The Ukraine war

In Vietnam, many reporters who were independent of the US government, were allowed in to gather information, and were actively supported with co-operation and logistical help. Their reports often contradicted the lies being sent up the line by the Army, undermining public support for the war and the US Army’s narrative that they were winning. Eventually the warmongers ran out of road and the US withdrew, with some unconvincing window-dressing to cover their embarrassment at losing to a peasant army. Similar window-dressing has been used to cover the more recent losses of face in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the American-led western forces failed in their war aims. Despite the dire warnings that failure was “not an option” and would “send a message” that the bad guys could win, the world still turns.

There is another war going on today, and once again, armchair generals warn us that any outcome other than total Ukrainian victory would send a message that aggression might actually work. So, in order to send all these oh-so-important messages, a great deal of bloodshed is happening and an economic disaster is being created.

There are few independent reporters in Ukraine today. The reports we see tend to focus on personal victim-stories of Ukrainian civilians standing in the rubble of their homes, generating our sympathy, and supporting the Western narrative of a brave Ukraine successfully resisting Russian brutality. Meanwhile, the UK media have all lined up (including the supposedly neutral BBC, and the only mainstream paper normally critical of pro-war neocon narratives, the Guardian) to push the official line. This is despite the fact that this country is not a party to the war and we should be able to regard it with more objectivity. There was actually more objectivity in the reporting of the Iraq war, when Britain was a belligerent party, than in the current Ukraine war in which we are not.

You can tell that this is an exercise in virtue-signalling when every commentator feels compelled to refer to the conflict as “Putin’s illegal war…”. Of course, Russia’s attack on Ukraine last February was against international law, but then so were the Western attacks on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and a host of other countries which had never attacked us. How often do these commentators refer to “Britain’s illegal wars…” or “America’s illegal wars…”?

This doesn’t mean that the media should give equal time to Russia’s talking points, or present a false moral equivalence. It was wrong for Russia to invade last February. However, the simplistic narrative we are constantly fed contains many obvious lies and misdirections, and the quality of public debate is very low – as it is in other areas where we have been crudely told what to think. The Guardian, for example, constantly leads its coverage with a day-count, as if history began on February 24^th last year and no previous events are relevant. The Russian invasion last year was a major escalation of a conflict which had been going on for over 8 years, and which should have been settled (by the Minsk agreements) long ago. This history is relevant, but they don’t want us to look at it.

One thing they don’t do is give any real tactical information on things like military losses. And yet, each side in the war will know the extent of its own losses and will have a very good idea of the losses it has inflicted on the other side. Western governments will have this information from contacts in Ukraine, and from intelligence sources and satellite surveillance. So the information is not being withheld for tactical security reasons, but to keep the public in the dark (on both sides). I can take a wild guess as to which side is losing the grim contest of attrition, though.

The few sources available – which are often unguarded remarks by Ukrainian soldiers or Western politicians – suggest that Ukraine is outgunned in terms of artillery several times over. NATO has already replaced a lot of artillery pieces, and the recent Ramstein meeting ended up with agreement to provide many more, plus ammunition. NATO countries are dipping into their active forces and stockpiles elsewhere to provide all this, which they would not do unless it were an urgent need. It therefore seems likely that Ukraine has lost most of the artillery it had a year ago. In the current winter phase of largely static warfare, much of which is an artillery contest, the Russians have advantages of range, firepower and targeting.

The reluctant agreement this week to provide modern tanks further suggests that the Ukrainians have a similarly dire need in that area. However, even the tame Western media have realised that you can’t deliver these tanks straight to the battlefield; it will take months to train the crews, set up supply lines and maintenance facilities, and so on. These tanks will likely arrive too late. NATO’s refusal to provide Ukraine with an air force means Ukrainian ground forces will remain at a disadvantage; it’s asking for trouble to attack an enemy which has air cover when you have none. Even static defence is a costly business in such a situation. The narrative of Ukraine taking back Crimea and the Donbass is a fantasy if they don’t have an effective air force.

My conclusion is that, when the weather allows, Russia will move into the areas it has claimed and Ukraine will be unable to put up very much resistance; and having done so, Russia will be able to hold the territory it wants to hold. I think it likely that the current phase of war will reach this conclusion by early summer. We are constantly fed the story that Ukraine can win, and that recapturing all their pre-2014 territory is a desirable, achievable, necessary goal. I strongly suspect that this will be disproved within a few months. This is not defeatism; it’s not me that’s going to be defeated, I’m not a party to this. I can look at this war from an outside position. The battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift; but that is the way to place your bets. I think it likely that Russia will reach its goals, if I’m right as to what those are, in the spring campaign, and it doesn’t matter whether I, or anyone else, thinks that is right or desirable. It is not necessary to be morally right to win a war. The brutal fascist and ally of Hitler, General Franco, won the Spanish war and remained in power for life, while Britons enjoyed sunshine holidays on his beaches. We didn’t seem concerned as to what message that sent.

If this outcome happens, it would present a natural stopping point in the conflict. Once Russia occupies the territory it intends to hold for the long term, it has no further need to conduct offensive operations, and Ukraine lacks the ability to do so. Whether or not you like this outcome, the bloodshed could stop. Western politicians say NATO must give wholehearted, whatever-it-takes support to Ukraine until a complete Ukrainian victory; this is unrealistic. Europe’s position will have to change; we’ve crippled ourselves with the sanctions and economic war, cutting ourselves off from resources we depend on, and putting immense strain on the European economy. If this military outcome were to happen, and the intensity of the fighting died down, it would be crazy to go on pouring in more weapons and ammunition, and egging on Ukraine to continue with pointless fighting.

Ukraine has already lost a lot in human terms, and in destruction of property. They have lost tens of thousands in combat, and possibly 5 million in outward migration. The eastern areas they have lost were some of the more urban, industrial and productive regions; the rump of Ukraine will emerge bankrupt, still profoundly corrupt, and find that its Western friends may be less willing and able to pay for reconstruction than they were to pay for the war. In this sense, Ukraine has already lost. Had they kept to the Minsk agreements, they could have avoided this situation. Eventually they will be forced to concede Crimea permanently and accept loss of control over the Donbass areas, which will remain Russian-dominated and possibly occupied. All the bloodshed could have been avoided; responsible leaders would stop it now. It’s possible the Western powers will carry on provoking Russia, perhaps by offering NATO membership to the rump Ukraine, or in other ways. If we have any sense, though, we’ll support a ceasefire and drop our warlike posturing.

Russia, along with the countries with which it trades, and which would also like to live in a world which is not completely American-dominated, have moved a long way from their former reliance on the US dollar. Much of the trade between Russia and countries such as India and China, is now settled in their own currencies. In this way, the sanctions and confiscations have diminished the US more than Russia. A substantial trading bloc built around the SCO nations and the BRICS, including Saudi Arabia, working outside the SWIFT system and no longer using the dollar as its foundation, could be the unintended result of the sanctions regime. The US dollar was the whole world’s reserve currency even during the Cold War; America may find it loses this privilege and the power that goes with it.

Pouring money and weapons into what was, already, acknowledged to be the most corrupt country in Europe, is also bound have unintended consequences. If the war stops tomorrow, Ukraine is a wreck, with unpayable debts, barely functional water, power, healthcare and transport systems, and shattered industry. We should be concerned that they will have little to sell but whatever armaments remain in working order when the rubble stops bouncing. Like Syria, it will be at third world level for a generation. All this, for the sake of sending messages. What message has actually been sent by this war? That you don’t want your country to be the venue of big-power confrontation.

None of the present NATO heads of government can be considered a great statesman, and few show any sign of understanding the forces moving the world, or of thinking ahead in any realistic fashion. I hesitate to describe power-hungry dictators like Putin or Xi Jinping as great statesmen either, but I think they do far more long-term thinking, and have a better grasp of strategy than their opposite numbers in the West. Look at Britain’s cabinet of dullards and non-entities; none of them will be more than the smallest footnote in the history of our times. Nobody has painted a credible picture of the West’s war objectives; meaning, the desired situation when the shooting finally stops. Already Ukraine lies in ruins; if the Russians gave up tomorrow and left, Ukraine is a basket case and the West will have limited available money to support the rebuilding. If, as some people fantasise, Putin is deposed and Russia itself falls apart, who would catch the pieces of this nuclear-armed country? And when Ukraine finally makes peace, conceding land, how will we deal with this failed, but heavily armed, state? Will we maintain the economic war on Russia, in perpetual enmity? In terms of possible outcomes, the alternatives range from bad to really bad, and the longer we go on pouring petrol on the fire, the worse the range of outcomes gets.