Posts Tagged ‘Russia-Ukraine War’

Ukraine’s Summer Offensive

Posted: June 27, 2023 in War
Tags: ,
0

by Richard Martin

What we know: Prigozhin made a play for power and failed. Everything else in the public domain is pure speculation, most of it fuelled by rumours and intentional disinformation.

Regarding the offensive. The Ukrainians appear to have the initiative, therefore they are on the offensive. How that plays out tactically and operationally is another matter. The Russians have been trying different things, e.g., blowing the dam, but so far only to hinder and slow down movement. The Russian obstacles are, by all accounts, formidable.  It is a truism that obstacle breaching by forces under fire is the most complicated operation of all.

However, obstacles that aren’t covered by fire, direct and indirect, are merely a nuisance and will slow movement and manoeuvre, but only up to a point. It’s also important to point out that all fortifications are eventually defeated, either through destruction, breaching, or bypassing (therefore making them irrelevant).

I believe the Ukrainians are being very prudent in their tactical approach. They are unwilling to throw troops into battle without careful preparation and reconnaissance, and will substitute firepower and attrition as much as possible. They appear to be using small units to probe Russian positions and to draw out artillery fire so they can attack it with counter-battery fires. Over the last month or so, it seems that the number of Russian artillery systems destroyed has gone up significantly. The Ukrainians also seem to be focusing on destroying dual-capable systems, i.e., those that can fire nuclear as well as conventional munitions. The Russians call artillery the “god of war” for a reason. The Ukrainians appear to be wearing it down as much as possible.

The Ukrainians are also seeking to wear down Russian forces in depth, and command and control points. They are also attriting Russian logistics and supply capabilities, especially rail hubs, bridges, and other lines of communications, as well as ammunition dumps and troop concentrations.

I am more and more of the opinion that the Ukrainian strategy is to cause as much attrition as possible until such time as the Russians collapse somewhere. Then they can pour forces into the breach and seek to envelope enemy groupings and try to cut them off from retreat. A main objective must be to destroy as much Russian combat capability and kill or wound as many Russian soldiers as possible. This serves the tactical purpose of creating breakthrough opportunities. But, it also serves a longer term purpose of preventing the Russians from starting again if they are completely expelled from Ukraine. This is what they did to reconquer the Kharkiv and Kherson areas, and I see no reason for them to change their overall approach now.

Operationally, informed opinion converges around the idea that the Ukrainians would seek to cut the Russian forces in half by heading to Berdyansk and environs. This would isolate the Crimea from the rest of Russian occupied territory and make the situation there even more precarious.

Prigozhin’s Putsch

Posted: June 25, 2023 in War
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

By Richard Martin

Thanks to Professor Sean Maloney of RMC for naming what happened in Russia on 23-24 June 2023. We can analyze the events, but we can’t apply a Western framework or look at them through a liberal-democratic lens. 

Putin, Kremlin operators, siloviki, Wagner and other mercenary groups, are nothing but opportunists seeking power and wealth. There are multiple security agencies and forces within the state apparatus which can play a part. People are loyal to individuals, not the constitution or the people or even the state. The state for these strongmen is a means to an end. When they can no longer get what they want from the existing network, they will make a play to rearrange it in their favour, or at least position themselves to wait out the changes.

What this is not: a mutiny, popular uprising, foco, or a coup d’état. Mutiny may be feeding the putsch, but if the troops had wanted to mutiny en masse (it has happened in pockets prior to the Wagner putsch), they would have done so by now. Mutiny also implies that the troops are no longer okay with the mission, and just don’t want to be slaughtered or treated like cattle for nothing. There is no indication, yet, that there is sufficient discontent or organized resistance within the ranks.

There is also no uprising on in Russia, although there may be much popular discontent and rebelliousness and the situation can change quickly. Most people, including local and provincial government authorities will wait to see which way the wind is blowing. As for a coup, that would be staged from within the immediate circle of power, the Kremlin, or at the most Moscow, and would have to involve those closest to Putin and within his security apparatus and network.

This is a putsch, a push for power by a group, usually from outside the capital. It involves turning groups and leaders against the central government, especially those in control of security and military forces. A historical analogy is to be found in imperial Rome, where rebellions almost always started in the provinces, usually Gaul, Hispanic, or Syria, because there was a good wealth base, and during a period of instability or a losing war/battle.

Soldiers in various legions would proclaim their general as imperator, which means victor, or great commander. Then they would march on Rome or to meet opposing forces in battle who trying to do the same thing. Sometimes, there would be forces loyal to the reigning emperor who would try to support him. The motivation was a play for power and wealth. Those supporting the leaders throw in with the one they think will guarantee them the best spoils or, alternatively, avoid them being killed.

Another analogy is a game of musical chairs. The music is cacophonous, with instruments out of tune, multiple scores, and several conductors. No one knows when the music will stop. Some key players are jockeying for position, while others are waiting in the wings to try to get to a chair or to fall in behind the winner(s).

I think the trigger for Prigozhin to launch his putsch was the incursions in the Belgorod region a few weeks ago by Russian rebels supported by Ukrainian capabilities. When he saw how weak the forces outside of Ukraine were, he felt he could reach Moscow quickly if he could rally enough support.

When Prigozhin realized he didn’t have enough units coming over to him, and especially the internal security forces, that’s when he called off the march on Moscow. It had nothing to do with buses and trucks blocking the highway or “negotiations.” His putsch failed, as most do, because he gambled and lost.

It’s also interesting to note that the Kremlin keeps its best forces to protect Moscow and the Kremlin (which literally means fortress). In Russia, all roads lead to Moscow, so it’s part of the mentality that it must be protected at all costs.

None of these strongmen are democrats or true reformers. They are fighting to see who will be on top of the pyramid, nothing more. And that includes Saint Navalny and Khodorkovsky the former oligarch. They have no honour and will throw each other under the tank if they think it will advance their chances of moving up the hierarchy.

It’s also important to mention that none of these men thinks the idea of invading Ukraine was a bad idea. They all want it and will do everything they can to continue the war. And can we finally lay to rest the idea of peace feelers, peace talks, giving peace a chance? They need to be wiped out.

© 2023 Richard Martin

On Tankies

Posted: March 4, 2023 in Geopolitics, History, War
Tags: , , , ,
2

A guest article by Quentin Malcolm Innis, CD

I would not have thought that, one year into Putin’s war on Ukraine, there would still be people defending Russia.  Particularly post-Bucha, after the Russian VDV has been revealed as a collection of murderers, rapists, and thieves, I’m unsure how anyone can defend Russia or advocate on Russia’s behalf.   However, some people are slow learners, so here’s a compilation of tankie arguments, with some thoughts in response.   

Why tankies?  The term “tankie” derives from the hapless left-wingers who defended the Russian invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.  To defend their simplistic premise of “USSR good” they were forced by the circumstances of these invasions to perform a series of intellectual backflips, some of which have been resurrected as attempts to justify the current Russian invasion of Ukraine.  These attempts have many variations, but following are seven of the most popular. 

The Historical Threat from the West.  Russia has been invaded by the West three times over the past 210 years, starting with Napoleon’s invasion as part of the Second Polish War in 1812.  However, in that same 210-year period, Russia has been involved in at least 39 other wars.  

1812.  It is true that Napoleon’s Grand Army invaded Russia in 1812.  However, all wars start with diplomatic manoeuvring, and in the lead-up to the invasion, Napoleon and Czar Alexander the First had been bickering over Alexander’s withdrawal from the Continental Blockade, Napoleon’s primary strategic weapon against England.  The French invasion of Russia began when Alexander issued an ultimatum to Napoleon demanding that he remove French troops from Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in April 1812.  Napoleon refused, and the Second Polish War was declared.  

1914.  While WW1 had multiple and intersecting causes, the event that precipitated the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in 1914.  On 23 July, the Austrians submitted a list of demands to Serbia that they knew would be unacceptable, to secure a pretext for war.  On 25 July, the Serbians accepted all but one of the Austrian demands, but the Austrians claimed that the caveat amounted to a rejection of their demands and declared war on 28 July.  The Russians mobilized to support Serbia on 30 July, the Germans in turn mobilized, and the war kicked off.  The Russians then tapped out of the war they had a hand in starting, allowing the Germans to switch forces to the Western Front for the March offensive of 1918, nearly winning the war.  

1941.  Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia, began on 22 June 1941.  This came as a surprise to the Russians, as they assumed that the Germans would abide by the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had been signed 23 August 1939 and allowed Germany and Russia to dismember Poland by attacking simultaneously.  With his Eastern flank secured, Hitler then turned to the west, over-running most of Western Europe and isolating England.  Russia thus played a key part in enabling German plans, kicking off the bloodiest war in human history.  

Russia claims to be the aggrieved party in these wars, even though they enabled one and precipitated the other two through issuing ultimations that they knew would be unacceptable to the opposing power.  Set against this the list of Russian attacks on their neighbours.  

2014: Ukraine

2008: Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia

1994 – 1996 and 1999 – 2009: Chechnya

1979 – 1989: Afghanistan

1968: Czechoslovakia

1956: Hungary

1953: East Germany

1939: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania

1929 – 1930: Afghanistan

1921: Georgia

1920: Azerbaijan

1917 – 1921: Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine

1905: Japan

This does not count the Russian Civil War, annexations after the First and Second World Wars as well as involvement in various smaller wars, including, most recently, Syria.  It’s obvious that Russia has no claim to innocence but has instead been a consistent predator on her neighbours.

Russia is currently threated by NATO expansion.  NATO is, by design, a defensive alliance, and has no mandate to invade other countries.  Russia has nuclear weapons; although three NATO members are nuclear powers, NATO itself is not.  NATO operates by consensus, which means that every country would need to agree to an invasion of Russia.  NATO would also require a UN resolution to mount such an invasion.  Russia argues that Ukraine joining NATO could place ground-launched nuclear weapons within 1000 kilometers of Moscow, but the reality is that the US can deploy bombers with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, a much greater threat, within 1000 kilometers of Moscow any day of the week.  NATO is a voluntary organization which allows countries to apply for membership based on that country’s perception of need.  Joining or not joining NATO is a choice that Ukrainians can make, as Putting himself acknowledged in his essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”.   Denying Ukrainians this choice denies them agency and interferes with their right to self-determination. 

Russia has a right to intervene in neighbouring countries.  We live in a post-Wilsonian world, where we have agreed that countries possess a right to self-determination.  Arguing that Russia has a “right” to interfere with the internal affairs of its neighbours violates that right to self-determination.  Essentially, this argument boils down to “might makes right.”  We have evolved beyond that; this is why we have the UN and why the legitimate use of force requires a UN resolution.  Arguing that other countries intervene with their neighbours is a childish response. If it’s wrong for the Americans use force without a UN resolution, then it’s also wrong for the Russians.  

Ukraine is not a real country.  This is the gist of an essay that Putin published in July of 2021, titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”  In this essay, Putin argues that Ukraine has, historically, been a part of Russia, and that Ukrainians therefore have no national identity.  But Ukraine pre-dates Russia: Kyiv was founded in 482; Moscow in 1147.  So are Ukrainians Russian, or are Russians Ukrainian?  Putin spends a considerable amount of time and effort constructing a narrative linking Ukraine and Russia, making the claim that modern Ukraine is a creation of the Soviet Union, and pointing to the similarities of language and religion.  But he concedes that, in other parts of the world, people sharing language and religion exist as different countries, citing the examples of Germany and Austria, and Canada and the United States.  Despite his best efforts to construct a narrative in which Ukrainians and Russians are one people, Putin admits to the existence of Ukraine, averring Ukraine’s right to self-determination with his closing statement: “And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.”  So, if Putin admits that Ukraine and Russia are separate countries, concedes that people sharing common religions and language can live in separate countries, and concedes the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination, why did he invade? 

Ukraine is run by Nazis.  Obviously untrue; the current Ukrainian president is Jewish.  President Zelenskyy is a native Russian speaker and graduated from the Kyiv National Economic University with a degree in law.  He won the last election with 73.23% of the vote, defeating the Kremlin-backed candidate, Petro Poroshenko, who had been pushed by Russian media and endorsed by Putin.  President Zelenskyy engaged negotiations with Russia to end the ongoing war, based on implementing the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements, but, as we now know, the Russians were not negotiating in good faith during this period.  Zelenskyy appears to have been caught by surprise by the Russian escalation of the war on 24 February of last year, but adapted quickly and has organized an extremely effective Ukrainian response.  He campaigned on an anti-corruption platform and has pushed ahead with cleaning up the Ukrainian government, removing several high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats.  President Zelenskyy’s grandfather, Semyon Ivanovych Zelenskyy, served in the Red Army, reaching the rank of colonel in the 57th Guards Motor Rifle Division.  Colonel Zelenskyy’s father and three brothers died in the Holocaust after German troops burned their home to the ground.  According to Statista, as of November 2022, President Zelenskyy’s approval rating was 91% for those 15 to 34, 85% for those 35 to 54 age, and 79% amongst those over 55.  All in all, hardly the picture of a Nazi, a war-monger, or an inept leader.

The charges of neo-Nazism are based around the Svoboda party, which won 2% of the vote in the last national election and holds one seat in the 450-member Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament.  There is no upper house in the Ukrainian system, and members are elected using a system which is a mix of proportional representation and first-past-the-post, with 50% of the members coming from party lists and 50% elected from constituencies.  Voting support for Svoboda has been trending downwards since peaking in 2012 at 10.45% of the vote.  

Ukraine is the “most corrupt country in Europe”.  It is not.  According to Transparency International’s ratings, the most corrupt country in Europe is Russia, ranking 137th in the world with a score of 28.   Ukraine ranks a 116th, with a score of 33.

This is a proxy war between Russia and the US.  As I’ve noted elsewhere, this is a war by Russia against Europe.  Putin is motivated by power and is terrified of losing it.  Is the United States supporting Ukraine? Yes, of course.  Is NATO supporting Ukraine?  Again, yes.  But this is by no means a proxy war.  This war started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014, in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Russia, along with the UK and the US, agreed to guarantee sovereignty for Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan in exchange for those three countries giving up nuclear weapons.  Russia has repeatedly violated that agreement; the UK and the US are upholding it.  Ukraine is not a proxy for the West; it is a country defending itself from attack, as permitted by Article 51 of the UN Charter.  Claiming that Ukraine is a proxy denies Ukraine agency and is an attempt to create a false moral equivalency.  

Remember who you are supporting.  If the foregoing does not convince you, then remember that conduct indicates morality, and the Russians have conducted themselves in a barbaric and atrocious manner.  If you still want to support the Russians, that’s fine; but understand who and what you are supporting.  

As early as 25 February 2022 Amnesty International identified attacks on Vuhledar, Kharkiv, and Uman as likely to constitute war crimes.  As Ukrainian forces have recaptured towns and villages, evidence of rape and torture has been uncovered.  Russian forces are kidnapping children and sending them to back to Russia, where they are adopted by Russian families.  Russian forces have conscripted civilians in the occupied territories and used them as cannon fodder, sending them into battle with minimal equipment, training, or leadership.  

The Ukrainian Prosecutor’s office has documented 39,347 alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces.  More than 600 suspects have been identified, and proceedings have been initiated against 80 of these suspects.  The Ukrainian authorities have so far tried 3 Russian service members, all of whom pled guilty.  

Russian forces have deliberately targeted civilians, cultural property (protected under international humanitarian law) and critical infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and shelters.  

There have been 3 allegations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian troops; these are being investigated by the Ukrainian authorities, with a view to conducting prosecutions if warranted.   So far, Russian authorities have declined to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Russian troops.  

Meanwhile, the effect on Russian society increases.  Since 1992, 58 Russian journalists have died, 38 of them killed as a direct result of their professional activities.  Russians are now subject to imprisonment for even calling the war a war, and thousands of Russian families have lost sons and husbands to a failing cause.  

Russia is engaged in an illegal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war in Ukraine.  Their soldiers have conducted themselves as criminals.  There is no justification for Russian actions, and if you are still a Russian apologist, you are on the wrong side of history.  

© 2023 Quentin Malcolm Innis