Dmitry Trenin is a Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics and a Lead Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council.

This October marks the 60th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, which drew Moscow and Washington into a nuclear showdown that threatened the immediate annihilation of the world.

Luckily, the leaders of the time – Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy – had the wisdom to step back from the brink, and then engage with each other on first steps toward jointly managing adversity in the nuclear era. Given the current conflict in Ukraine, which is steadily escalating toward a direct military collision between Russia and the United States, there is a hope that the lessons of the past can also help to end the present confrontation on a peaceful note.

However, we should also be mindful of the major differences between the two crises.

On the surface the root cause of both confrontations has been acute feelings of insecurity created by the expansion of the rival power’s political influence and military presence right to the doorstep of one’s own country: Cuba then, Ukraine now.

This similarity, however, is almost as far as it goes. The salient feature of the Ukraine crisis is the vast asymmetry not only between the relevant capabilities of Russia and the United States, but even more importantly between the stakes involved. To the Kremlin, the issue is literally existential.

Essentially, it is not only the future of Ukraine, but that of Russia itself that is on the table. To the White House, the issue is definitely important, but far less critical. What is in question is clearly US global leadership (which will not collapse within the Western world, whatever happens in Ukraine), its credibility (which can be dented but hardly destroyed), and the administration’s standing with the American people (for whom Ukraine is hardly a top concern).

The 1962 Cuban missile crisis broke out in the atmosphere of a pervasive fear of World War III, which rose to its highest pitch during the 13 days in October. The 2022 Ukraine crisis is unfolding virtually in the absence of such fear. Russia’s actions over the past seven months have been taken in the West more as evidence of its weakness and indecision than its strength.

Moreover, the war in Ukraine is seen as an historic opportunity to defeat Russia, weakening it to a point when it can no longer pose a threat even to its smallest neighbors. A temptation emerges to finally solve the ‘Russian Question’, permanently neutering the country by seizing its nuclear arsenal, and possibly breaking it into many pieces that would likely bicker and war among themselves. Among other things, this would rob China of a major ally and resource base, and create favorable conditions for Washington to prevail in its conflict with Beijing, thus sealing its global dominance for many more decades.

The Western public is being prepared for the eventuality of nuclear weapons being used in the Ukraine crisis. Russian warnings to NATO countries, with reference to Moscow’s nuclear status, to stay away from direct involvement in the war, which are meant as deterrence rather than an intention to widen the conflict, are dismissed as blackmail. Indeed, a number of Western experts actually expect Russia to use its tactical nukes if its forces face a rout in Ukraine.

Rather than seeing this as a catastrophe to be absolutely averted, they seem to view this as an opportunity to hit Russia very hard, make it an international outlaw, and press the Kremlin to surrender unconditionally. At a practical level, the US nuclear posture and its modernization programs focus on lowering the atomic threshold and deploying small-yield weapons for use on the battlefield.

This does not suggest that the administration of US President Joe Biden wants a nuclear war with Russia. The problem is that its highly pro-active policy on Ukraine is based on a flawed premise that Russia can indeed accept being ‘strategically defeated’ and, should nuclear weapons be used, their use would be limited to Ukraine or, at worst, to Europe. Americans have a long tradition of ascribing their own strategic logic to their Russian opponents, but this can be fatally misleading. Ukraine, parts of Russia and Europe being hit by nuclear strikes – while the US emerges from the conflict unscathed – might be considered a tolerable outcome in Washington, but hardly in Moscow.

So many of Russia’s so-called red lines being breached without consequence from the start of the Ukraine war have created an impression that Moscow is bluffing, so that when President Vladimir Putin recently issued another warning to Washington, saying that “it is not a bluff,” some people concluded that it was precisely that. Yet, as recent experience demonstrates, Putin’s words deserve to be taken more seriously. In a 2018 interview he said, “Why do we need a world in which there is no Russia?”

The problem is that Moscow’s strategic defeat, which the US is aiming for in Ukraine, would probably ultimately result in “a world without Russia.” This probably suggests that if – God forbid! – the Kremlin will face what the Russian military doctrine calls “a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation,” its nuclear weapons will not point to some location on the European continent, but more likely across the Atlantic.

This is a chilling thought, but it may be salutary. Any use of nuclear weapons must be prevented, not just the use of strategic ones. It is cruel but true that peace between adversaries is based not on solemn pledges and pious wishes, but, in the final count, on mutual fear. We came to call this deterrence and “mutually assured destruction.” That fear should not paralyze our will, but it should ensure that neither side loses its senses. On the contrary, the erosion of deterrence and its dismissal as bluff would leave us sleepwalking into big trouble.

Unfortunately, this is precisely where we are heading now. It is telling that the constant shelling, over many weeks, of Europe’s largest nuclear power station is tolerated by Western – including, incredibly, European – public opinion, because it is Ukrainian forces seeking to dislodge the Russians who have occupied the station.

If there are lessons to be learned from the Cuban missile crisis, these are basically two. One is that testing nuclear deterrence is fraught with fatal consequences for all of humanity. The second is that the resolution of a crisis between major nuclear powers can only be based on understanding, and not either side’s victory.

There is still time and room for that, even if the former is running out and the latter is getting narrower. Right now, it is still too early even to discuss a potential settlement in Ukraine, but those Russians and Americans who like me spent the last three decades in a failed effort to help create a partnership between their two countries need to come together now to think about how to avert a fatal clash. In 1962, after all, it was informal human contact that saved the world.

via RT

One thing that seems to be missed by some commentators, is that the US military is extremely good at killing people, on or off the battlefield.  They suck at nation building, or more likely, use peacekeeping and nation building as a low intensity way to prop up the MIC.  Just a note, as some equate the failure in Afghanistan and Iraq to lack of lethality.

Why is war not declared?

From the point of view of international law, in “official war” the UN launches automatic “war prevention” procedures in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974.

▪️In accordance with Article 41 of the UN Charter, the severance of diplomatic and economic relations (including any transport, telecommunications and other means of communication with a strange aggressor) among UN member countries, including among countries neutral to Russia;

▪️Legitimization of military assistance for the country – the victim of aggression (in this case, for Ukraine);

▪️Legitimization of a peacekeeping operation, if UN members deem it necessary in accordance with Articles 39-51 of the UN Charter;

▪️Settlement of the conflict without the participation of Russia;

▪️Blocking the right of veto for Russia;

▪️Possibility of exclusion of Russia from the UN.

Theoretically, the UN can do this even now, but in an “official war” there are more maneuvers and powers for this. Everything is not limited to the UN and it is not an organization with an unconditional guide to action, however, it has weight and significance.

The actions of the UN extend to other international organizations and structures. Bypassing sanctions can be difficult and have legal implications for neutral countries such as China, India, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which may now covertly support Russia, but which will be difficult under total international restrictions.

In international law, who is the aggressor and who is the victim is of great importance, so countries avoid declaring “war”. This also applies to the United States, which did not use and/or avoid the word “war” in relation to Iraq, Syria and Libya, but referred to it as “peace enforcement”, “struggle for democracy” or “counter-terrorist operations”. That is why SMO is SMO, because war has legal consequences.

You should not compare 2022 with the period of the Second World War, when alliances of countries were formed. The UN emerged from the post-war reorganization of the world order in October 1945 and had one of the main goals – the prevention of wars. This gives the UN quite extensive powers of “peace enforcement”.

A logical and completely fair question, where was the UN when the US unleashed dozens of armed conflicts over 70 years? Good question, but whoever controls the world economy and global financial capital controls the world – that’s the answer. What is allowed by the US does not apply to others.

All international institutions are under the US and dominated by the US, so there is no need to look for justice where there is none.

As for the domestic economy. There may be a legal conflict…

Without going into legislation, in practice this can lead to the following:

▪️Rupture of commercial contracts (refusal to fulfill obligations) primarily in connection with business-to-business and, to a lesser extent, business-state (which is logical under martial law), as the launch of a force majeure procedure.

▪️Activation of insurance scenarios and cases related and associated with force majeure, and war in 99% of cases is prescribed in all contracts as force majeure. That is why in 2020 no one officially declared the epidemic an epidemic, but there was just “like voluntary self-isolation”.

Also, the status of the SMO according to organizational procedures differs from the war, which is enshrined in Art. 18 of the Federal Law “On Defense”.

Therefore, the authorities avoid legal consequences where it can be avoided without losing the effectiveness of the operation.

@spydell_finance

https://t.me/ukraina_ru/101490

The President of Mexico Obrador:

“How is this so? On the one hand, NATO denies Ukraine membership in the alliance. And on the other hand, they offer her weapons and impose sanctions against Russia. This war serves the interests of the military industry”

by Markus Andersson, Isac Boman via Nyadagbladet.se

• In what appears to be an exceptional internal leak from the think tank RAND Corporation, known among other things to have been behind the American strategy for foreign and defence policies during the Cold War, a detailed account is given of how the energy crisis in Europe has been planned by the United States.
• The document, which dates from January, acknowledges that the aggressive foreign policy that was being pursued by Ukraine before the conflict would push Russia into having to take military action against the country. Its actual purpose, it contends, was to pressure Europe into adopting a wide range of sanctions against Russia, sanctions which had already been prepared.
• The European Union’s economy, it states, “will inevitably collapse” as a result of this, and its authors rejoice in the fact that, among other things, resources of up to $9 billion will flow back to the United States, and well-educated young people in Europe will be forced to emigrate.
• The key objective described in the document is to divide Europe – especially Germany and Russia – and destroy the European economy by placing useful idiots in political positions in order to stop Russian energy supplies from reaching the continent.

Germany’s minister for foreign affairs Annalena Baerbock, in a meeting in May with Nato and U.S. officials.

As the first outlet in Europe, Nya Dagbladet can publish what appears to be classified US plans to crush the European economy by means of a war in Ukraine and an induced energy crisis.

RAND Corporation’s think tank, which has a huge work force of 1,850 employees and a budget of $350 million, has the official aim of “improving policies and decision-making through research and analysis”. It is primarily connected to the United States Department of Defence and is infamous for having been influential in the development of military and other strategies during the Cold War.

A document signed RAND, under the opening heading of “Weakening Germany, strengthening the U.S.”, suggests that there is an “urgent need” for an influx of resources from outside to maintain the overall American economy, but “especially the banking system”.

“Only European countries bound by EU and NATO commitments can provide us with these without significant military and political costs for us.”

According to RAND, the main obstacle to this ambition is the growing independence of Germany. Among other things, it points out that Brexit has given Germany greater independence and made it more difficult for the United States to influence the decisions of European governments.

A key objective that permeates this cynical strategy is, in particular, to destroy the cooperation between Germany and Russia, as well as France, which is seen as the greatest economic and political threat to the United States.

”If implemented, this scenario will eventually turn Europe into not only an economic, but also a political competitor to the United States.”, it declares.

The only way: “Draw both sides into war with Ukraine”

In order to crush this political threat, a strategic plan, primarily focused on destroying the German economy, is presented.

“Stopping Russian deliveries could create a systematic crisis that would be devastating for the German economy and indirectly for the European Union as a whole”, it states, and believes that the key is to draw the European countries into war.

“The only possible way to ensure that Germany rejects Russian energy supplies is to draw both sides into the military conflict in Ukraine. Our continued actions in this country will inevitably lead to a military response from Russia. Russia is clearly not going to leave to the massive Ukrainian army’s pressure on the Donetsk People’s Republic without a military response. This would make it possible to portray Russia as the aggressive party and then implement the entire package of sanctions, which has already been drawn up”.

Green parties will force Germany to “fall into the trap”

The green parties in Europe are described as being particularly easy to manipulate into running the errands of American imperialism.

“The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the dominant role of green parties and European ideologies. The German environmental movement is a highly dogmatic, if not fanatical, movement, which makes it quite easy to get them to ignore economic arguments”, it writes, citing the current foreign minister of Germany, Annalena Baerbock, and the climate minister, Robert Habeck, as examples of this type of politician.

“Personal characteristics and lack of professionalism make it possible to assume that it is impossible for them to recognise their own mistakes in time. It will therefore be sufficient to rapidly form a media image of Putin’s aggressive war – and make the Greens into ardent and tough supporters of sanctions – a ‘war party’. This will make it possible to impose the sanctions without any obstacles”.

Baerbock is, i.a., well known for declaring that she will continue the suspension of Russian gas even during the winter – regardless of what her constituents think about the matter and the consequences for the German population.

– We will stand with Ukraine, and this means that the sanctions will stay, also in winter time – even if it gets really tough for politicians, she said at a conference in Prague recently.

Green Party politicians Annalena Baerbock (left) and Robert Habeck (right) are described by the United Sates as being grateful for being manipulated into running errands for the United States – in particular the goal of destroying the German economy. (Photo: Vorderstraße/WEF/CC BY 2.0)

“Ideally – a complete halt of supplies”

The authors express a hope that the damage between Germany and Russia will be so great that it will make it impossible for the countries to re-establish normal relations later on.

“A reduction in Russian energy supplies – ideally, a complete halt of such supplies– would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry. The need to divert significant amounts of Russian gas for winter heating will further exacerbate the shortages. Lockdowns in industrial enterprises would cause shortages of components and spare parts for manufacturing, a breakdown of logistics chains and, eventually, a domino effect”.

Ultimately, a total collapse of the economy in Europe is seen as both probable and desirable.

“Not only will it deliver a devastating blow to the German economy, the entire economy of the entire EU economy will inevitably collapse.”

It further points out that the benefits of US-based companies having less competition on the world market, logistical advantages and the outflow of capital from Europe, would mean that they would be able to contribute to the economy of the United States by an estimated 7-9 trillion dollars. In addition, it also emphasises the important effect of many well-educated and young Europeans being be forced to immigrate to the USA.

RAND denies originating the report

RAND Corporation issued a press release on Wednesday denying that the report originates from them. No comments are made regarding what parts of the report are false or what is accurate, apart from simply writing that the content is “bizarre” and that the document is “fake””.

by Claudiu Secara

Part I: The Fall of Europe

Part II: The Fake War

Part III: More Evidence of the Fake Wars

Part IV: Hungary and Turkey: More on the Fake War

There is more evidence supporting the conclusion of our post of a few days ago: The Fake War.

Algeria has admitted that it can no longer supply gas to Europe

The country has not invested significantly in the development of gas production in recent years and against the background of growing domestic consumption, therefore, it has no special opportunities to increase gas exports, said Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Algeria to Russia Smail Benamara.

Algeria has significant reserves of gas on the shelf and would like to start producing it, but this requires technology. “This possibility will be considered sooner or later,” the Ambassador stressed.

He noted that Algeria plans to develop gasification of the country’s regions, “we don’t have many opportunities to increase gas exports, so Russian companies can come to us to explore – we have invested little recently,” the ambassador said.

The Ambassador repeated that Russia invests little in Algeria, as if taking a wait-and-see attitude.

***************

The European Parliament urged the EU not to buy gas from Azerbaijan

Many MEPs called on EU Commison President Ursula von der Leyen not to buy gas from Azerbaijan, which, according to them, “attacks the sovereign territory of Armenia”, but to take measures to stop hostilities.

In July this year, the EU signed an agreement with Baku on doubling gas supplies from Azerbaijan in the next few years as part of Brussels’ desire to reduce dependence on Russian gas.

“We cannot allow Germany not to close nuclear power plants, but at the same time import gas from Azerbaijan and depend on another criminal regime. I hope that we will all oppose Aliyev’s aggression against Armenia,”- words of French MP Francois-Xavier Bellamy.

Similar speeches were made by other French deputies, as well as representatives of Bulgaria.

*****************

<

p style=”caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: georgia, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.3); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;”>Hard defence of Kherson and a crumple zone in Kharkov. It seems the Russians are happy to have the conflict in Ukraine as a point of friction justifying/enabling the strategic economic war against the West. I don’t think they are actually looking for a quick military victory. Bit cynical though.

Briefly on the Kherson front from our friend (machine translation):

“The enemy regularly tries to infiltrate the joints of positions in small groups of 10-20 people from the landings. In the course of a small-arms battle, they suffer large losses and retreat. Dozens of people are being killed and wounded in the trenches, but they do not stop trying.

They are also trying to gain a bridgehead foothold. They dig trenches in full view of our fighters and receive fire damage from AGS and mortars, but they hide for only 10 minutes while suffering losses, after which they get out again and start digging. Everything repeats. Only 152 mm helps to stop their ‘earthworks’ for a longer time. Very strange behavior.

The only real inconvenience and danger to our soldiers at the moment is caused by enemy artillery.”

Are they on drugs, such Ecstasy or Captagon (Fenethylline)? Most probably.

via https://t.me/ptsr_team

Dmitry Trenin is a Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics and a Lead Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council.

Putin’s latest comments reveal that Moscow’s thinking has shifted and compromise is no longer on the agenda.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin referred to Ukraine as an “anti-Russian enclave” which has to be removed. He also said that the Russian soldiers taking part in the military operation there were fighting for their “own country.” These statements carry important implications.

Over the last six-plus months, the mantra of the Russian officialdom has been that all aims of the offensive will be reached. On purpose, however, the specific objectives, such as how far Moscow’s forces plan move into Ukraine, have never been spelled out. This cannot but raise speculation about what the Kremlin is actually hoping to achieve.

The only person who can authoritatively answer that question, however, is the president, and second-guessing him makes no sense. Yet, two things cannot escape close attention. One is the radicalization of Moscow’s position on Ukraine as a result of both Western policies and Kiev’s actions; two is the widening gap between the minimum result of the military campaign that Russia can be satisfied with, and the maximum amount of what the US and its allies can accept.

For about six years after the second Minsk Agreement was signed in 2015, the Kremlin tried hard to get that accord implemented. It would have ensured the autonomous status of Donbass within Ukraine and given the region influence on national politics and policies, including in the issue of the country’s geopolitical and geo-economic orientation. From the very start, however, Kiev was unwilling to cooperate on the deal’s implementation, seeing it as a win for Moscow. Washington, in pursuit of a policy to contain Russia, encouraged such an obstructionist stance, while Berlin and Paris, formally the guarantors of the agreement (alongside Russia), had no leverage in Kiev and ended up embracing the Ukrainian position.

Vladimir Zelensky’s election to Ukraine’s presidency in 2019 initially appeared to be an opening for peace, and President Putin made a serious effort to get the Minsk agreement off the ground. Kiev, however, soon backtracked and took an even more hardline position than before. Nevertheless, until mid-2021 the Kremlin continued to see as its goals in Ukraine a resolution of the Donbass issue essentially on the basis of Minsk, and the eventual de facto recognition of Crimea’s Russian status. In June of last year, Vladimir Putin, however, published a long article on Russian-Ukrainian relations which made it clear that he viewed the current situation as a major security, political, and identity issue for his country; recognized his personal responsibility; and was resolved to do something to strategically correct it. The article did not give away Putin’s game plan, but it laid out his basic thinking on Ukraine.

Last December, Moscow passed on to Washington a package of proposals, which amounted to a list of security guarantees for Russia. These included Ukraine’s formal neutrality between Russia and NATO (“no Ukraine in NATO”); and no deployment of US and other NATO weapons and military bases in Ukraine, as well as a ban on military exercises on Ukrainian territory (“no NATO in Ukraine”). While the US agreed to discuss some military technical issues dealt with in the Russian paper it rejected Moscow’s key demands related to Ukraine and NATO. Putin had to take no for an answer.

Just before the launch of its military operation, Moscow recognized the two Donbass republics and told Kiev to vacate the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk then under Ukrainian control – or face the consequences. Kiev refused, and hostilities began. Russia’s official reason for unleashing force was defending the two newly recognized republics which had asked for military assistance.

Shortly after the start of hostilities Russia and Ukraine began peace talks. In late March 2022 at a meeting in Istanbul, Moscow demanded that Zelensky’s government recognize the sovereignty of the two Donbass republics within their constitutional borders, as well as Russia’s own sovereignty over Crimea, which was formally incorporated into the Russian Federation in 2014, plus accept a neutral and demilitarized status for territory controlled by Kiev. At that point, Moscow still recognized the current Ukrainian authorities and was prepared to deal with them directly. For its part, Kiev initially appeared ready to accept Moscow’s demands (which were criticized by many within Russia as overly concessionary to Ukraine), but then quickly reverted to a hardline stance. Moscow has always suspected that this U-turn, as on previous occasions, was the result of US behind-the-scenes influence, often aided by the British and other allies.

From the spring of 2022, as the fighting continued, Moscow expanded its aims. These now included the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine, meaning not only the removal of ultra-nationalist and anti-Russian elements from the Ukrainian government (increasingly characterized by Russian officials now as the “Kiev regime”), but the extirpation of their underlying ideology (based around the World War Two Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera) and its influence in society, including in education, the media, culture and other spheres.

Next to this, Moscow added something that Putin called, in his trademark caustic way, the “de-Communization” of Ukraine, meaning ridding that country, whose leadership was rejecting its Soviet past, of the Russian-populated or Russian-speaking territories that had been awarded to the Soviet Ukrainian republic of the USSR by the Communist leaders in Moscow, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev. These include, besides Donbass, the entire southeast of Ukraine, from Kharkov to Odessa.

This change of policy led to dropping the early signals about Russia honoring Ukraine’s statehood outside Donbass, and to establishing Russian military government bodies in the territory seized by the Russian forces. Immediately following that, a drive started to de facto integrate these territories with Moscow. By the early fall of 2022, all of Kherson, much of Zaporozhye and part of Kharkov oblasts were being drawn into the Russian economic system; started to use the Russian ruble; adopted the Russian education system; and their population was offered a fast-track way to Russian citizenship.

As the fighting in Ukraine quickly became a proxy war between Russia and the US-led West, Russia’s views on Ukraine’s future radicalized further. While a quick cessation of hostilities and a peace settlement on Russian terms in the spring would have left Ukraine, minus Donbass, demilitarized and outside NATO, but otherwise under the present leadership with its virulently anti-Russian ideology and reliance on the West, the new thinking, as Putin’s remarks in Kaliningrad suggest, tends to regard any Ukrainian state that is not fully and securely cleansed of ultranationalist ideology and its agents as a clear and present danger; in fact, a ticking bomb right on Russia’s borders not far from its capital.

Under these circumstances, in view of all the losses and hardships sustained, it would not suffice that Russia wins control of what was once known as Novorossiya, the northern coast of the Black Sea all the way to Transnistria. This would mean that Ukraine would be completely cut off from the sea, and Russia would gain – via referenda, it is assumed – a large swath of territory and millions of new citizens. To reach that objective, of course, the Russian forces still need to seize Nikolaev and Odessa in the south, as well as Kharkov in the east. A logical next step would be to expand Russian control to all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River, as well as the city of Kiev that lies mostly on the right bank. If this were to happen, the Ukrainian state would shrink to the central and western regions of the country.

Neither of these outcomes, however, deals with the fundamental problem that Putin has highlighted, that is to say, of Russia having to live side-by-side with a state that will constantly seek revenge and will be used by the United States, which arms and directs it, in its effort to threaten and weaken Russia. This is the main reason behind the argument for taking over the entire territory of Ukraine to the Polish border. However, integrating central and western Ukraine into Russia would be exceedingly difficult, while trying to build a Ukrainian buffer state controlled by Russia would be a major drain on resources, as well as a constant headache. No wonder that some in Moscow would not mind if Poland were to absorb western Ukraine within some form of a common political entity which, Russia’s foreign intelligence claims, is being surreptitiously created.

Ukraine’s future will not be dictated, of course, by someone’s wishes, but by the actual developments on the battlefield. Fighting there will continue for some time, and the final outcome is not in sight. Even when the active phase of the conflict comes to an end, it is unlikely to be followed up by a peace settlement. For different reasons, each side regards the conflict as existential – and much wider than Ukraine. This means that what Russia aims for has to be won and then held firmly.

via Moon of Alabama

When the Ukraine launched its Kherson ‘counteroffensive’ on August 29 I was pretty aghast and judged that it was destined to fail:

To break the reinforced Russian lines now would have taken more troops than were available.I am sure that the Ukrainian military knew that this offensive would fail.

For political reasons Zelenski ordered them to launch it anyway. There are now another 1,000+ Ukrainian and Russian lives lost for nothing other then some sensational headlines and political optics.

More than 3,000 Ukrainians have died by now in the Kherson offensive without having made any significant progress. Hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles were lost. A dozen Ukrainian planes and helicopters have been shot down. All the material had come from the ‘west’ which has now emptied its stock of Soviet weapons. No more will be coming anytime soon.

The Ukraine thereby blew its chance to hold a line against any significant new moves from the Russia side. Those moves will be coming.

But what really bothers me is the human toll of this offensive.

I have never been at war. But I have had a decent full time military officer training over several years plus several month long reserve stints in active duty battalions. I have read lots of books and watched dozens of movies about frontline fighting in World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. If one reflects on those events and the details described in the depictions one gets a ‘feel’ for such conflicts. Then there is the operational math like the numbers of artillery rounds fired per square kilometer, troop density and the toll such artillery bombardments will inevitably take.

The Ukrainian soldiers never had a chance to withstand the might of the Russian military. None whatsoever. That was recognizable from the very onset of the war. That the Ukrainian government and its backers tried to withstand the onslaught was illogical.

The ‘west’ should have given up and make the concessions that Russia had demanded. It will have to make those anyway.

The Ukrainian government has tightly controlled the media and any reporting from the frontline. We have only had Russian reports of high numbers of Ukrainian casualties. Some doubt the numbers the Russians give. I don’t. They mostly fit with what I learned and with calculations.

Now a Washington Post reporter got access to hospitals where wounded Ukrainian soldiers involved in that ‘counterattack’ try to recover. John Hudson’s report is grim even as it is not from the frontline and holds back on the most grievous scenes:

Wounded Ukrainian soldiers reveal steep toll of Kherson offensive

As the piece is behind a paywall I will extensively quote from it:

In dimly lit hospital rooms in southern Ukraine, soldiers with severed limbs, shrapnel wounds, mangled hands and shattered joints recounted the lopsided disadvantages their units faced in the early days of a new offensive to expel Russian forces from the strategic city of Kherson.The soldiers said they lacked the artillery needed to dislodge Russia’s entrenched forces and described a yawning technology gap with their better-equipped adversaries. The interviews provided some of the first direct accounts of a push to retake captured territory that is so sensitive, Ukrainian military commanders have barred reporters from visiting the front lines.
…
“We lost five people for every one they did,” said Ihor, a 30-year-old platoon commander who injured his back when the tank he was riding in crashed into a ditch.
…
Russia’s Orlan drones exposed Ukrainian positions from more than a kilometer above their heads, they said, an altitude that meant they never heard the buzz of the aircraft tracking their movements.

Russian tanks emerged from newly built cement fortifications to blast infantry with large-caliber artillery, the wounded Ukrainian soldiers said. The vehicles would then shrink back beneath the concrete shelters, shielded from mortar and rocket fire.

Counter-battery radar systems automatically detected and located Ukrainians who were targeting the Russians with projectiles, unleashing a barrage of artillery fire in response.

Russian hacking tools hijacked the drones of Ukrainian operators, who saw their aircraft drift away helplessly behind enemy lines.
…
Oleksandr said the Russian artillery fire was relentless. “They were just hitting us all the time,” he said. “If we fire three mortars, they fire 20 in return.”

The Ukrainian soldiers said they had to carefully ration their use of munitions but even when they did fire, they had trouble hitting targets. “When you give the coordinates, it’s supposed to be accurate but it’s not,” he said, noting that his equipment dated back to 1989.
…
Russian electronic warfare also posed a constant threat. Soldiers described ending their shifts and turning on their phones to call or text family members — a decision that immediately drew Russian artillery fire.

“When we turn on mobile phones or radio, they can recognize our presence immediately,” said Denys. “And then the shooting starts.”
…
The Ukrainian claims of retaking villages such as Vysokopillya could not be confirmed, though soldiers interviewed said they were able to advance into some previously Russian-controlled villages. Those soldiers declined to name the villages, citing instructions from their superiors.

A group of Washington Post journalists who traveled within three miles of Vysokopillya, in northern Kherson, on Monday were prevented from entering the village by Ukrainian troops and could not ascertain its status. A local official said Ukrainian and Russian forces were still battling for control.

A clear picture of Ukraine’s losses could not be independently assessed.
…
Denys, sitting upright on his hospital bed, said almost every member of his 120-person unit was injured, though only two were killed.

A 25-year-old soldier being treated for shrapnel wounds said that, within his unit of 100 soldiers, seven were killed and 20 injured. Ihor, the platoon commander, said 16 of the 32 men under his command were injured and one was killed.

Ukraine’s injured soldiers have been spread out to different hospitals across southern Ukraine to free up the main medical facilities near the Kherson region for incoming patients.

The soldiers in the second ‘counteroffensive’ attempt southeast of Kharkiv will have a similar fate.

My best guess is that Ukrainian losses are not five but ten times those on the Russian side. An attack, through the open steppe, on an armored force that is technologically superior is a suicide mission.

Russian soldiers are not allowed to carry mobile phones. Why Ukrainian soldiers are allowed to have then and use those is beyond me. Do they want to commit suicide?

Suicide is what European politicians have committed their economies and societies to. Who knew that one needs energy, as cheap as possible, to smelter steel, aluminum and glass?

bigger

SGM World News @SGMWorldnews – 10:13 UTC · 7 Sep 2022BREAKING: 40 CEOs of European metal producers have wrote an open letter to Ursula von der Leyen and the European Commission warning of an “existential threat” to industry as power prices surge.

No steel smelter, no taxes from steel smelters and their workers. No steel smelter, no payback of credit given to it. The big banking losses coming now will cause another severe banking crisis. Less money for the state means less pensions and healthcare.

This is ruinous for European states and their inhabitants. Meanwhile the U.S. politicians, neoconservative ideologist and money men behind the whole plan of using the Ukraine against Russia are laughing their asses off.

Tuomas Malinen @mtmalinen – 8:53 UTC · Sep 7, 2022I am telling you people that the situation in #Europe is much worse than many understand.
We are essentially on the brink of another banking crisis, a collapse of our industrial base and households, and thus on the brink of the collapse of our economies.

We are also totally at the mercy of the authorities, and we have very little knowledge what they have planned.

Will they be able to stop the onset of the banking crisis, yet again? I don’t know, but I am doubtful. 🤷‍♂️🤔
…

Germany is probably in the worst situation. Chancellor Olaf Scholz reacted to the Russia military operation with hysterical moralizing that was beyond any rationality. His government depends on the Green politicians in his cabinet. These are pigheaded ideological nuts. Germany, under severe threat of blackouts, will now decommission three perfectly fine nuclear power plants and restart dirty old coal fired power plants that were supposed to be dismantled. How Green is that?

Here is the how the president of Russia is seeing it:

Europe is about to throw its achievements in building up its manufacturing capability, the quality of life of its people and socioeconomic stability into the sanctions furnace, depleting its potential, as directed by Washington for the sake of the infamous Euro-Atlantic unity. In fact, this amounts to sacrifices in the name of preserving the dominance of the United States in global affairs.
…
The competitive ability of European companies is in decline, for the EU officials themselves are essentially cutting them off from affordable commodities and energy, as well as trade markets. It will come as no surprise if eventually the niches currently occupied by European businesses, both on the continent and on the global market in general, will be taken over by their American patrons who know no boundaries or hesitation when it comes to pursuing their interests and achieving their goals.

The next federal elections in Germany are three years away. One really hopes for some kind of coup but I see little movement yet in such a direction.

Where are the rational politicians who can take over?

By Brent M. Eastwood

via https://www.19fortyfive.com

The image above is of a Yasen-class Russian Submarine.

[ . . . ]

The Russian navy lacks dependable aircraft carriers. It makes up for this grave disadvantage with a diverse and robust submarine force. Now the Russians have a sub that might soon launch nuclear-tipped torpedoes while equipping the most modern missiles available to a submarine.

The nuclear-powered K-329 Belgorod is an Oscar II-class guided-missile fast attack boat. The submarine was introduced into full-time service with the Russian fleet at a

public event at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk on July 8.

Carrying Nuclear Doom

Russia planned the Belgorod to feast on American and NATO shipping – especially aircraft carriers. The new submarine is assigned to the innocuous sounding Main Directorate of Deep Sea Research, and the Russian navy said it will conduct underwater scientific experiments.

Don’t let that fool you. This boat is highly dangerous. The weapon American naval strategists fear most is the planned Poseidon nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered torpedo, which functions as an underwater combat drone with seemingly unlimited range. There are plans for six Poseidons to be onboard the Belgorod.

Russian television news programs, generally recognized as wretched hives of blustery propaganda, claim the Poseidon could “wipe Britain off the map … in a radioactive tsunami.” The doomsday weapon is 80 feet long and can speed along at 108 knots, while reaching as deep as 3,200 feet. The autonomous underwater drone could create up to a two-megaton blast.

Thankfully, the Poseidon is still a few years away from deployment. But it could indeed be capable of destroying coastal cities in Britain, the United States, or other NATO member-states. There is nothing in adversaries’ arsenals that could stop such a nuclear torpedo. Maritime Executive magazine said a nuclear device detonated by the torpedo would be devastating: “The real objective would be to coat wide swathes of the surrounding coastline with radioactive fallout – an enduring and difficult-to-remediate hazard of underwater nuclear detonations. The submersible delivery method would circumvent (American) missile-defense capabilities.”

Quarterback for Smaller Subs

The Belgorod has another intriguing and worrying feature. The sub can serve as a quarterback of sorts for a small, nuclear-powered spy submarine that would allow the craft’s sailors to work on or even sabotage undersea Internet cables, as well as other objects on the seafloor. Other sources indicate that the sub can be used as a “carrier” for autonomous underwater vehicles, a big deal if accurate.

However, this program might be on hold due to a past tragedy – the Russians have tried the mini-sub concept before. The Losharik (A-12) was “a deep diving manned submersible that suffered a battery explosion in 2019 that killed 14 Russian submariners,” according to USNI News.

The Belgorod is the biggest submarine the Russians have built in 30 years. It is 549 feet long and 49 feet across, has two nuclear reactors, and displaces 24,000 tons. It has been undergoing sea trials since 2019.

What Should We Believe?

All of this news is difficult to parse. I believe the submarine is ready to embark on patrols. The nuclear torpedo sounds optimistic, but U.S. Navy leadership has testified on Capitol Hill that it could be a reality someday. Adm. John Aquilino, the commander of Indo-Pacific Command, disclosed in House testimony in May that the Belgorod would be equipped with the Poseidon. Until it is ready, the nuclear-equipped drone serves as useful propaganda.

As for the midget sub destroying undersea Internet cables – that seems far-fetched. This is another shiny object for hawks in Russia to squawk about on television newscasts. I grade the whole package a seven out of ten, because it rests on unproven technology. As we get more information on the development of the Poseidon, that grade might rise. Let’s hope U.S. Navy intelligence keeps a close eye on that nuclear-tipped and nuclear-powered doomsday torpedo.