By Marc Bennetts, The Times (UK), 11/29/24

In the early days of Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine, with the Kremlin’s forces on the outskirts of Kyiv, President Zelensky delivered a defiant message.

“We are all here,” Zelensky said from outside the presidential office, as his closest political allies stood behind him. “We are all here defending our independence and our state.”

His words boosted the morale of his besieged nation and sent his popularity soaring, both at home and abroad. On visits to the West to rally support for Ukraine, the former comedian was greeted with standing ovations by parliaments in Europe and the US Congress.

Yet almost three years on, with Ukraine’s frontline defences in danger of crumbling, Zelensky’s popularity is fading and very few Ukrainians envision him as their next president.

A potential rival

Just 16 per cent would vote to re-elect him for a second term, according to an opinion poll of 1,200 Ukrainians published this week by the Social Monitoring Centre in Kyiv. The poll, the most comprehensive study of electoral preferences since the invasion began in 2022, also found that about 60 per cent would prefer Zelensky not to even stand for re-election.

“It’s very difficult to be a popular president when you have had a full-scale war for three years,” Oleksandra Ustinova, a Ukrainian MP, said. “People are tired and almost everyone has someone who they have lost. That’s a huge challenge for Zelensky.”

Top of the poll, ahead of Zelensky, with 27 per cent was Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces who has served as the ambassador to Britain since July.

Zaluzhny, who was dismissed by Zelensky in February after a rumoured disagreement over the handling of the war, is also Ukraine’s most trusted figure, the poll showed. Although he has yet to openly declare any political ambitions, his appointment to a diplomatic post in London was seen by many analysts as an attempt by Zelensky to sideline him.

It remains unclear when Ukrainians will be able to choose their next president. Zelensky’s term of office ended in May but new elections have been suspended indefinitely under martial law that was introduced at the start of the Russian invasion in 2022. The vast majority of Ukrainians support the move, citing the dangers and logistical problems of staging a nationwide vote during wartime.

That has not stopped talk in Kyiv that the policy could be reversed next year, although no one knows quite how or when a vote would take place. A significant factor driving the rumours is the need to counter Russia’s narrative that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader.

While the Ukrainian presidential office would ordinarily pay little attention to Kremlin propaganda, the issue has taken on a new importance before Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

“The Ukrainians have been planning for the possibility of Trump coming back for a while,” said Andrew Wilson, professor in Ukrainian studies at University College London and the author of several books about the country. “Russian propaganda about Zelensky’s illegitimacy is getting some traction in Republican circles and that’s one big reason why a new election is being talked about.”

Although Zelensky said before his landslide victory in 2019 that he would not run for a second term, he has since stated that he would take part in elections, if they are held in wartime.

“A lot of the talk about early elections is predicated on the assumption that it’s best to hold them before Zelensky’s popularity slides further,” Wilson said. “The presidential office is perfectly capable of cutting rivals down to size.”

The American dilemma

Keith Kellogg, a retired US general who is Trump’s pick for his Ukraine envoy, indicated that Washington could cut arms supplies to Kyiv if Zelensky refused to enter ceasefire negotiations with Moscow. President Putin has said that Russia would only halt its attacks if Ukraine agreed to surrender territory and renounce its ambitions to join Nato, which Kyiv has described as equivalent to capitulation.

“I don’t believe Zelensky’s support is so low that he lacks a societal mandate on issues of war and peace,” said Illia Ponomarenko, a Ukrainian journalist and the author of I Will Show You How It Was: The Story of Wartime Kyiv. “The problem lies beyond that. Three years of a gruelling war have undeniably created a demand to escape its horrors, even at a very steep price, such as territorial concessions.

“However, Donald Trump’s populist promise to stop the war within 24 hours may potentially lead to scenarios that align with the Kremlin’s demands — scenarios that would be inherently unacceptable and rejected even by a war-weary society.”

Zelensky’s critics have accused him of failing to react quickly and efficiently enough to wartime challenges, while also surrounding himself with people from Kvartal 95, the comedy studio that he co-founded more than 20 years ago. Corruption scandals in the armed forces have also tarnished his image, although there is no evidence that he himself has been guilty of any illicit dealings.

Enlistment

There is also a danger that Zelensky’s popularity could plummet even further if he goes ahead with Washington’s suggestion that Ukraine should begin sending younger men to the front. A senior official in President Biden’s administration said this week that Ukraine should lower the minimum age at which men could be mobilised for the war from 25 to 18.

“The simple truth is that Ukraine is not mobilising or training enough soldiers to replace their battlefield losses while keeping pace with Russia’s growing military,” the unnamed official said.

Ukraine’s parliament would need to first vote for the change in mobilisation, after which Zelensky would be required to approve it. MPs ruled last year to lower the minimum age from 27 to 25 but the decision was so sensitive that Zelensky waited almost a year before giving his approval.

Ustinova, who leads the Ukrainian parliamentary commission on arms and munitions, said she often had conversations in Washington about the issue. However, she argued that Ukraine’s demographic problems meant the move would spell disaster for the future of the country. “This would also be a clear signal for people to get their children out [of Ukraine] before they turn 18,” she said.

Disenchantment

It was perhaps inevitable that Zelensky’s leadership would lose its shine. No Ukrainian president apart from Leonid Kuchma, whose 1999 re-election was marred by suspicions of vote fraud, has secured a second term since the country gained independence from the Soviet Union.

“Maintaining popularity in this country is incredibly challenging, particularly during a difficult war,” Ponomarenko said. “It is a pattern we’ve seen before. We elect a new ‘saviour of the nation’ as president with sky-high approval ratings, quickly grow disillusioned and, in the best case, ensure their landslide defeat in the next election.”

Despite growing dissatisfaction with Zelensky and uncertainty over the future of the war, the country’s youngest president is likely to go down in history as the man who stood up to Putin and inspired Ukraine to resist.

“[He] found the strength not to break, succumb to cowardice, or temptation and instead rallied the nation in its darkest hour,” Ponomarenko said. “I sincerely hope Zelensky has the wisdom and self-control to retire with historic honour once circumstances allow for elections.”

By Kit Klarenberg, Substack, 11/24/24

All my investigations are free to access, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you took value from this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added: 

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more, The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military…on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/oYN9WB5x8yM?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”. 

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

YouTube link here.

By SAMYA KULLAB and VOLODYMYR YURCHUK, AP, 11/29/24

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Desertion is starving the Ukrainian army of desperately needed manpower and crippling its battle plans at a crucial time in its war with Russia, which could put Kyiv at a clear disadvantage in future ceasefire talks.

Facing every imaginable shortage, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired and bereft, have walked away from combat and front-line positions to slide into anonymity, according to soldiers, lawyers and Ukrainian officials. Entire units have abandoned their posts, leaving defensive lines vulnerable and accelerating territorial losses, according to military commanders and soldiers.

Some take medical leave and never return, haunted by the traumas of war and demoralized by bleak prospects for victory. Others clash with commanders and refuse to carry out orders, sometimes in the middle of firefights.

“This problem is critical,” said Oleksandr Kovalenko, a Kyiv-based military analyst. “This is the third year of war, and this problem will only grow.”

Although Moscow has also been dealing with desertions, Ukrainians going AWOL have laid bare deeply rooted problems bedeviling their military and how Kyiv is managing the war, from the flawed mobilization drive to the overstretching and hollowing out of front-line units. It comes as the U.S. urges Ukraine to draft more troops, and allow for the conscription of those as young as 18.

The Associated Press spoke to two deserters, three lawyers, and a dozen Ukrainian officials and military commanders. Officials and commanders spoke on condition of anonymity to divulge classified information, while one deserter did so because he feared prosecution.

“It is clear that now, frankly speaking, we have already squeezed the maximum out of our people,” said an officer with the 72nd Brigade, who noted that desertion was one of the main reasons Ukraine lost the town of Vuhledar in October.

The troops who walk away

More than 100,000 soldiers have been charged under Ukraine’s desertion laws since Russia invaded in February 2022, according to the country’s General Prosecutor’s Office.

Nearly half have gone AWOL in the last year alone, after Kyiv launched an aggressive and controversial mobilization drive that government officials and military commanders concede has largely failed.

It’s a staggeringly high number by any measure, as there were an estimated 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers engaged in combat before the mobilization drive began. And the actual number of deserters may be much higher. One lawmaker with knowledge of military matters estimated it could be as high as 200,000.

Many deserters don’t return after being granted medical leave. Bone-tired by the constancy of war, they are psychologically and emotionally scarred. They feel guilt about being unable to summon the will to fight, anger over how the war effort is being led, and frustration that it seems unwinnable.

“Being quiet about a huge problem only harms our country,” said Serhii Hnezdilov, one of few soldiers to speak publicly about his choice to desert. He was charged shortly after the AP interviewed him in September.

Another deserter said he initially left his infantry unit with permission because he needed surgery. By the time his leave was up, he couldn’t bring himself to return.

He still has nightmares about the comrades he saw get killed.

“The best way to explain it is imagining you are sitting under incoming fire and from their (Russian) side, it’s 50 shells coming toward you, while from our side, it’s just one. Then you see how your friends are getting torn to pieces, and you realize that any second, it can happen to you,” he said.

“Meanwhile guys (Ukrainian soldiers) 10 kilometers (6 miles) away order you on the radio: ‘Go on, brace yourselves. Everything will be fine,’” he said.

Hnezdilov also left to seek medical help. Before undergoing surgery, he announced he was deserting. He said after five years of military service, he saw no hope of ever being demobilized, despite earlier promises by the country’s leadership.

“If there’s no end term (to military service), it turns into a prison – it becomes psychologically hard to find reasons to defend this country,” Hnezdilov said.

A growing problem for Kyiv

Desertion has turned battle plans into sand that slips through military commanders’ fingertips.

The AP learned of cases in which defensive lines were severely compromised because entire units defied orders and abandoned their positions.

“Because of a lack of political will and poor management of troops, especially in the infantry, we certainly are not moving in a direction to properly defend the territories that we control now,” Hnezdilov said.

Ukraine’s military recorded a deficit of 4,000 troops on the front in September owing largely to deaths, injuries and desertions, according to a lawmaker. Most deserters were among recent recruits.

The head of one brigade’s legal service who is in charge of processing desertion cases and forwarding them to law enforcement said he’s had many of them.

“The main thing is that they leave combat positions during hostilities and their comrades die because of it. We had several situations when units fled, small or large. They exposed their flanks, and the enemy came to these flanks and killed their brothers in arms, because those who stood on the positions did not know that there was no one else around,” the official said.

That is how Vuhledar, a hilltop town that Ukraine defended for two years, was lost in a matter of weeks in October, said the 72nd Brigade officer, who was among the very last to withdraw.

The 72nd was already stretched thin in the weeks before Vuhledar fell. Only one line battalion and two rifle battalions held the town near the end, and military leaders even began pulling units from them to support the flanks, the officer said. There should have been 120 men in each of the battalion’s companies, but some companies’ ranks dropped to only 10 due to deaths, injuries and desertions, he said. About 20% of the soldiers missing from those companies had gone AWOL.

“The percentage has grown exponentially every month,” he added.

Reinforcements were sent once Russia wised up to Ukraine’s weakened position and attacked. But then the reinforcements also left, the officer said. Because of this, when one of the 72nd Brigade battalions withdrew, its members were gunned down because they didn’t know no one was covering them, he said.

Still, the officer harbors no ill will toward deserters.

“At this stage, I do not condemn any of the soldiers from my battalion and others. … Because everyone is just really tired,” he said.

Charging deserters

Prosecutors and the military would rather not press charges against AWOL soldiers and do so only if they fail to persuade them to return, according to three military officers and a spokesperson for Ukraine’s State Investigative Bureau. Some deserters return, only to leave again.

Ukraine’s General Staff said soldiers are given psychological support, but it didn’t respond to emailed questions about the toll desertions are having on the battlefield.

Once soldiers are charged, defending them is tricky, said two lawyers who take such cases. They focus on their clients’ psychological state when they left.

“People cannot psychologically cope with the situation they are in, and they are not provided with psychological help,” said attorney Tetyana Ivanova.

Soldiers acquitted of desertion due to psychological reasons set a dangerous precedent because “then almost everyone is justified (to leave), because there are almost no healthy people left (in the infantry),” she said.

Soldiers considering deserting have sought her advice. Several were being sent to fight near Vuhledar.

“They would not have taken the territory, they would not have conquered anything, but no one would have returned,” she said.

YouTube link here.

Relevant discussion starts at around the 1 hour and 5 minute mark. Video should start there.