What Russian victory means for Ukraine
Yves Smith has written an excellent article: What Would a Russian Victory in Ukraine Look like?
It points to the importance of control of of the Dnieper watershed for Russia .
I respect Smith but, like a lot of people. I think she underestimates Putin. For example, she writes….
Russia (which recall at the start of the war had significant business ties to Europe, as well as a considerable number of its middle and upper middle class), did not anticipate that the US and NATO would go into vindictive divorce mode. Russia invaded with what it intended to be seen as an underpowered force, designed to drive Ukraine to the negotiating table. That did happen in less than a month.
After the deal fell apart, Russia muddled about, evidently lacking a plan B, until its embarrassing retreats in Kherson and Kharviv (which caused freakouts in the Donbass, since its people worried they could be abandoned too) led it to decide that it needed to engage in a serious, full bore campaign, and it set about to do so with its partial mobilization.
This ‘narrative” mixes fact and conjecture with Smith making dubious inferences and which lead to equally dubious conclusions.
It is true that that Russia had significant business ties to Europe prior to the SMO, which benefited. among others, among others, middle and upper-class elites in Russia— the so-called “Atlanticists”.
But the US and NATO going into “vindictive divorce mode” was pretty predictable, given their actions, reactions, and provocations over the years.
That ”underpowered force” that Russia sent to Ukraine was commensurate with the stated aims of the SMO, to support the military activities of the newly independent republics of Lugansk and Donbass in their fight for independence— rather than replace them .
And it still allowed Russia was able to demonstrate military superiority, despite a small and outnumbered force.
A heads-up to NATO as to what Russia could do if further provoked.
Russia effectively won the war in the first month and negotiations that it wanted—which the Western Ukrainians reneged on. But is incorrect to say that my Russia “muddled” about. Rather it was adapting—;earning from its mistakes, reorganizing and rebuilding its military assets— for a longer and more strategic war.
Russia’s “retreat” in the Kharkov was a strategic maneuver— which bolster its forces for a victory in Kherson. In both cases the Ukrainian military suffered major losses and huge casualties.
"Embarrassing” for whom? I saw no evidence of “freakouts” in Donbass — although there was lots of criticism as there always is on Telegram.
In any case, Russian actions in this case could only be regarded as “retreats” if you thought Russia’s goal was to take territory and hold it. Their goal was to deplete the UAF in a war of attrition, death by a thousand cuts.
At the same time, American and European sanctions on Russia as well as Ukrainian atrocities incensed the Russian public, and made Atlanticist positions among the Moscow elitist crowd unpopular.
After negotiations failed, Putin’s Plan B was a long, slow war of attrition, bleeding not just NeoNazi Ukraine to death but NATO and Europe. “Demilitarizing” Ukraine has led to the demilitarization of Europe as well. This incrementalist campaign offered significant advantages —not just an upgraded Russian military, but also stimulus for economic development— with industrial spinoffs. Not to mention a new national consensus.
“Partial mobilization” was indeed partial. Young men who fled Russia out of fear they might get called up have mostly returned — and volunteered. As of this year Russia projects a million man army in Ukraine made entirely of volunteers.
Putin is a gradualist and long-term strategic thinker in the game of political chess and he’s winning.
Consider the Dnieper Watershed that Smith writes of.
As I have written before, the Russians have created a Dnieper Flotilla but so far not used its resources. What is it for?
It's only real usefulness would be if the Russians gained control of the Dnieper watershed— or sought to. It would be needed to police the river. And not just the Dnieper watershed— other watersheds as well.
Putin has said on numerous occasions that he regards Kiev as a Russian city, important to Russian culture and development. Odessa, too.
Russia needs to control both the Dnieper and other rivers and the Black Sea. Ukrainian attacks on Sevastopol have shown the need to put Odessa under Russian control.
Unremitting American, NATO, and neo-Nazi aggression make it clear that Russia must take full control of Ukraine— right up to the Polish border— even if there is a neutral rump state allowed for the Galicians. There have to be tribunals and trials and referenda. The entire educational system has to be reformed and religious freedom reestablished, along with freedom of speech. Russia cannot rely on Western promises or good intentions.
We already see Europe falling apart politically— as well as economically.
NATO is in no position to fight a war with Russia. Nor is the US. The dog barks but has no teeth to bite.
Putin will continue to talk peace and his express his willingness to negotiate. But he is doing this largely to strengthen his credentials in central Asia with the SCO and BRICS— projecting the image of a rational agent and trustworthy negotiator who does not seek to exploit— but has the power to act, if forced to.
The SMO has been good for Russia—which is grown stronger in every area— militarily of course, industrially, economically. And as a nation.
By contrast, the SMO has been devastating for NATO, Europe, and in the long term for the US— which have all lost international credibility.
Victory is already Russia's.
But more is yet to come.
Ichi’s BFF
Sunday I took a trip to the next Prefecture about an hour away from where I live to visit the shelter where the 13-year-old Kin-chan is. Sadly Kin-chan's condition has gotten worse and she is not long for this world.
A sweet cat. So sad.
After that I braved 40 degree heat to go to another shelter — which is run by volunteers —but it had only kittens.
But they did have pictures of adult cats including one named Chappy – a street cat brought in with a broken hip, now recovered. He is just one year old but he appears very sweet.
I need to find out more about him before I make a decision, But I am hoping he and Ichi will get along.
If you liked this article and want to help me and Ichi, please buy us a coffee. The “Special Article” is now TWO articles. I needed to cut into two and do a lot rewriting to make it readable— hopefully meaningful. I am now working on the mailing list.
Click here to buy a coffee – or on the photo.
Instagram video of Chappy here. Of course, he is a street cat and not yet fully socialized. But very good with kittens and other cats — as you can see.
July 7...Recovered enough to play with a toy.
.
"Russia needs to control both the Dnieper and other rivers and the Black Sea".
Exactly! And the more you think about it, the more reasonable it seems. Russia is enormous: about double the area of the USA, Canada, or China; yet its access to the oceans is very limited. Is the Black Sea in Europe or Asia? Geographers and lawyers may have their own answers, but I think it is in Eurasia. Western Europeans are extremely conceited about their "continent", which isn't really a continent at all. It's just a small protrusion - a wart or carbuncle, if you like - on the huge bulk of Eurasia. Like India, Arabia, Indochina, or Kamchatka.
The Black Sea should be shared between the nations that border it, but Russia is the greatest of those and has the most need for access to the sea. The very assertion of Ukrainian independence was always ludicrous: it has been part of Russia for centuries, until the Soviets muddied the waters (especially Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev).
Once again a marvellous and incisive overview. Thank you Julian for encouraging our focus.