What If Ukraine is already losing the Battle, or, at the end of war, really losing?
What If Ukraine is already losing the Battle, or, at the end of war, really losing?
I know a lot of (western minded) pundits sometimes have hyperbolic situations. Fudging numbers of casualties in Russia soldiers, lowered numbers for the Ukraine side, but (again) fudging numbers about civilians in Ukraine. Fudging percentage Ukraine recaptured area, lowered percentage area gained by Russia. Or whatever highlights that Ukraine easily wins over Russia, the Russia looks pariah, wherever language. But a lot of prominent pundits share a very fair view about this battlefield. Sometimes, “the fairness” pundits immediately get a rubber stamp “Putin apologist”, “nazi apologist”, etc.
First ever reported by Washington Post Ukraine bureau chief Isabelle Khurshudyan that Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov begged about Leopard 2, since Dec 23rd, 2022. 3 Days before Christmas. So far, two media, Der Spiegel (via Christoph Hickmann) and 2 journos from Bloomberg (Michael Nienaber and Arne Delfs) that finally (around 5.30 pm Berlin time, Jan 24th) that Chancellor Olaf Scholz give a green light about Leopard 2 from Germany stockpile and NATO members, to send for Ukraine army (read here about flipflops Leopard).
But, why does NATO hurry to send a lot of stuff again? If NATO and western media reported that Russia in 11 months consecutive facing a big loss, Ukraine don't want to “too hurry” to get Leopard, Abrams, etc.
After investigation - intelligence report from BND Intelligence Agency (Germany) that Ukraine already losing Bakhmut and in dire situation because casualties “three digit per day” (detailed read here), Western allies are urging Ukraine to shift from the grinding war of attrition in Bakhmut toward a more offensive strategy using new military hardware.
The delivery of tanks, advanced air defense systems, training in Grafenwöhr Germany (400 km from Ramstein) and in Fort Sill Lawton Oklahoma U.S. (to Ukraine soldiers), and potentially long-range ground-launched bombs may be a response to Ukraine’s dire requests, but it also brings with it a new load of problems.
These hastily and urgently provided supplies indicate that all is not well in Kyiv and that it is closer than ever to losing the war with Russia. Zelenskyy fires five governors, 1 prosecutor, 1 aide, and four vice-ministers for corruption. These are not one-to-one replacements for equipment lost: Most of the delivered supplies aim to shift the fortunes of the war in favor of Ukraine. The group was fired by Zelenskyy will be very vulnerable, very easy to seduce to “convert” to be Putin warmonger. Ukraine remains a corrupt country. No one can account for many of the billions pumped in by the US and Europeans, and in Washington there is strong resistance to any effort at accountability, because even a moron knows that billions have been stolen or squandered. This is why since October 2022, Kevin Owen McCarthy (now 55th House speaker) warned that there would be no longer blank cheques for Ukraine.
Some House Freedom Caucus members have recently called for re-examining US defense spending, echoing demands that progressives have issued for years. Despite their ideological differences, the two groups have a shared interest in reigniting this debate. Just 50 days ago, Biden successfully, with help from Congress and Senate, rubber-stamped the US$ 858 billion budget for the Pentagon (detail debate in U.S. about helping Ukraine, read here). On the hubbub about the debt ceiling, it’s important to note that with the exception of a few interest groups, lawmakers don’t really care about the debt issue (read here). Democrats take on a lot of debt when they control the White House, and the GOP does the same thing. Result: $31.4T (Jan 16th, 2023), 4 days before 2 years Biden administration (Jan 20th, 2023).
At least one of the projected weapons, a 100-mile ground-launched long-range bomb known as ATACMS, also would shift the war from Ukrainian to Russian territory. There is little doubt that putting this sort of weapon in Ukrainian hands will result in a bigger war in Europe. Russia will try to attack the transit centers for these supplies, most likely Poland, although retaliation could also conceivably include attacks on railroads and roadways in Germany.
The US decision to ship upgraded nuclear bombs to Europe also will convince the Russians that a tactical nuclear war may be NATO’s response if Ukraine collapses. Compared with the US and NATO, Russia has a massive arsenal of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Ukraine’s forces are falling back in the Donbas region and, if the retreat continues, will soon lose the strategic town of Bakhmut. The Russian wave, in the Pentagon’s view, is a sure thing and the US has asked Ukraine to abandon the area.
Russophone autonomy in a sovereign Ukraine and neutrality would have left Ukraine intact with a chance at prosperity (except for all the corruption). This issue has been alarmed since October 2022, awkwardly, by Elon Musk, asking why not Crimea be sent to Russia and push Russia to end a war. Crimea as a concession is also getting support from Professor John Mearsheimer and Professor Mark Beissinger.
It is hard to imagine Ukraine winning the war and gaining back all its lost territory, including Crimea. It is easier to imagine the Russians hanging on to the territory they now control and eventually gaining more territory. That is not to say that will axiomatically happen. Given those parameters, it seems likely that an eventual settlement will involve territorial concessions by Ukraine.
Assuming that the war continues in its current trajectory (i.e., a slow Ukrainian advance into Russian-occupied territories), territorial concessions by Ukraine should be limited to Crimea only (where the population is majority Russian) and should be granted only in exchange for something very substantial—specifically, for Russian acceptance of Ukrainian membership in NATO. NATO membership for Ukraine is the only condition that will provide real security for Ukraine in the future vis-à-vis a revanchist Russia, and Ukraine should not settle for any deal that does not provide for its future security (read here).
However, Ukraine’s military and political leaders can’t pull back because doing so would open the center of the country to the Russian army. That, in turn, could light off a long-suppressed clamor for political change in Ukraine with unknown and unknowable consequences.
Zelensky knows full well he has arrested most of his political opponents and silenced the media he dislikes, including some instances where his opponents have allegedly been liquidated by Ukraine’s secret police, the SBU.
But that won’t protect him or his colleagues if people in Kiev start to understand that Ukrainian defenses are folding.
Despite claims to be a democracy, Ukraine is actually an authoritarian country that has blocked out real news and throttled any opposition. But because of social media, the messages will get through anyway and Zelensky and his team have a lot to fear.
It appears the US is placing its hope of reversing the battlefield situation on the new armor systems being sent to Ukraine. The US has put huge pressure on Germany to deliver its creaky Leopard II tanks and to allow Poland to ship the Leopards it has.
Poland has an inventory of 569 tanks, of which 398 are active. Most of the active tanks in Poland’s army are Leopard IIs (250). Poland is planning to replace the Leopards with 180 Korean K-2 Black Panther tanks, the first ten of which were delivered in December 2022. The K2 is an advanced tank featuring netcentric capabilities.
No one can say how effective Leopard tanks will be on the modern battlefield. In December 2016, numerous Leopard 2s were destroyed in fighting over the ISIS-held Al-Bab area near Aleppo, Syria. Ten Leopards were destroyed including five by anti-tank missiles (Russian origin), two by IEDs, and one by rocket fire.
The Russian wire-guided anti-tank missiles, 9k115 Metis and 9M113 Konkurs, are vintage 1970s weapons. This leads to the suspicion that the Leopards won’t turn out to be any more effective than the Russian-origin armor Ukraine already has, which could help explain why Poland is eager to unload them.
The US has made clear that it will deliver the Abrams M-1 tank (Jan 24th) to Ukraine. This is the US main battle tank that is vital to NATO defense. WSJ first ever reported (12.15 pm Berlin time / 6.15 am DC time) that the U.S. is leaning toward sending a significant number of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, officials said. An announcement could come this week.
Psychologically, the loss of US tanks to Russian weapons would be a negative message about America’s ability to uphold security in Europe. (It certainly would unnerve the Baltic States and Germany.)
One of the key dangers in the Ukraine war is that it will spill over to other European countries, particularly Poland. Another Russian “option” may be to counter US support for Ukraine by attacking one or more of the Baltic states, namely Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Tension is rising between the Baltics and Russia, as seen most recently by Russia’s decision to expel Estonia’s ambassador in Moscow.
Estonia is crucial because of its location on the Gulf of Finland and its sensitive border with Russia, close to St Petersburg. Estonia is setting up an “adjacent” zone giving it the right to inspect Russian civilian and military ships.
It is unlikely Estonia can carry out any inspections given that it only has two patrol vessels (EML-Roland and EML-Risto) and no other warships except some mine layers. But if Estonia even tried, it would create another friction point that Russia could exploit if it chose.
There is also a strategic element. With Finland joining NATO and already a de facto member, the Gulf of Finland becomes significantly more hostile for Russia and there will be growing pressure on Russian political leaders to take action against a rising threat to Russian security.
While Ukraine is far away, the Russians see NATO’s “ganging up” on Russia as a key issue for Russian security and stability. This brings the Baltic region into sharper focus because Russians see NATO trying to surround them and undercut their economic and military advantages.
The Biden administration, at least on the surface, appears to have little concern about the threat of a widening war or the possibility that Ukraine might be defeated by Russia. In fact, the administration and its allies keep claiming they are close to driving the Russians out of Ukraine – the latest such claim having come from Ukraine war supporter Boris Johnson.
If this claim were true, then all of the additional weapons slated for delivery to Ukraine would not be such an urgent need.
One of the problems is that war news is generated primarily by Ukrainian propaganda, which is endlessly parrotted in the Western media. Anytime there is contradictory information – for example, mention of Ukraine’s high casualties – Kiev pushes back so hard that Western leaders go silent.
In the Pacific, Xi Jinping may very well decide to invade Taiwan. But if he does, Xi won’t make such a weighty decision on what happens in Ukraine. He will do it based on hard power indicators, like whether the Chinese PLA has the training & equipment to conduct such an operation and Taiwan’s ability to resist (read here). If Lai Ching-te, 99% the next Taiwan President after Tsai Ing-wen, set a truce, peace to Xi, immediately stability in the Pacific would change forever. But still, if.
could thus soon be faced with some dangerous choices. Should it commit US forces or US air power to Ukraine? If it did so, how quickly would the war spread in Europe?
Would NATO, always far more boisterous than can be justified by reality, support sending NATO forces to Ukraine? Or would NATO’s knees finally buckle?
The alternative – and more likely – scenario is that Washington will push for a peace settlement, something it has strictly opposed in the past. Will Russia be willing to sit down and discuss a deal? Of course, but only if the price is right. And with situation (surprising) winning in Bakhmut, currently Russia will want more than Crimea for concession to end a war. Ukraine might have 28 million residents left vs prewar paper total of nearly 44 million, $2 Trillion or $3 Trillion of damage on a $120 billion GDP, and a failing military position.
Biden is the poster boy for war, and it is a war he is desperate to win to cover up his debacle in Afghanistan. But Biden is an old man, with a creaky grasp of reality, who is committing the United States to an even bigger war without any sound estimate of the outcome. While there is some reluctance in the Pentagon to send weapons to Ukraine that could lead to the war’s expansion, that effort is losing ground to those who want to pump up America’s presence against Russia.
That’s why the US just shipped a load of nuclear gravity bombs (read here) to Europe, an entirely unnecessary and dangerous move bound to trigger off Russian angst, and possible Russian mobilization of its “tactical” nuclear forces. And equally provocative is to re-position the famous 101st Airborne to Romania at the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base. Since April 2022, France (not U.S., not U.K., not Germany) intense to use Romania (read here) soil to readiness beside Romania soldiers, if the worsens situation happens in Ukraine. Why are they there —this is an aggressive intervention force and the Russians will see it as more evidence of preparations for US forces to move into Ukraine. No one can say how Russia might respond.
It is indeed unpleasant to write this today. One would have hoped that the Russians and Ukrainians could have sorted things out without resort to war, or failing that, sorting things out sooner rather than later. Washington bears a lot of responsibility for why this did not happen. It is quite true that the Ukrainian army has fought bravely and with better tactics and leadership then their Russian adversary. But now we have reached an existential moment for Ukraine. Carrying on this war simply means more death and destruction and no good outcome.
I have little hope that Biden will call a halt to the war and open real negotiations with Russia. But there is always a chance that some folks from the Pentagon will go see him and tell him the truth. With rising military casualties, with millions of its citizens gone abroad, with young people reluctant (read here) to be cannon fodder —a country that requires military and civilian salaries to be paid by the United States because it has no money, then it is clear that Ukraine only exists to fight against Russia and not much else. Unfortunately, this year, US$ 858 must be spent by the Pentagon.