US to Ukraine: You're Losing; Do it Different!
About this Substack
Good morning. This is the last post I shall be sending out to all subscribers simultaneously. From now on, postings of the day will go solely to paid subscribers. The same postings, for free subscribers, will be delayed for seven days and then sent out to everybody. I have yet to determine what methodology I shall use to do this, but I don’t envision it will be too difficult. So my free subscribers should not expect to much from me for a week.
In addition, those of you who have been subscribing for some time will know that I have, on a once - or twice -weekly basis, compiled a “critical links” grouping of significant articles mainly but not exclusively linked to issues of NAT0, US Empire, World War Three and to mainstream media propaganda representations of all of these things. I intend that this should be particularly of value to other writers and researchers when they write about these events at some points in the future. And despite the above new subscriber policy, I will make these available to everyone as I produce them.
As Spring semester approaches and my adjunct teaching duties threaten engulfment, it may be a week or so before I can return to that “critical links” series. I shall try to get back to it as soon as I reasonably can. (Substack earnings might in some perfect future relieve me of other obligations. I would ideally prefer to concentrate full-time on what, right now, seems to be the most important contribution I can make. But there is a long way to go).
Crisis in Europe
Before I get to the major takeaways from Alexander Mercouris’ broadcast for January 22nd (Mercouris 01.22.2023) I would recommend the following discussion on The Duran between the two Alexanders on European strikes:
There are a few things to notice. Strikes and protests mainly go unreported or under-reported. Mainstream media are nobody’s friends other than to the powerful and the rich. The primary cause of these strikes and protests (and the resistance in France to Macron’s bid to increase the age of retirement) is the drastic fall in living standards that has occurred in Europe over the past few months, the most serious reversal since World War Two. The main proximate reason for this fall in living standards is NATO’s continuing aggression against Russia and NATO’s provocations over more than two decades that finally obliged Russia to launch its special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine last February in order to defend the peoples of the Donbass from NATO-backed genocide, and the peoples of Russia from the constant nuclear threat and threat of dismemberment posed by nuclear-capable installations on Russian borders in Poland, Romania and, had it not been for the SMO, in Ukraine.
NATO’s sanctions war, and its energy war, have proved more damaging to Europe’s economies than to Russian and have intensified European dependence on the US by boosting imports of LNG from the US, at prices greatly higher than the former cost to Europe of Russian gas) even to the extent that the US can sabotage German-owned property (Nord Stream) without so much as a complaint. Contrary to mainstream media propaganda, the energy war was not started by Russia but by Europe when it announced several months in advance that it would cease purchases of Russian oil and gas from early 2023. Russia exposed the shallowness of NATO strategic thinking by inconveniently (for NATO) bringing that date forward by a few months.
The deep crisis in Europe has not just exacerbated an existing tendency towards increasingly right-wing regimes masquerading as neoliberal but it has also led to pronounced reactionary measures against fundamental citizenship freedoms, including the freedom to protest, freedom to strike, freedom of speech (as in Spanish President Sanchez’ recent rant threatening those who might be seen as pro-Putin). And thus it has further exposed the pseudo-left parties, whether in power or in opposition, as pathetic bourgeois mini-me allies of the west’s corporate and military-industrial Incubus.
The Battlefields
Now back to battlefield news from Mercouris. The news flow ebbed over the weekend. Fighting does continue: late in the afternoon (London time) yesterday, another important settlement between Soledar and Sversk had been captured by the forces of the Wagner organization. Ukrainian forces still defending Sversk have not received instructions to retreat despite Zaluznyi’s recommendation to Zelenskiy that they do so. The encirclement of those troops appears to be approaching. The town of Ivanovka (the Russians call it Krasnoye) sitting astride the remaining road accessible to Ukraine movement into and out of Bakhmut is now in hearing distance of Russian gunfire.
There has been more news of some sort of Russian advance on the general area of Marinka. Fighting here is very intense and Russian forces appear to be moving incrementally towards Adiivka, and are likely soon to move to clear Ukrainian forces, finally, from Donetsk City. In Zaporizhzhia the pace of the Russian advance has slowed but there is a lot of fighting still going on. There are some reports that Russia may take Orrikhiv (50 km from Zaporizhzia city) in a pincer movement: there are reports today of significant Russian shelling of Orrikhiv. But all this may be a diversionary exercise that is intended by Russia to persuade Ukraine to divert troops from Bakhmut and other contested fronts. There was a report earlier today that Ukraine has indeed diverted some troops from Kramatorsk to Zaporizhzhia. Kramatorsk is critical, as it would form the last line of Ukrainian defense if and when Bakhmut falls. There are reports from Svatove-Kreminna front, where a spokesman for the Lugansk people's republic says that large numbers of Ukrainian forces are heading for Svatove and Kupiansk.
New Ukrainian Mobilization
There have been multiple Ukrainian attacks in the Svatove-Kreminna area recently, none of them successful. There has been a flood of recent reports showing that Ukraine is once more undertaking a major mobilization exercise. Ukraine needs to replenish the losses it has so far experienced, as in Kharkiv, Kherson, and Bakhmut. They are talking about creating three new brigades equipped with all the western equipment that has recently been offered, including, possibly Leopard 2s and French wheeled vehicles and the like, never previously operated by Ukraine. Creating these new brigades is an enormous logistical challenge and, if done properly, needs months of preparation taking up to mid-summer. We are seeing teenagers and elderly men turning up on the frontlines in Ukraine. At the time of the Severodonetsk and Lysychansk battles last summer we saw the same thing. Ukraine was sending old men sent to hold the front lines so as to buy time while younger, fitter men were held back to train for new formations that were sent into the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives.
US Advice to Ukraine: Do it Different!
Mercouris goes on to cite an article from Reuters, written on the basis of a briefing with a senior US official. Reuters is a news agency that normally tends to take a standard western pro-Ukrainian position. It now reports that US officials have advised Ukraine to hold off on any major offensive until the latest weapon deliveries have taken place and training provided. The US does not intend to supply Abrams tanks to Ukraine and this position will likely not change, given that uniformed military have advised the Pentagon that this would be a bad idea. We may yet see ATACMS missiles supplied.
The US is now in deep consultations with Ukraine about the next move, but is emphasizing the importance of training. It says this would make an offensive more likely to be successful. Washington believes Ukraine has spent considerable resources on Bakhmut but that there is a strong likelihood that Russia will win Bakhmut. Ukraine therefore needs to consider how much of its resources it wants to pour into Bakhmut in place of preparing offensives elsewhere in southern Ukraine. This would seem to confirm Mercouris’ previous judgment that Bakhmut is not worth the cost to Ukraine, even though Bakhmut is strategically significant. But if it is likely to fall anyway…
The Reuters story goes on to note that on another front US officials are advising Kiev away from trying to match Russia round for round, because Russia will eventually win such a war of attrition. This is why the latest supply of weaponry includes armored vehicles as these will help Ukraine make the necessary shift in strategy.
We can conclude that the US is not keen on Ukraine embarking on any more offensives. Because, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, Ukraine is not winning the war. The US wants Ukraine to build up its forces, not to fritter weapons away on projects that have no strategic advantage.
he US has given up trying to bring Ukrainian artillery up to the same level as Russian. There were hopes that Russia would eventually run out of artillery. In practice, Russia has maintained its artillery advantage of around 19:1, firing around 20,000 rounds a day since late summer, whereas Ukrainian rounds have declined from 5,000 to just over 1,000 a day (40,000 a month). The US just does not have the necessary stocks of 155mm ammunition or the capacity to upgrade ammunition and has just plundered its emergency stockpile in Israel to send to Ukraine.
The US has switched to armored vehicles in place of the previous emphasis on artillery. In summary, the US cannot compete in an artillery war, and has been trapped into an attrition war, so wants to alter the nature of the battle, to operate in ways that are less vulnerable to Russian guns, something that will take months of preparation.
This is a rather bleak assessment, seen as such by Zelenskiy’s previous spindoctor, Aristovich, who was sacked a few days ago for telling the truth about how Ukrainian missiles intercepted a Russian missile, with the result that a residential apartment block was hit instead of the intended presumed military target. There have been lots of articles about how Ukraine has been losing vehicles and machines at a staggering rate and about how the west has tried in vain to replenish these.
How is this new strategy going to work? Why is it expected to work? We dont know.
Lack of Coherence on Ukraine
Ukrainian soldiers are reported on the BBC to have admitted to the fall of Soledar, but it seems that there is not yet an official admission. Unwillingness to admit the loss of Soledar suggests that Ukraine may not be keen to listen to the advice it is getting (above) from the US. They may in fact still be considering offensives in Svatove and Kreminna, even as US sources continue to express doubts about the likelihood of a Ukrainian victory.
An article by Anatol Lieven on the site of the Institute for Responsible Statecraft says that the US and its allies have never clearly worked out what the purpose of the war now is. They have pledged to help Ukraine win but are not sure what winning means or is. Some (“hotheads”) want a breakup of Russia; “cooler heads” worry about nuclear annihilation. The Biden administration is quoted as saying that it wishes Ukraine to be able to take Crimea even as officials admit that even the saying of this is intended merely to divert Russian troops and force it to compromise.
There are major divisions in Washington.
Mercouris suggests that one of the reasons why Germany is so reluctant to supply its Leopard 2s is because German leaders are aware that the US has given up fighting Russia’s massive artillery advantage, that the US is advising Ukraine against new offensives, that the US thinks that Ukraine will lose the attrition war and that it should withdraw from Bakhmut. This must make Germany very concerned. A report of the above Reuters article was discussed in a forum which claimed the article indicated that the latest US package of weapons is the last it is going to get. Although Mercouris cannot locate this comment it would not surprise him if it was true. Privately, the US is becoming more skeptical about the direction of the war.
Russian Warnings
Russia has been warning what would happen if the US encouraged deep strikes into Russian territory. The Duma’s Speaker has said that this, or a western invasion (US troops still in Romania), will lead to global disaster. Russia will respond with overwhelming force. He reminds the US about Russian nuclear capability. Another Russian official has said that if the US provides longer-range weapons to Ukraine, Russia will advance even further in order to place these weapons out of range of its territory, which raises the question of a Korean-style demilitarized zone scenario.
There are always voices in the west that want further escalation, such as an article by Guardian foreign editor Tim Tisdall, a noted hardliner [in a supposedly “liberal” newspaper!] who comes close to admitting that Ukraine is about to lose the war, saying that the west now needs to be prepared to engage Russians directly with western forces and to wean itself off half-measures. He says Putin is planning another offensive, and Tisdall thinks that the west must provide still more weapons and enter the war in Ukraine directly if needs be. Such push-pull says Mercouris will intensify and grow worse.