By Tony Kevin, Consortium News, 11/7/23

Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat, having served as ambassador to Cambodia and Poland, as well as being posted to Australia’s embassy in Moscow. He is the author of six published books on public policy and international relations.

There’s been talk in Western media the past week of an alleged “stalemate’” on the Ukrainian battlefront leading to one report quoting U.S. officials saying it’s time for Ukraine to accept it has lost and negotiate with Russia.

Another Western report says a “delusional” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is the lone hold out, however, and is refusing to accept defeat.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of stalemate — either in chess, politics or war — does not apply to Ukraine: “A situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible.”

As Scott Ritter excellently summed up in Consortium News recently: 

“The war in Ukraine is not by this definition in stalemate. The war has definitely gone Russia’s way militarily and politically since September 2022, by every relevant measure.”

Russia has military supremacy over Kiev in terms of men, equipment, manpower reserves, leadership, national morale and capacity to mobilize arms. It is Russia’s choice now whether to launch an autumn offensive, to wait for a winter offensive, or simply to wait for morale to collapse in Kiev in order to generate Moscow’s desired political changes there. In short, Putin now controls the pace of the game.

In hotspots Avdiivka and Kupiansk along the front lines, Russia has shaped the battlefield into “semi-cauldrons” by means of which, as Ritter notes:

“The Russian goal is to put the Ukrainian command in a dilemma, where abandoning Avdiivka could lead to the collapse of morale among the Ukrainian defenders, and staying could lead to a massive loss of life due to the difficulties associated with reinforcing the garrison.”

Saint Michael Church in Avdiivka in the Donetsk region on April 1, 2023, during the battle for the city. (National Police of Ukraine, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)

Valery Zaluzhny, commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,  made this assessment to The Economist magazine a week ago:

“General Zaluzhny’s assessment is sobering: there is no sign that a technological breakthrough, whether in drones or in electronic warfare, is around the corner. And technology has its limits. Even in the first world war, the arrival of tanks in 1917 was not sufficient to break the deadlock on the battlefield. It took a suite of technologies, and more than a decade of tactical innovation, to produce the German blitzkrieg in May 1940. The implication is that Ukraine is stuck in a long war—one in which he acknowledges Russia has the advantage. Nevertheless, he insists that Ukraine has no choice but to keep the initiative by remaining on the offensive, even if it only moves by a few metres a day.” 

Zaluzhny is trying sensibly to preserve his inexperienced and unfit remaining forces but is under political pressure from Zelensky and NATO not to cede any territory. On Monday Zaluzhny’s close adviser, Major Gennadiy Chastiakov, was assassinated by a booby-trapped birthday gift.  

The Ukrainian military have no options left: Russia has plenty. This is a situation where two obviously unequal combatants are waiting for an end, waiting for a military or political resolution to this war.  

In the meantime on the battlefield, it is no accident that Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk city from nearby Avdiivka, which has gone on for years, has virtually ceased. Ukrainian supplies to Avdiivka have been choked off by the semi- cauldron there.

Why is Putin Waiting?

Putin on June 16, during the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. (Ramil Sitdikov, RIA Novosti Host Photo Agency, Kremlin)

Primarily for Zelensky’s removal and to see what follows in Kiev. He continues to attach importance to trying to minimise further damage and manpower losses suffered by Ukraine, still part, as he sees it, of the Russian world.

A Telegram blog called UKR LEAKS_eng, by Ukrainian special services’ former officer Vasily Prozorov, offers a wealth of daily detail on how politics in Kiev is entering a quite fluid state, as morale on the front collapses and as Washington prepares a possible case to throw Zelensky to the wolves.

U.S. President Joe Biden walks through the Center Hall at the White House with Zelensky on Sept. 21. (White House, Adam Schultz)

The situation in Kiev would seem to require a scapegoat and a degree of regime change. But will a successor negotiate a realistic peace with Russia or will he try to prosecute the war in a new way? He will have no new military options, resources are exhausted and morale gone.

The Western wonder-weapon cupboard is bare. Terrorism options, e.g., another attack on the Kerch Bridge or a high level political assassination attempt in Russia, are always possible but less likely now. Surely the more sensible people in Kiev e.g. Zelensky’s former media adviser Oleksiy Arestovych are already putting out discreet peace feelers to Moscow.

There is talk that Biden would prefer to maintain the status quo till the U.S. presidential election a year from now. However, only a starry -eyed optimist could expect this shaky political and military situation to be standing in 12 months’ time. Something has got to give.  

The NBC and TIME Reports 

According to U.S. officials quoted by NBC News, the U.S. has begun broaching the subject of Ukraine accepting it will lose territory to Russia and that it should seriously consider entering into peace talks with Moscow. The report says:

“The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the U.S. and Europe, officials said.

They began amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that the war has reached a stalemate and about the ability to continue providing aid to Ukraine, officials said. Biden administration officials also are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces, while Russia has a seemingly endless supply, officials said. Ukraine is also struggling with recruiting and has recently seen public protests about some of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s open-ended conscription requirements.

And there is unease in the U.S. government with how much less public attention the war in Ukraine has garnered since the Israel-Hamas war began nearly a month ago, the officials said. Officials fear that shift could make securing additional aid for Kyiv more difficult.  …

Officials also have privately said Ukraine likely only has until the end of the year or shortly thereafter before more urgent discussions about peace negotiations should begin. U.S. officials have shared their views on such a timeline with European allies, officials said.”

But is Russia interested in negotiations at this time, given the battlefield advantage it enjoys? NBC says:

“The Biden administration does not have any indication that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to negotiate with Ukraine, two U.S. officials said. Western officials say Putin still believes he can ‘wait out the West,’ or keep fighting until the U.S. and its allies lose domestic support for funding Ukraine or the struggle to supply Kyiv with weapons and ammunition becomes too costly, officials said. “

According to TIME Magazine, such suggestions of being ready to enter peace talks are being resisted in Ukraine’s leadership only by Zelensky himself.  

“Zelensky feels betrayed by his Western allies. They have left him without the means to win the war, only the means to survive it.

Zelensky’s stubbornness, some of his aides say, has hurt their team’s efforts to come up with a new strategy, a new message. As they have debated the future of the war, one issue has remained taboo: the possibility of negotiating a peace deal with the Russians. Judging by recent surveys, most Ukrainians would reject such a move, especially if it entailed the loss of any occupied territory.”

No Longer As Long As It Takes

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addresses the International Summit of Communities and Regions alongside Zelensky, April 20, 2023. (NATO, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Surely expanding the war is no longer a NATO option despite all the previous rhetoric about “as long as it takes.” In their own different ways, more and more EU governments and populations are registering their exhaustion and disenchantment with this lost war.

Those at the helm of the EU and NATO, Ursula von der Leyen, Josef Borrell and Jens Stoltenberg are damaged goods now. Viktor Orban in Hungary has increasing weight and prestige, and Slovakia has a new anti-war government. Poland, Scandinavian countries and the Baltics have fallen silent.

The other big reason Putin may want to wait is the dangerous instability in the Middle East. Strange as it may seem, I suspect Putin may be concerned to not dangerously overburden the weak and erratic decision-makers in Washington.

He may want to give Biden and his advisers some political space to try to rein in Israeli’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and get the Gaza humanitarian crisis, now in tragic free fall, under some sort of U.S. control. As pretty much the only adults in the room now, the Russians and Chinese need to handle Biden with consideration and care.

The so-called stalemate in Ukraine therefore is an illusion. It thus suits both Russian and Chinese statecraft to let Ukraine drift for a while.

Putin’s stature in the Global South meanwhile continues to grow. He put out a Nov. 4 statement from the Russian National Security Council, which firmly bells the cat of Washington’s arrogant and reckless global destabilisation, despite its weakening geo-strategic position.

These extracts give the flavour :

• “Various means and instruments, including lies, provocations, sophisticated technologies of psychological and information aggression, are being used against Russia in order to destabilise and polarise our multi-national and multi-faith society.
• The U.S. is losing its grip as a superpower, losing momentum, the world with just one hegemon is collapsing. But the Unites States is not ready to accept this fact; on the contrary, it seeks to extend its dominance, its global dictatorship. By causing chaos, they want to contain and destabilise their opponents.
• The ruling elites of the U.S. and their satellites are sending weapons and money to the conflict zones, including Ukraine and the Middle East. Failing to achieve results on the battlefield, they seek to split us, split Russia from the inside, to weaken our country and spread discord.
• The stronger Russia is, the more consolidated our society is, the more effective our efforts to defend our own national interest and the interests of the peoples who fell victim to Western neo-colonialism.”

Those who wish for a realistic and lasting peace in Ukraine may need to be patient a little longer.

Joe Lauria contributed to this report.

RT.com, 10/16/23

A new opinion poll has shown that almost six in ten Russians are critical of their compatriots who moved to other countries following the start of hostilities with Ukraine in February 2022.

The attitude was revealed last week by the Russian pollster Platforma as part of its survey on how citizens behave amid the escalation of tensions with its neighbor and Western nations. Researchers conducted an online survey in August and held panel discussions with three focus groups representing different age brackets.

In the online poll, people were asked whether they approved or condemned the decisions of the emigres. A full-hearted or partial condemnation was expressed by 31% and 27%, respectively, of the online poll and study groups. Approval came from just 10%, who were the most uncertain in this attitude, while 28% said their position was neutral.

Younger people and those living in large cities tended to be less critical of the so-called ‘relocants,’ but even in Moscow and St. Petersburg, almost half of those polled disfavored such a move.

The pollster noted that people tended to be less certain in their criticisms in the in-person focus groups. In many cases, the position of the ‘partially negative’ group was nearly indistinguishable from neutral. The report described it as “indifferent alienation.”

When asked what they believed motivated people to leave the country, participants of focus groups, more often than not, envisioned concerns for personal safety and well-being rather than a wish to make a political statement. According to the pollster, Russians generally don’t view the emigres as traitors.

“When you hear that someone fled the country, the instinct is to say: ‘What a coward.’ When it is your friend, a good hardworking person, who just couldn’t fight [in the conflict], I believe he did well to save his life,” one woman said during a panel discussion.

Another focus group member suggested that the Russian government had acted “too aggressively” with the partial military mobilization conducted in September last year to beef up the military amid the Ukraine conflict.

Following the announcement, some Russian citizens fled the country for neighboring states such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Armenia, none requiring a visa for visiting Russians.

According to senior officials, the government has since launched a massive recruitment campaign, with volunteers more than sufficient for the Defense Ministry’s current needs. Earlier in October, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said there are no plans for an additional mobilization as the military has enough troops to carry out its operation in Ukraine, thanks to a large number of volunteers. He said the overall number of those who joined the Russian Armed Forces or other voluntary units on their own accord since the start of the year exceeded 335,000 people.

RT, 11/4/23

Ukraine’s commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny should have kept his thoughts about the “stalemate” in the conflict with Russia to himself, Igor Zhovkva, the deputy head of President Vladimir Zelensky’s office, has said. He also lamented that Zaluzhny’s comments have rattled some of Kiev’s backers in the West.

Speaking on national TV on Friday, Zhovkva expressed his displeasure with Zaluzhny’s interview with The Economist published earlier this week. Speaking to the British magazine, the top commander, who has been in charge of the country’s military since 2021, compared the Ukraine conflict with World War I and suggested that both sides had reached a level of technological prowess that makes “a deep and beautiful breakthrough” very unlikely.

The general also pointed out that “the biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state.”

Zhovkva argued that “the last thing I would do is comment for the press… about what is happening at the front [and] what could happen at the front,” adding that this kind of revelation plays right into Russia’s hands.

The official also pointed out that Zaluzhny’s comments did not go unnoticed in the West. “I received a call from one of the heads of the offices of the leaders [of partner countries], and they asked in a panic: ‘What should I report to my leader? Are you really at a dead end?’ Is this what we wanted to achieve with this article?” he asked.

The criticism of Zaluzhny came as Ukraine’s large-scale counteroffensive that has been underway since early summer has failed to gain any substantial ground. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has estimated Ukraine’s losses at more than 90,000 soldiers while claiming that Kiev’s troops are suffering from low morale.

Meanwhile, Time magazine reported last month that some Ukrainian officials believe that Zelensky has become “delusional” in his desire to defeat Russia at all costs. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that,” one aide told the magazine. It also reported that the Ukrainian leader was looking for scapegoats after the counteroffensive failed to achieve the desired results.

The article sparked outrage in Kiev, with National Security Council chief Aleksey Danilov suggesting that those in the Ukrainian government who have any doubts about the country’s ultimate victory should be sacked.

By Anatol Lieven, Responsible Statecraft, 10/17/23

The existing trajectory of U.S. policy risks sacrificing Western Europe for the sake of Ukraine, and U.S. policymakers need to wake up to this risk.

If this were to happen, it would be one of the worst bargains in the entire history of U.S. strategy. Western and Central Europe, and not Ukraine, are and have been for more than a century the area of truly vital U.S. interests on the European continent. Moreover, the crippling of Western Europe and the European Union would destroy Ukraine’s own real chances of future democratic prosperity and stability; for these depend chiefly on links to the E.U., not the United States.

All the evidence at present suggests that the Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed, with only very small gains and enormous losses. Nor is there any evidence-based reason to hope for greater Ukrainian success next year, given the balance of military and economic forces between Ukraine and Russia.

Faced with this reality, there is increasing official and unofficial talk of arming and supporting Ukraine for an indefinite struggle (though of course this cannot in fact be guaranteed given the opposition of one faction of the Republican Party). An analogy has been made to the case of Israel, which developed as a prosperous and secure quasi-democracy while remaining in a state of frozen conflict and unresolved territorial disputes with its neighbors.

Quite apart from the dreadful events of recent days, there are many reasons why this idea is profoundly foolish. They include the fact that if Syria were Russia, Israel would not be Israel. In other words, if Israel had bordered not on a shambolic and impoverished country with a fraction of its GDP and technological capacity, but a nuclear armed power with fourteen times its GDP, Israel would most certainly not have developed as a successful and prosperous democracy. There is no way that the U.S. can secure Ukraine permanently in an open-ended war with Russia.

Perhaps most important of all however is the way in which this vision totally ignores the effects on Europe, and U.S. interests in Europe. This would not matter much if European countries were economically successful and politically stable, but this is rapidly ceasing to be the case.

In the old heartland of the EU, liberal democratic politics are crumbling. Italy is ruled by a radical conservative government. Opinion polls in France suggest that if elections were held today, Marine Le Pen would win by a wide margin. In Sweden — almost unbelievably for someone who lived through the long dull summer of Abbaesque Swedish social democracy — the army is being called on for help in combating violence by immigrant drug gangs, and the radical nationalist Sweden Democrats are the second largest party.

Above all, there is Germany, without which no stable and successful European Union is possible. As German historian Tarik Cyrul Amar has written:

“Germany’s perfect adherence to Western policy on Russia and China has an ominous price…We have assumed that the first country to buckle under the economic strain of the war over Ukraine would be Russia. But what if it is Germany that stumbles first? Germans stressed about their economy, distrusting their elites as favoring foreign interests, and disenchanted with centrist values and methods— a picture too familiar for comfort.”

The state elections in Bavaria and Hesse this month showed a surge in support for the right-wing nationalist Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) and Freie Waehler (Free Voter) parties. According to opinion polls, AfD now has the second largest support nationwide, behind the Christian Democrats but pushing the Social Democrats into third place, and far ahead of the Greens and the Liberals.

Up to now, all the traditional mainstream parties have been united in their refusal to form coalitions with the AfD. If continued, the rise in the party’s support will however make this approach increasingly unworkable. Either the CDU will have to form governing coalitions with the AfD (as the CDU’s sister party, the Christian Social Union, has already done with the Freie Waehler in Bavaria), or all the mainstream parties will have to form permanent coalitions to keep them out of office.

The latter course would recall the last years of the Weimar Republic, and would almost certainly strengthen the radical parties still further, since critics of government policies would have nowhere else to go. The most radical proposal is to dub AfD a neo-Nazi party and ban it, but this would lead to massive protests and drive its supporters towards violence. Whatever happens, Germany seems set for a prolonged period of deep political instability and polarization.

The original roots of support for AfD and similar parties in Europe lie in fear of mass migration and hostility to the centralizing (and sometimes dictatorial) tendencies of the European Union. Their support has however been greatly increased by the deepening economic recession into which Germany has been plunged by the rise in energy prices consequent on the war in Ukraine. German economic success in recent decades was largely built on cheap, plentiful and reliable Russian gas.

This factor helped mask worsening structural defects in the German economy, which the present crisis is exposing. Coupled with the end of the Chinese boom and U.S.-driven economic warfare against China, the result is that there is now serious talk in Germany of “de-industrialization.” Should this in fact occur, the political, social, cultural and psychological results could be catastrophic; for the rebuilding of the German national identity after 1945 took place largely on the basis of the “economic miracle,” and the belief that this reflected a superior German model of cooperation between capital and labor, and a strong industry-based middle class (the so called Mittelstand). If belief in these collapses, we could be looking at something akin to a national nervous breakdown.

An unending semi-frozen war in Ukraine would drastically worsen Germany’s — and Europe’s – economic decline and consequent political disorder. Especially if coupled with repeated crises in the Middle East, it would make the restoration of stability in energy prices impossible. Such a conflict would inevitably break out periodically into major battles, possibly leading to new Russian victories. There would be the perpetual risk that an unintended collision between Russia and NATO could escalate towards nuclear war. It should not be hard to imagine what this would do to business confidence in Europe.

There is a tendency now for Americans to congratulate themselves on the submission of Europe to American strategy as a result of the war in Ukraine. This underestimates the threat to Europe and of U.S. interests there. The threat, as described, is overwhelmingly an internal one, resulting from a deadly cocktail of economic stagnation, uncontrolled migration, and political extremism, worsened by the war in Ukraine. If present patterns continue, the result will be to cripple Europe both economically and politically.

Economic prosperity and liberal democracy in Europe form a key pillar of America’s own power in the world and therefore a vital U.S. national interest. Without them, America’s own economic power will be gravely weakened, and the prestige of democracy in the world shattered. There will be little point in the U.S. presenting itself as the leader of democracy in Asia if it has collapsed in Europe.

Moreover, the United States waged two world wars and a Cold War in Europe to prevent the great economies of Western Europe from falling under the control of a hostile great power. Until a decade or so ago, no American ever dreamed of seeing Ukraine in this way. If therefore the U.S. analysis is that Ukraine cannot win, for the sake of Europe and U.S. vital interests there, Washington should lend all its efforts to bring about an early peace.

Associated Press, 11/4/23

MOSCOW (AP) — With pointed disdain for the West, Russia on Saturday unveiled a sprawling exposition highlighting the nation’s accomplishments, which will run through the months leading to the presidential election in which Vladimir Putin is widely expected to seek a new term.

Putin issued a decree in March to hold the exposition and some observers have seen it as aimed at creating an ideological framework for his reelection. News reports had suggested he might use the opening to announce his candidacy for the March election, but his spokesman later said he would not attend the event.

Putin has led Russia as president or prime minister since 2000, and reelection would extend his term until 2030.

The event is held at VDNKh, the vast exposition grounds in northern Moscow that was established by Josef Stalin and is renowned for its collection of elaborate Soviet Gothic-style pavilions. The setting plays to many Russians’ nostalgia for the Soviet era and echoes Putin’s drive to restore Russia as a superpower.

Thematically, the exposition focuses on Russia as a country of diverse ethnic groups and cultures unified by a sense of national purpose. It includes displays from each of Russia’s regions, as well as from the Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed, along with an array of presentations on industry, education and technology will be on offer.

It also draws on the view of Russia being in a civilizational battle, a concept that has been in forefront of official discourse since Russia sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022.

“Any provocations and aggressive actions directed against Russia are doomed to failure. Because we are a single people, bound by a common history, fraternal bonds of friendship and mutual understanding,” Putin said in a message marking the opening of the exposition.

In a speech at the show’s opening day, Putin’s close ally Nikolai Patrushev, head of the national security council, amplified the idea.

“In contrast to the West, Russia has offered a civilizational choice based on preserving national sovereignty, mutual respect, equal partnership, traditional family values, protection of religious foundations and the rights of believers, as well as generally accepted norms of morality, ethics and social behavior,” he said.

“Historically, Russia has always been a bone in the throat of the West, interfering with the implementation of its hegemonic plans,” Patrushev said.