By Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Substack, 8/14/22

Yes, it would be simpler and less messy all around if we just transferred the money directly from our bank accounts to Raytheon, Lockheed and the rest of them.

From New Atlas, today Brian Berletic:

Even according to a pro-Ukrainian map, there is no evidence of much change on the round, no evidence of any kind of Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south while in the east the Russians continue to make incremental advances (as we have seen consistently in reports from Mercouris).

A Pentagon briefing of August 8 talks of another draw-down package, the 18th, this one worth $1 billion. This is the value of equipment they take out of army stocks, send to Ukraine, and then immediately replace – providing huge windfall profits for arms manufacturers.

This 18th package includes additional ammunition for the HIMARS, but they don’t say how many of these there still are, nor how much ammunition they are sending (suggesting it isn’t very much). They are not sending any more HIMARS launchers, so the total currently provided remains 16. About half of those have been destroyed by Russia. They are sending 75,000 artillery rounds including, probably, for the M777s: this is just two days’ worth at the rate that Russia fires. Munitions for air defense systems are sometimes sent ahead of launchers so just sending stuff doesn’t mean it is usable when it arrives. The US is not sending the best possible but only the ones they can easily (repair/replace – meaning not clear0. These include 1000 javelin missiles, A24 missiles, medical treatment vehicles and other medical supplies.

There is little to no evidence these systems are stopping Russia.

An interesting Fort Benning paper, cited by Berletic, talks about highly trained professional US soldiers having trouble with some of these advanced weapons like the Javelin. Apart from failures to hit intended targets, the data showed that of 27 engagements observed only 19% were effective – even without considering the amount of damage they inflicted. Effectiveness is generally low, sometimes because even trained soldiers miscalculate: e.g. some of these missiles need to travel a certain distance before they become active, so as to protect the positions of those who are detonating. Therefore (even trained) soldiers often don’t understand the specifics of the weapons. The problems with untrained soldiers, who don’t know how to operate them, even how to turn them on in some cases, and who sometimes dependent on the manufacturer instructions they are reading on the internet for the first time. In the US, troops need practice, and they have to practice out in the field. This is something that it utterly impossible for Ukraine to organize. If the effectiveness rate is 19% in the case of well-trained US soldiers, then clearly the rate is going to be much worse for Ukraine. And sometimes different weapons are needed for different ranges suggesting the need for diversity of provision and flexibility of skill in using them.

In such circumstances, the USA sending, say, 1000 javelin missiles is not a matter of helping Ukraine, it is an exercise in arms profiteering. $9.8 billion worth so far. As Ukraine loses the battle, they need different weapons. Now the laughable claim is that the Ukrainians are waiting upon a weapons delivery that will allow them to enact their counteroffensive in Kherson. Their soldiers are in trenches, nowhere to hide, their “advance” stalled, and the villages that they are supposed to have recaptured never named. Soldiers and advisors talking about the Kherson offensive are cited anonymously in western newspapers. There is simply no evidence that Ukraine has the ability for such an offensive. It admits losing 100 to 200 soldiers a day, while the Pentagon continues to waffle on about troop morale and more than “40 million Ukrainians” fighting for the existential survival of their country.

The Pentagon claims the Russians have suffered 80,000 casualties and that the Russian military has been doing badly. They are certaintly not suffering casualties at the rate of Ukraine. Since their main mode of battle is long range artillery it is not clear how they could be losing troops at the rate claimed by the Pentagon. The reality is that their losses are far lower (as other western claims have already indicated, perhaps as low as 5,000). The Russian military is not running out of anything, while Ukrainians are running out of everything. The Pentagon claims Russia has lost 3,000 to 4,000 armored vehicles, presumably as a result of Ukrainian missile systems. But since Ukrainians cannot possibly fire these systems effectively, as we have just discussed, then this number of losses of Russian vehicles is simply unbelievable. Simple propaganda. It totally contradicts the reality that Russia continues to advance, and Ukraine continues to lose.

The Pentagon narrative also ignores the efforts by Russia to restore to relative normality the areas they are taking over, often liberating them from the Azov-style battalions of the Ukrainian armed forces that were sent to suppress pro-Russian populations in places like Kherson and Kharkiv after the US-backed coup d’etat in 2014, sometimes torturing and killing those who resisted. Russians will of course suppress terrorists or saboteurs in the territories they have recovered for the people’s republics.

Berletic references various other Pentagon lies including the claim that Russia tried to capture Kiev in February (it was much more likely to have been a shock tactic and a diversion, successfully encouraging Ukraine to deploy its forces over a wider area instead of being concentrated in the Donbass). In the meantime, so much weaponry has been sent to Ukraine, that many of NATO armies are now lacking in their own weaponry as they await replacements. They are relatively unprotected, therefore. Quite an extraordinary outcome.

The Pentagon briefing references the Pelosi visit to Taiwan which was a complete violation of the One China Policy and international law. Pentagon presumptions of impunity are an expression of faith in US exceptionalism.

The Pentagon indulges its usual claims about the “wonder weapon”, the HIMARS (actually just an unarmored truck with launchers at the back, not difficult to locate and destroy). The precision-guided 200 pound warheads they carry, the Pentagon claims, are so impactful that they have slowed Russia down. So if is such a great weapon, why then has the US sent only 16 (not even a full battery, some of which, possibly 8, have already been destroyed by Russia, despite Pentagon denials to the contrary), and only about 100 missiles? (The Brits have sent one or two comparable systems, and Germany has promised a few which have not yet arrived).

These quantities are ridiculously insufficient in contrast to what is available to Russia. Russia has comparable and even better multiple rocket launch systems in the use of which their troops are better trained, in addition to having proper aviation support, cruise missiles, Iskanders etc.

If Ukraine is depending on HIMARS, it is bound to lose. The fact that the HIMARS are being sent at all is a result of the fact that Russia destroyed Ukraine’s heavy weapons systems earlier on in the conflict. Ukraine also had an air-force at the beginning of the conflict, but Russia destroyed it. Why isnt the USA providing it F16s? Well, it takes time to train pilots – one to two years. And if the USA starts sending F16s to Ukraine and Russia shoots them down, then we get photos of F16 smoldering on the ground, which might provide the right PR optics for Lockheed. A similar logic may be at work behind reluctance to send more HIMARS to Ukraine. Better for Lockheed to have other countries (like the Czech Republic) send their existing fighter planes and armory and then after these have been destroyed, Lockheed can begin replacing them, knowing it will take a year or so for fighter pilots to be properly trained.

The situation vis-a-vis Ukraine is very similar to that which pertained in the US occupation of Afghanistan – a constant process of buying of time, even as the Taliban reconquered the country, while everyone (the MICIMATT) makes a fortune (except for most Afghans, of course and most Americans) pretending to fight a real war.

On other issues, Berletic refers to western media reports of the recent explosion in Crimea, asserting that it was a Ukrainian attack, when even Kiev denies responsibility. Western media keep claiming that Russia is firing at itself (!!) at the Zaporizhizhia nuclear power plant, when it is clear that it must be Ukraine that is shelling the power plant that is held by Russia, a measure of Ukrainian desperation. As for claims that Ukraine has destroyed the road and rail bridges to Kherson, not only is the truth of this not fully established, but why would it matter given that Russia has other options. More importantly, how would the taking out of bridges help Ukraine launch an offensive to retake Kherson?! Western media narratives are becoming more disjointed, contradictory and desperate (on behalf of Ukraine and NATO).

Should Ukraine simply sign over sovereignty to Russia? Well, Ukraine already signed over sovereignty, but to the USA, in 2014. The current war serves Washington interests, not Ukrainian.