|
Ukraine – Is There Really A Change Of The Narrative?
In Alastair Crooke's latest piece he discusses the change of narrative that occurred due to The Economist's recent Ukrainian interviews:
The Economist leads with interviews with Zelensky, General Zaluzhny and Ukraine’s military field commander, General Syrsky. All three are interviewed – interviewed in The Economist, no less. Such a thing does not occur by happenstance. It is messaging intended to convey the Ruling Class’ new narrative to the ‘golden billion’ (who will all read and absorb it).
On the surface, it is possible to read The Economist piece as a plea for more money and many more weapons. But the underlying messaging is clear: “Anyone who underestimates Russia is heading for defeat”. The Russian force mobilisation was a success; there is no problem with Russian morale; and Russia is preparing a huge winter offensive that will start soon. Russia has huge reserve forces (of up to 1.2 million men); whereas Ukraine now has 200,000 who are militarily trained for conflict. The ‘writing is on the wall’, in other words. Ukraine cannot win.
…
Scott Ritter, in discussion with Judge Neapolitano, believes that The Economist interviews reveal the West pushing aside Zelensky – as Zaluzhny administers his large dose of reality (that will be shocking to many sherpa loyalists). The Economist interview emphasis thus was unmistakably on General Zaluzhny, with Zelensky pointedly de-emphasised – which Ritter suggests indicates that Washington wishes to ‘switch leadership horses’. Another ‘message’?
Just to be clear, General Zaluzhny once said he considers himself a disciple of Russian General Gerasimov, the Chief of General Staff. Zaluzhny reportedly is familiar with the latter’s writings. In brief, Zaluzhny is known in Moscow as a professional soldier (albeit one committed to the Ukrainian nationalist cause).
So, is the West preparing its narrative to cut from this unwinnable conflict –Ukraine – and to move on?
That might indeed by a possibility. Could the U.S. and NATO just limp out of the situation and leave it to Zaluzhny to negotiated his defeat with Russia?
But haven't Biden, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg and Germany's chancellor Scholz said that Russia 'can not be allowed to win'? Sure, they have.
But Crooke points to Afghanistan and how fast the chaotic retreat from Kabul has vanished from the media and is now mostly forgotten. The Taliban were another enemy that could not be allowed to win. They won. And no one cares about it.
I dearly hope that the scenario, as Crooke lays it out, will soon come true in Ukraine. But alas I am a realist. Russia will not stop the war without achieving its aims. Zaluzhny will not be allowed to negotiate for peace.
M. K. Bhadrakumar notes that any peace negotiations depend on Biden's agreement:
The clearest indication that the US is far from in a hurry to negotiate comes from none other than the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan whose visit to Kiev last month (just before the US midterms) had triggered a flurry of speculations that Washington was pressuring President Zelensky to negotiate.
Now, Sullivan’s remarks at an appearance at the Carnegie last weekend made it clear that the US is in Ukraine for the long haul. He said:
“We don’t know when this is going to end up. What we do know is that it is our job to continue to sustain our military support to Ukraine so that they are in their best possible position on the battlefield, that if and when diplomacy is ripe, they will be in the best possible position at the negotiating table.
“That moment is not ripe now, and so, as a result, we’ve gone to Congress and asked for a substantial amount of further resources to be able to continue to ensure that Ukraine has the means to fight this war. We’re confident we will get bipartisan support for that…
“I am not going to precept the future, I’m only going to assure that in the present we are doing everything we can to maximise Ukraine’s chances of defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity… yes, it is likely to go on for quite some time…”
Basically, the US claims to have a winning hand in Ukraine.
The Economist interviews were published on December 15. The Sullivan talk at Carnegie was held a day later. If there had been a change of mind in the White House it would have been part of that interview.
I also think that Zaluzhny is not the kind of leader who is likely to organize, or allow himself to be drawn into a coup. In fact it may well be that the rumors from Kiev are true and that Zelensky and his staff are working to push him out. He would be replaced by the other Ukrainian general The Economist had interviewed:
On several occasions, [General Syrsky] was actually senior in the chain of command to Valery Zaluzhny, appointed to be the commander-in-chief of the entire armed forces in July 2021. Some political actors behind the scenes may be using that fact in an apparent attempt to foment tensions between the two. Rumours even persist that the presidential administration might be inclined to replace the popular but independent-minded General Zaluzhny with his former boss. Cracks of disunity have high-placed Western military officials worried. The two generals on their part say they fully trust each other and wish to stay out of politics. General Syrsky is uncomfortable with the conversation. “The army is outside of politics,” he says. “It is how it should be, and how the law demands it to be.”
Neither Zaluzhny nor Syrsky are men for a coup. If Zelenski is to go, some other politician, probably a more radical one, is likely to take the lead.
As Bhadrakumar concludes:
Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances, Russia’s option narrows down to inflicting a crushing defeat on Ukraine in the coming months and installing a government in Kiev that is not under Washington’s control. But that requires a fundamental shift in the Russian military strategy, which would factor in the real possibility of a confrontation with the US and NATO at some point.
Even while they are still deluded about Ukraine's chance for success, neither NATO nor the White House have shown any appetite for war with Russia. They have likely come to understand the real meaning of General Zaluzhny's request:
I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs, 500 Howitzers. Then, I think it is completely realistic to get to the lines of February 23rd.
At the start of the war Ukraine had, at least on paper, a well equipped military:
Ukraine has a lot of tanks and is ranked 13th across the globe with 2,430. In terms of armored vehicles, Kiev also ranks high, occupying the seventh spot globally with 11,435. Kiev’s artillery power is also formidable at 2,040 batteries.
That General Zaluzhny requested all that new stuff is a confession that most if not all the old stuff is gone. That includes the weapons he received after the war started. If the 20 percent of the Russian military that was used in Ukraine could do so much material damage in such a short time how long would a NATO army in a war against Russia survive?
Interview with author of book to be released tomorrow: The Tragedy of Ukraine
I’m very grateful to the thoughtful contributors to this blog. (That does not include all of the contributors!) Especially those who regularly quote or link to documents, sources, statements, etc.
I’ve not been able to contribute myself as I’m an observer, not an expert. However I came across the press release below, which I believe will be of interest to many barflies.
It’s a bit long, but I think worthwhile. Eccolo:
URI professor’s new book looks at internal divisions in Ukraine that contributed to current conflict with Russia
Nicolai Petro’s ‘The Tragedy of Ukraine’ comes out Dec. 19
KINGSTON, R.I. – Dec. 19, 2022 – On a Fulbright research trip to Ukraine in 2014, Nicolai Petro had a front row seat to the eruption of the Maidan revolution, which led to the ouster of the country’s president who sought closer ties to Russia.
The revolution also exposed the deep domestic conflict over Ukraine’s national identity between those in the country’s east who honor their Russian heritage and welcome ties to their neighbor and those in the western region who reject everything Russian.
Petro, a professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island, was in the southern port city of Odessa, where the division between these groups was not as sharp. But he could still see the divisive schism.
“It opened my eyes to how deep the divisions within the country were,” said Petro. “While 80% of Western Ukrainians supported the Maidan, 80% of Eastern Ukrainians opposed it.”
In his new book, “The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us about Conflict Resolution,” Petro explores the more than 150-year history of this destabilizing struggle. He also argues that the current war between Ukraine and Russia has deep roots in that internal strife, which has led to armed clashes three other times in history.
Petro says his interest in writing about the decades-old domestic division was fueled by curiosity.
“I was troubled by how difficult it was for people to get along,” he said. “I didn’t understand why there was so much mutual hatred in the country,” he said. “I was trying to understand these divisions, which used to be widely accepted among Ukrainian specialists. People were always talking about them when writing about Ukraine.
“Then there’s the added question of why it became a military conflict,” he added. “Once you go back in history, though, you see even that’s not unusual. There’s been infighting with large numbers of deaths between Eastern and Western Ukraine four times already. This is the fourth.”
Petro suggests that classical Greek tragedy offers a way to overcome the civic conflict.
“Recurring conflict is as much a problem of the heart, as it is of institutions, and the enduring value of classical Greek tragedy is that it seeks to induce a change of heart, a catharsis,” he said. “Oedipus was blinded by his anger long before he laid hands upon himself, and only began to see truly when he lost his outward sight, and was forced to look inward. It is my hope that by drawing attention to the tragic cycle that entangles them, more Ukrainians will be encouraged to look inward. That is where they will find the compassion and forgiveness needed for reconciliation.”
Petro, who joined to URI in 1991, has worked on the book for about the last 10 years, mining Ukrainian newspapers and media sites for original sources to chronicle the tragedy. (The book has more than a thousand footnotes.)
But he also has brought to the project a long history of work in both Ukraine and Russia.
His connections to Russia go back more than 30 years. In 1989 and ’90, he was an International Affairs Fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think tank, and served as a special assistant in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs in the U.S. Department of State. He was also a political attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, monitoring local elections in Russia, Belarus and Latvia. He later worked privately as a consultant to the municipal research and training center Dialog, and was an adviser to the mayor of the Russian city of Novgorod. In 1996-’97, he served a Fulbright Lectureship in Russia.
Since 2008, when he was invited to speak by the National Academy of Sciences in Kyiv, he has made nearly annual visits to Ukraine, traveling throughout the country. In 2010, he spoke at the Vladimir Karazin National University in Kharkov and, in 2013-’14, he did research on the Orthodox Church in Ukraine as part of his Fulbright.
A frequently cited expert for national and international media on Russia and Ukraine, Petro has been published in numerous newspapers and journals in the U.S. and Russia. He is also the author or editor of eight books, including “The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture” and “Crafting Democracy: How Novgorod has Coped with Rapid Social Change.”
“The Tragedy of Ukraine,” which will be published Dec. 19 by De Gruyter, Germany’s oldest academic publisher, has received advance praise from scholars and international affairs experts. Jack F. Matlock Jr., former U.S. ambassador to the USSR, called the book “brilliant, insightful, thoroughly researched study. Essential reading for those who wish to understand the causes of the war in Ukraine and its implications for the rest of the world.”
Petro answered several questions about his new book.
What is classical Greek tragedy “therapy” and how can it heal national divisions?
For the Greeks, tragedy results from the inability of individuals to see how much their own actions have contributed to their current predicament. By re-imagining on stage the horrors that result from the unyielding pursuit of vengeance, Greek playwrights sought to lead audiences to catharsis, a purging of emotions so powerful that it would allow pity and compassion to enter the soul and take the place of rage. Aristotle thought that catharsis could liberate individuals and societies from the endless repetition of a tragic script.
Since the production of these plays was sponsored by the ruling elite, and the attendance of the entire adult population was considered a civic duty, I see tragedy as part of the therapy used to heal society from the trauma of war.
What are the internal conflicts in Ukraine and how does it resemble tragedy?
Simply put, the conflict within Ukraine stems from the state’s reluctance to recognize the “Other Ukraine” – the third of the population that regards its own Russian cultural identity as compatible with a Ukrainian civic identity – as a legitimate part of the Ukrainian nation. As a result, the government has systematically suppressed the Russian language and culture. Since these are native to a large portion of the population, these policies have in the past spawned considerable resistance.
This tragic cycle is fed by the destructive narratives that each side tells about the other, which are then used to justify conflict in the name of achieving justice. Trapped by their insistence on correcting the injustices of the past before engaging in dialogue, both sides have unwittingly contributed to the perpetuation of their mutual tragedy. Today’s tragic events are thus part of a larger tragic cycle that has gripped Ukrainian political elites for the past century.
How have these divisions contributed to the ongoing war with Russia?
The current war is merely the latest in a series of conflicts that have bedeviled this area of the world. These include: the great power rivalry between Russia and the West; the conflict between Russian and Ukrainian elites; and finally, the conflict within Ukraine itself over its proper national identity, its relationship to Russia, and its role in the world. It is, in sum, a conflict about who gets to define Ukrainian identity.
For many in Western Ukraine (Galicia) being Ukrainian means rejecting all things Russian – language, religion, trade, resources, science, music, books – everything. Only after Ukraine has thus “decolonized” itself, will the true Ukraine be able to emerge. During the 2014 Maidan revolution they referred to this as making a “civilizational choice.”
For many in Eastern Ukraine (Malorossiya), however, being Ukrainian means cherishing the country’s historical and cultural ties to Russia. Most people in this Russophile half of Ukraine saw the call for a civilizational choice as unnecessary, divisive, and demeaning. This conflict of visions regarding Ukraine’s past and future has erupted into armed conflict within Ukraine at least four times – during World War I, during World War II, after the 2014 Maidan, and now again in 2022.
What do you see as the road to a settlement in the conflict?
Although a peace accord can mute the conflict, temporarily, there will be no permanent resolution until the issues at the heart of this conflict are addressed as well.
The current situation may seem hopeless, but understanding the therapeutic role of tragedy allows us to see that the key to breaking the cycle is to move social discourse away
from the quest for vengeance (often mislabeled “justice”), to the goal of building a society together with one’s former enemies. For this to happen in Ukraine, the government would need to embrace three postulates:
First, that being a Russophile Ukrainian does not mean being anti-Ukrainian. Greek tragedy tells us that to achieve social harmony, one must be willing to treat one’s enemy with the same honor that one seeks for one’s self. This truism is not based on moral abstraction, but on the practical calculation that fair and equal treatment is the most binding of all social ties.
Second, that punishing Russia does not mean healing Ukraine. It is an axiom of international politics that no country has ever prospered by making an enemy of a more powerful neighbor. Moreover, countries that obsess over their national identity and security, often wind up losing both.
Third, that social harmony in Ukraine can only be established by Ukrainians themselves. External actors have their own agenda, which will rarely, if ever, coincide with the interests of Ukraine. To establish lasting social harmony Ukrainians will have to overcome their fear of their own diversity, and be willing to call upon their entire history and culture, both Galician and Maloross.
How can tragic therapy play a part?
By drawing attention to the true meaning of justice—which is mercy—instead of settling for vengeance, Greek playwrights hoped to stop the cycle of tragedy from repeating.
But while the Athenian polis was small enough that it could engage nearly every adult member of society in its rituals, there is no mechanism that can perform this function today. A comparable process, however, has been around for more than 40 years, and been implemented in over 50 countries—Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.
Like the Greek tragedies of old, such commissions work to heal deep social trauma and bring about social reconciliation, by gathering and putting on public display riveting emotional testimony from all sides. This leads the public to catharsis—a purging of mutual hatreds that allows society to heal by restoring humanity to the once enemy Other.
The most important lesson of tragedy, however, is that the pursuit of total victory over one’s enemies can only breed renewed conflict. The tragic cycle of Ukraine will therefore end when Ukrainians realize that true victory means the victory of compassion and dignity over hatred, so that all Ukrainians, regardless of religion, language, or cultural heritage, are seen as indispensable to the Ukrainian nation.
Posted by: sfblackrobe | Dec 19 2022 23:30 utc | 121
All indications are Russia is using its artillery as tanks as I described a few days ago in defeating Ukie multilayered defensive lines that are akin to Maginot.
Lavrov provided a counterpoint to Zakharova’s statement I provided earlier:
Question: Westerners claim that today we will draw Belarus into the SVO with a large delegation.
Sergey Lavrov: When Westerners gather every second day, then in Brussels, then in Paris, then in The Hague, then they go to Washington for a bow, what do they do? They are mobilizing their ranks.
It is clear that the Americans are a little worried that Europe is beginning to “run away”. At least, there are more and more such moods. Many healthy political forces in Europe are beginning to realize that the “sheepskin” was not worth the “dressing” at all. With these sanctions, it throws itself into de-industrialization with a huge gain to the United States, which, with its laws, despite all European pleas, strengthens its position and economically “sinks” Europe.
Officials in the French government, the economy minister, have long said it is unacceptable that industry has access to the same energy resources in the U.S. four times cheaper than in Europe when a law is passed that creates incentives for investment to flee Europe to America.
If, based on a conspiracy theory, the West, in its conspiracy considerations, considers every meeting of the leaders of Russia and Belarus as something aimed at strengthening our alliance, I do not see anything wrong with this.
Today, the main topic on our agenda, as it was outlined, is the economy. How can we develop it without relying on our former Western partners who have completely discredited themselves? That’s the most important thing.
Lavrov was also asked a question by Belarus Channel One where he explained the strategic importance of the Union:
Question: We understand the difficult background against which the visit is taking place, to which millions of eyes are riveted. Previously, our integration, the Union Program, was annoying. Remember how many fakes there were. Now we are perceived as a threat. What are we going to do about it?
Sergey Lavrov: Let them invent what they consider necessary for their domestic political narrow-minded goals. They need this in order not to completely lose their positions in the international arena. We do not look back at those who proved their inconsistency, helplessness, or consciously encouraged Nazi tendencies in Ukraine. From the very beginning of the crisis that began after the coup d’état in 2014, this country was considered as a springboard against Russia. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently admitted (if anyone needed new evidence) that the Minsk agreements, which she herself signed, were needed only to buy time and pump Ukraine with modern Western weapons. All. Guilty plea.
Meetings of the presidents of Russia and Belarus are regular. We met many times this year. We hold them in special bilateral formats and on the sidelines of multilateral events (CIS, CSTO, EAEU, SCO). This reflects our focus (headed by our leaders) to strengthen the Union State. Now the need for this has increased. We must increasingly rely solely on our own strength, on the mechanisms laid down in the 28 Union programmes and on the additional opportunities provided to us by other integration projects in the former Soviet Union – the EAEU, the CIS and we must not forget about the CSTO, which in modern conditions must strengthen its unity, strengthen solidarity in the face of the “offensive” against the world order laid down in the UN Charter. They want to remake it, to replace international law with “rules” invented by the West, primarily the United States, in a situation where Washington has “built” the rest of the “collective West”, when Europe has rapidly, before our eyes, lost its independence and can hardly claim to be a separate center of a multipolar world. Although we would like to [see that].
We must be aware of the historical nature of the changes that are taking place. This is not about whether Zelensky will remain in power in Ukraine or not. He continues to “gush” with ideas that, in my opinion, every day more and more expose the lack of understanding of the sharpness of the moment and concern for his own people. They once again reflect the Nazi, racist nature of this regime, which for many years after the coup d’état systematically destroyed the Russian language, culture, education, the media and considered people in the east of their country who did not accept the unconstitutional coup d’état as “inhumans”, as A.P. Yatsenyuk once called them, and V.A. Zelensky – “individuals” and advised those who consider themselves part of Russian culture to get out to Russia. This was all not so long ago, long before the start of a special military operation.
The latest facts that have become available in its course unequivocally confirm that we have taken, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, a timely step, but perhaps it should have been taken earlier. Plans to use force against Donbass have been revealed. Now the Ukrainian military openly confirm this. They also had projects for the use of armed force against Crimea. We know what we are talking about and what needs to be done.
Our Union State and other allies in the CIS are now facing an important task – to prevent the collapse of the world order based on international law, and to ensure that our voice (the voice of Russia, Belarus, the Union State, the CSTO, the CIS, the EAEU, the SCO) is not just heard in the international arena, but that it is the voice of equal subjects of the new multipolar world, based on the UN Charter.
So, there you have confirmation that the Big Picture is a struggle to keep the Rule of Intenational Law, which is favored by the vast majority of nations as based on the UN Charter, versus its overthrow by the Outlaw US Empire and its few vassals to implement what it calls the rules-based order which is just a euphemism for Might Makes right. The SMO is no longer just about Ukraine; it’s about the world’s future.
Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 20 2022 1:25 utc | 154
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Dec 20 2022 2:17 utc | 162
Macgregor seems to be the sole source for the “200,000 Russians in Belarus” claim. He has yet to provide any sources. For that matter, he hasn’t provided any sources for his 1,500 tanks and thousands of APC and artillery. I don’t have a problem with the latter, or his total of 540,000 new troops, but I’ve seen zero evidence specifically for the 200,000 in Belarus. One would think there would be some videos on Telegram by now or satellite photos from some pro-Ukrainian source or something. Maybe I should find a satellite source and go looking for them myself.
Just did another Google search. The Washington Post says two hours ago that there are supposedly 10-15,000 troops. They correctly point out that number isn’t enough for an attack because Belarus has too few troops.
The jamestown organization says “16 echelons” – whatever the hell that is – have gone to Belarus. They suggest that Russia and Belarus may want to capture the Rivne Nuclear Power Plant. They also suggest, for example, that Russian soldiers would use the three brigades of Belarussian equipment without using the troops, which seems risible to me. But, then, Jamestown is full of anti-Russian nitwits. Martyanov has trashed their analyses before.
The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA – whoever the hell they are) quotes Jens Stoltenberg as claiming Russia has 30,000 troops in Belarus, but notes that all the troops so far have arrived without heavy equipment, and Belarus has been sending tanks and trucks to Russia (which I doubt but it’s possible). Stoltenberg, of course, is hardly reliable.
Is Belarus Preparing to join Russia’s War? Maybe
https://cepa.org/article/is-belarus-preparing-to-join-russias-war-maybe/
Based on my Google search, there seems to be a major uptick in Ukraine being worried about Belarus over the last month, but in no case do they claim more than 12,000 Russian troops already in Belarus. Therefore, it begins to sound more like a PR exercise than a real threat. Almost all of these “analyses” are based on claims from Ukraine, with no apparent Western intelligence confirmation sources.
This pro-Ukrainian source, the “New Geopolitics Research Network”, has an article downplaying the threat as follows:
According to Ukrainian military experts, to carry out a repeated full-scale invasion from Belarus, the Russians need to have at least 40 battalion tactical groups (BTGs), that is, at least 32-40 thousand military personnel. Those slightly more than 10 thousand Russian militaries who are in Belarus are about 11 BTGs, and, basically, without equipment. That is, now in Belarus there is no strike force that could carry out a second offensive against Ukraine. However, if the number of Russian troops in Belarus begins to increase significantly soon, then this will be an indicator that the Russians are preparing for offensive actions. If this does not happen, and the number of Russians remains the same as today, then all Russian activity there will mean the usual attempt to divert the attention of the Ukrainian army.
Along with talks about a possible second Russian offensive from Belarus, the question of the possible involvement of the Belarusian army in it has also become relevant. To understand how important a role it can play in a possible Russian offensive, one should look at what the modern Belarusian army is like. The manning of the Belarus armed forces is being held according to a mixed principle, that is, contract servicemen and conscripts. At the same time, contract servicemen are far from being the majority. For example, in the land forces there are 24% of them, in special forces – 20%, and in the special operations forces – only 12%. Units and formations of the Belarusian army are currently understaffed. However, even a fully equipped Belarusian army can provide no more than 20-25 thousand people for active operations. The main weapons of the Belarusian army are of Soviet origin, and the majority of the Belarusian military does not have a single combat experience.
According to some estimates, until recently, in the event of mobilization (which, by the way, is underway nowadays under the guise of training camps), Belarus could deploy 8 more tank and 14 mechanized battalions. However, an interesting point in this matter is that all these troops will need to fight with something, and the Belarusian military depots are being actively “cleaned out” today by the Russians, who are experiencing a severe ammunition shortage at the front.
In addition, more than likely, the Belarusian military is closely monitoring how the “world’s second army” is successfully utilized in Ukraine. Therefore, there is a big doubt that all of them will have the zeal to participate in a possible re-offensive of the Russians to Ukraine from Belarus if Putin does squeeze Lukashenka. According to the Ukrainian General Staff, only up to 13,000 servicemen from the active and former military units of the Belarusian special operations forces, as well as the OMON, are ready to participate in the war against Ukraine. At the same time, their main motivation is not “protecting Belarus from an aggressive neighbor”, as Belarusian propaganda constantly claims, but a banal material reward. However, low motivation, morale, and level of combat readiness are unlikely to contribute to the effectiveness of their actions in an attempt to occupy part of the Ukrainian territory.
I can’t argue against their analysis, as it seems quite likely correct (except for the drivel about Russia taking all their ammo.) So at this point, I’m dismissing the idea of a downward thrust from Belarus, attributing all this to a Russian feint and Ukrainian PR. If someone gives me reliable bigger numbers for the Russian presence, including heavy equipment, I’ll revise that.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Dec 20 2022 4:33 utc | 200
|
