A big Russian offensive?
The blogosphere is alive with the sound of…
No…not THAT...sorry…
…conjecture!
Conjecture and rumors
Yes, it is indeed a global village. What passes for information seems to be gossip. The news media are just a bunch of old ladies passing time. Tea laced with rum.
The media natter that the South Korean Defense Minister says the North Koreans have shipped Russia millions of artillery shells.
However, Russia has already increased sh2ll production 2.5 fold-- producing approximately 4 million shells a year. Other than Iranian drones, maybe, it doesn’t need help— and not even with the drones. It makes some of the world’s best.
But Vlad’ did impale the west on his strategic and military alliance with North Korea, which is also eyeing membership in BRICS.
Visiting Vietnam, another prospective BRICS member, Putin told reporters that Russia doesn't need help from other countries to fight Ukraine.
Check Google and you'll find it very hard to find this report about not needing military assistance— which Alex Mercouris mentions in a recent piece on the Duran. According to my friends at NHK, it just doesn’t fit the “story line”.
As for the South Korean Ministry of Defense—South Korea is an American client state and can hardly to be trusted in pronouncements on North Korea—which tend to be at least two thirds propaganda and one-third tabloid news.
What counts is the story line .
Over and over , the Western media Western media have told us that Russia is running out of ammunition. Just like it's running out of tanks, aircraft, and so on. Basic to the narrative is that Russia, if not losing now, will lose eventually. It cannot win. It must not win. Russia bad. West good. Good guys have to win! Or there is no God. At least no American God.
So, the West is reportedly pushing Ukraine once again to carry out major offensives-- in Kharkov. And in Zaporozhya there is to be a repeat of last year's failed counteroffensive. The US promises weapons, advisors, targeting information – all the usual stuff— just as they did last year— all supplied by Europe of course, which appears on course to break apart.
Bye, bye,EU.
Bye, bye, NATO.
Russian offensive?
The collective West is also promoting the idea of a major Russian offensive—supposedly into the heartland of Western Ukraine. Storyline: Putin is an evil dictator bent on conquest of a world already conquered by the US. No less then Joseph Biden said so in his State of the Union address!
Even the astute Alex Mercouris has been suggesting that Russia is preparing for a major offensive— although only in Ukraine—not as far as Germany. He used to live there.
Mercouris notes that Russia has used only a fraction of its military resources. The only regular Russian troops are in the Kharkov region—a rather small number, perhaps 20,000 out of 30,000.
While Russia has 700,000 troops in Ukraine-- a lot of those are support troops, or in training, with the result that the number of actual combat troops in battle at any given time is just a fraction of the total force—and most of them are elite groups— the Chechens, paratroopers, marines, special forces, what used to be Wagner— battle hardened Donbass and Lugansk militias and the like.
They are fielded only in the numbers necessary often 1000 to probably a maximum 30,000 , taking advantage of Russian superiority in artillery, air superiority, advanced EW, armor—and the like.
This contributes to what often seems like glacially slow progress of Russian operations— but also to very low Russian losses of men and equipment— Western claims notwithstanding.
The Putin and the Russian Defense Ministry have made clear that one of their goals is reform and reinvention of the Russian military, for which the Ukraine is, among other things, a kind of training ground and a place to test strategies and weapons.
Putin's recent peace proposal speech is taken by many as a kind of ultimatum. Surrender now . Talk. Work out solutions . Or face the full might of the Russian army.
As my friend, Aleks at Black Mountain Analysis, wrote about a year, ago full-scale military ”theater” operations have always been possible— but with two disadvantages— wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure, loss of civilian life, and major casualties.
Right now, Western Ukrainians are losing men at a ratio between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1, in eastern Ukraine, in areas which have voted to join the Russian Federation—as is their right under international law. That makes Kiev's forces aggressors and illegal occupiers. They fight in in territories where they don't belong against people who don't want them there. Home invaders on a national scale.
A war of principle
So the Russians are the good guys. And the West and NATO and Kiev are the bad guys.
A full-scale offensive into Western Ukraine would be successful for the Russians, if they really wanted to do it. But Putin is a man of principle, and he has fought this war on the basis of principle. Historically, Ukraine was an important part of Russia – some say the heart of Russia. I'm sure that he wants that to be the case again. The SMO is a family feud.
He will not use American-style shock and awe tactics— the kind we saw in Iraq.
Fallujah has still not recovered.
Of course if NATO troops get involved in Ukraine, he must respond. In that event, Russia will repel the invasion. Force majeure. And hurt the countries that attack in a way that they will not forget.
That's the one important reason for the Russian military buildup. Deterrence.
Which frightens the West and leads to the kind of stuff we're hearing from South Korea. In which we have heard before in other contexts. Russia running out of men. Missiles. Condoms— whatever. You must believe that Russia can’t do what everyone knows it can do— rip through NATO like tissue paper.
Waste not, want not
The Russians have military assets because they budget their resources . Quite different from the Americans for whom the sky is the limit, underwritten by trillions in debt. And not much to show for it.
The careful Russian approach is why you don't see the T 90 M much in the field, nor the Armata, arguably the best tanks in the world. Why you also don't see see the Su57. And why most of the SU 30s and SU 34's use PESA radars which are not quite as good as the AESA radars used in the F-16. But maybe 70% as good— and one quarter as expensive.
Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it. Bruce Lee
With Russian superiority in long-range aircraft missiles, 70% is quite good enough, especially when backed up by advanced Russian long-range radar systems on the ground and in aerial platforms.
The West will tell you the Russians can't make AESA radars because they lack advanced five nm computer chips . It's true that Russians don't make such chips—they have to get them elsewhere. But smart phones with advanced chips are produced in the millions—and are all over the place. So how difficult is it to get enough chips to to use in military electronics— which mostly doesn't use such chips anyway?
The fact is the Russians do make AESA radars, which they use in the SU 57 and other applications, including the A-50 and A 100 long-range radar surveillance aircraft. In fact,the Russians are innovative in developing new kinds of radars, especially anti-stealth radars, and battlefield radars for detecting drones.
Russia is upgrading its weaponry continually.
While the West makes much of the fact that the Russians are not replacing the A-50s radar planes it has lost, A-50s are old kit, due to be replaced by the much more advanced A-100 by the end of the year which is when the S500 and S550 air defense systems will replace the S400 and existing SU 30s and SU 34s will be upgraded with new radars, missiles, and electronics.
Russia has also been developing low yield battlefield nukes for a long time . The Americans apparently are just starting. Always slow to the party. These low yield nukes are obviously for frontline use such as in new NATO countries close to Russia such as Finland and Sweden.
“Low yield” means a bomb but explosive power roughly equivalent to that used in Hiroshima. 5 to 20 kt. You want to play? Maybe you end up paying more than you thought.
By the end of the year. Russia’s army in Ukraine will be much larger than 700,000 given 30,000 volunteers a month—without mobilization.
In the martial arts, you are taught to avoid conflict – if provoked — do not respond. But always be prepared. We are also taught, to respond to attacks asymmetrically. If your opponent punches, you kick. If he kicks, punch. If he does both, throw. If he has a weapon – run.
Russia will continue with his current strategy, which means gradually demilitarizing the Ukraine and NATO simultaneously.
The Kharkov strategy effectively gives the finger to both NATO and the US-- who will force Ukraine to respond to avoid losing face.
The Ukrainians will mobilize troops and try to send them into battle in the next few months without proper training or equipment, exposed in the open farmlands of the Kharkov region. It will be a bloodbath. The same will apply in Zaporozhya if the Ukrainians try a counteroffensive there.
And who should Ukrainians blame for all this death?
Putin predicts that the Americans will get rid of Zelinski early next year, attributing the failures of the war against Russia to him. He is unstable and has outlived his usefulness and you know what happens to people like him in that case. Diem in Vietnam? Saddam? Does that mean a CIA organized assassination?
By that time , however, Ukrainians may find that is time to take back their country-- which appears to be mostly owned these days by foreign companies – not directly because foreigners can’t own legally own Ukrainian land— but in this most corrupt of countries through loans, investment proxy deals, leases and other financial tricks. Neofeudalism and neocolonialism at their worst.
In other words, internal pressure is building. It likely will not be necessary for the Russians to carry out a western style offensive into Western Ukraine.
It is not impossible that the Russians will ally with progressive forces in Western Ukraine to root out the NeoNazis.
Russia is developing fast, along with BRICS. It’s going places. The US is going nowhere.
Supervision
This is Ichi supervising my work.
The shelf is right beside one of my two computers— and completely belongs to Ichi (of course) who can keep an eye on what I do. I want you to know if there are typos —that's Ichi's fault!
In the meantime, my special article has gotten rather long – about 4000 words at this point. I will try to shorten it. And make it more readable.
As I write it, I more and more notice the way the degree to which the new Russia is like the old Russia— just without communist ideology. You have capitalism but regulated as is in the case of China to serve the public interest. We also have a lot of innovation— such as Putin's reforms of the bureaucracy— emphasizing merit and service. You have Russia's relationships with Africa and countries like North Korea and Vietnam, which the old Russia also supported.
In any case, I will be finishing this article soon and if you want to get on the mailing list or it please buy me a coffee. You can click here— or on Ichi's picture above.
You can also support me by sharing the url for this article or others when you post replies on other websites.
I always love the photos you post at the end of your posts.
I'm one of those who doesn't buy the "Big Russian O'ffensive". The Russians are doing fine as is. Why fix something that isn't broken? Time is on Russia's side. Acceleration where opportunities arise can't be ruled out. Neither can new fronts be ruled out. Flexibility is key.
Great post, Julian.
I wonder how I held my high opinions of countries like Norway that give us warmongers like Stoltenberg. I thought the US and UK were the warmongers of the west, but clearly "peaceful" Europe was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mercouris keeps it real for those with the time and inclination to listen and heed his daily deep-dives into the war (which I do).
The periodic drops by the NYT such as admissions that the CIA has been planting itself on the Russian border for a decade; that the Russian military isn't on its last leg after all; and its most recent admission that there really was a March 2022 peace deal, would be commendable if they didn't have to cover the two cheeks of their backside by some twisting to fit the narrative. No better example than their choice of words for the Spring peace deal--it fizzled. Dear NYT editors, the word is sabotaged--not fizzled. So much blood on so many hands.