalls the debacle that Turkey suffered with its use of Leopard IIs when it attempted to apply them in northern Syria against ISIS. Within the first few days of that operation, about 10 of its Leopard IIs were destroyed by ISIS. This is because they went in without air cover. Why? Turkey actually has a large air force, including many F16s, the very same advanced fighter jets that are now being discussed in relation to Ukraine. But not long before this operation Turkey had been involved in an incident when Turkish F16s had shot down a Russian Sukoi bomber plane. Russia had responded by deploying its most sophisticated air defense systems to Syria. Turkey was not in a position to risk challenging these with its F16s at the time that it sent its Leopards into northern Syria and is very careful today to seek Russian approval before any air operation in Syria. Bearing in mind that flying a F16 requires at least 35 months, the west’s use of less well-trained F16 pilots against sophisticated Russian air-defense systems on the borders with Ukraine amounts to an enormous risk with the lives of the pilots and with the planes. Might we be talking about a “turkey shoot?” The repercussions in some NATO countries would be dramatic.
The recent weapons transfer discourse is increasingly looking like a bluff. Who is being bluffed? Western electorates. The military cannot seriously believe these weapons will make a major difference. The purpose of the bluff is to soften up the electorates in preparation for a turn to peace, [a strategy that is only necessary because of the extraordinary persistence of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign so eagerly catapulted by western mainstream media].
Chinese Balloons
William Burns claims that China is planning an attack on Taiwan in 2027 (others have said 2025). Sounds highly unlikely.
What about the Chinese balloons? Blown off course? Intended to embarrass the United States? Or to push Blinken into cancelling his unwelcome visit to Beijing?
Or, is all the theatrical panic about China - about the west depleting its weapons stocks, etc., - merely an excuse, a cover, for US withdrawl from the forthcoming debacle in Ukraine?
Because the China panic is not convincing. First of all, claims of a Chinese plan to attack Taiwan are unlikely to be true. Secondly, American claims that it is preparing for such unlikely event, are also unlikely to be true. A total refit of the American military industrial complex in time for war with China (or China plus Russia) by 2027 is simply not going to happen, and it will certainly not be of a scale as to compete with that of ramped up weapons production in both Russia and China. As suggested in an Atlantic Council article two years ago, the war in Ukraine was engineered in order to break the alliance between Russia and China by ensuring the collapse of Russia and allowing the west to focus its attention on China.
That plan has failed.