UPDATE
I no longer have a source with access to Putin’s inner circle. I did not pretend to understand the astonishing episode of the Wagner march on Moscow at the time, and plainly it was impossible, if the Russian and Belarussian official narrative were remotely true, that Prigozhin could be allowed to carry on living.
Well, at least I got that right. But I still am no closer to understanding the entire dynamic. Unless Prigozhin has been effectively a prisoner these last few months, it seems incomprehensible that he did not flee.
To move from something I do not understand to something I do.
In comments below the line here, and even more so in replies to the post of this article on twitter, I am intensely irritated by the sheer stupidity of the lines trotted out by the Putin cult.
Ukraine has not lost 400,000 dead. That is half of British Empire casualties in World War 1 – in one year? It is 80% of the size of the Ukrainian armed forces in 2021. To try to give a meaningful comparison, those units of the Iraqi Republican Guard destroyed in the initial 2003 onslaught by vastly superior forces using massive firepower, lost about 20% dead in the most extreme cases. They had broken long before that many were killed in flight.
There would be evidence of fields piled up with thousands of bodies if 400,000 were dead. In all the drone and headcam footage we have seen, there is nothing remotely like that. It is simply a quite extraordinary example of the Big Lie technique. Ukrainian casualties have been serious, but nothing like on that scale.
I wrote below in the original article that ludicrous casualty figures have been claimed by both sides. I really do not need idiots doing so here.
The “Putin is perfect” narrative claims that Russia has failed to entirely subdue Ukraine because a) it never intended to b) Ukraine had an immensely powerful army at the start of the conflict.
Both claims are utter nonsense. Russia sent a column of its finest troops and armour to Kiev from the North at the start of this stage of invasion. It also sent special forces ahead into Kiev with the object of decapitating the Ukrainian command structure. The ground had been prepared by very large sums of money paid to key Ukrainian officials and generals.
The aim was regime change.
The whole was based on very faulty intelligence that there would be little resistance and the Ukrainian people would welcome regime change. Much of the money to have been laid out in bribes had in fact been stolen within the Russian FSB (something, I would add from personal experience, MI6 is not immune from either).
The initial Russian assault on Kiev was a costly failure, with many of Russia’s best forces very badly damaged. The attempt to deny this is pathetic. We all saw it.
Elsewhere the Russian advance meant much better. This is largely because:
It is nonsense to state that Ukraine had very powerful armed forces. In 2021 the Ukrainian army was equipped almost entirely with largely outdated ex-Soviet hardware. There were huge problems in supply chains caused by quite astonishing levels of Ukrainian corruption (though this was true of both sides). A Ukrainian command structure riddled by co-option of large, supply favoured, units of Nazis, which ran on bragadaccio, was hardly efficient either.
The Russian invasion of its far smaller, weaker and corruption-riddled neighbour has been a demonstration of Russian weakness.
Of course Russia will ultimately win – Russia is a lot bigger and it is taking on a smaller, underdeveloped and scarcely functional mafia state.
But that this is all an example of Putin’s genius, and casualty rates favour Russia by ten to one, are claims so divorced from reality they can only come from those who are utterly delusional – or paid to put them out.
END OF UPDATE
For well over a decade, we were used to nightly shots on our television news of British and US forces, in heavy combat gear, storming across desert landscapes in cloud of dust or firing heavy machine guns over the top of mud walls.
These shots were provided by “embedded journalists” with the UK and US forces, swaggering around in the same kind of body armour and helmets as the troops, often distinguishable only by a blue bib with “press” written on it.
Thankfully, we see almost no such screen footage of the proxy war NATO is fighting against Russia in Ukraine. War porn has almost disappeared from our screens. We saw a lot of it when the failed Russian column to Kiev was destroyed in the early part of the war, but since then, very little.
The answer is of course not hard to find. The ratio of Iraqi dead to American dead in the second Iraq war was about 200 to 1, and in the “triumphant” early advance was still higher than that. The embedded journalists travelling as part of US or UK armed forces in their armoured vehicles were posing as heroes, but in little real danger at that stage.
The US forces were a real danger to non-embedded journalists. 16 journalists and 6 other media workers were acknowledged as killed by US forces in Iraq, while scores of other Iraqi journalists disappeared with no certainty as to who killed them. By contrast 2 “embedded” journalists were killed.
The “embedded journalists” were of course not real journalists at all, they were simply functioning as actors, presenting images of the exhilarating triumph of colonial massacre of a technologically inferior people, to a home audience that lapped it up.
By contrast, being in the front line with Ukrainian troops now would be very dangerous indeed. The very tiny number of journalists who have done it are indeed worthy of the name. Streaming along as a passenger in a glamourised turkey shoot in Iraq is much more congenial than being embedded with troops in Ukraine who are fighting where the kill ratio is somewhere close to even.
(There are utterly ludicrous enemy casualty claims by both Ukraine and Russia, which should be treated with equal contempt).
The territorial gain in the vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive is of the same order as that in the notoriously futile Battle of the Somme. It doesn’t make for glorious television.
You may have noted a repeated Western propaganda meme, that very often when a Russian missile strikes hundreds of miles from the frontline, it is frequently said to have landed close to a hotel, bar or cafe used by western journalists.
I am not sure this is the propaganda win they think this is.
The Ukraine war is going extremely well for those who are making billions from the arms sales and increases to western defence budgets that have resulted. It is going extremely badly for ordinary people all over the world, who have suffered the inflationary and other consequences of the disruption of trade and production and the population flows.
Our rulers would love it to go on like this for years – in fact a quick Ukrainian victory would be a disaster for the profiteers.
This war is going nowhere on the ground. I do not expect a Russian winter offensive will be significantly more successful than the Ukrainian spring offensive. It would be impossible to display frontline coverage that did not demonstrate both abject horror and utter futility. Which is why there is almost none.
I am grateful we are seeing so little war porn on our screens. But I know why.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
A fair assessment from UnHerd on situation in Ukraine. Stopping the waste of lives must be all our priorities…_
https://unherd.com/2023/08/will-ukraine-recover-from-its-failed-counteroffensive/
The risk of erasure is too high for any media posho to be affecting heroics this time. There have been no Rageh Omaars for them to gush about. They also know nothing good happening where the action is. Just grinding slaughter of conscripts and destruction of “gamechanging” tanks.
A better question is why they are continuing to refuse to report on a brazen, world-historical attack on **Western** Europe’s critical infrastructure, economy and standard of living; even ignoring the Security Council’s rejection of a resolution for an international independent investigative commission.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15243.doc.htm
The Nord Stream attack was of infinitely greater import for Western Europe than anything happening in Ukraine yet a tame media class has followed its political heroes’ lead and simply memory-holed it, pretending it is has had no repercussions at all.
It also meant that the revenue stream from the pipeline through Ukraine kept money paid for transit fees flowing as well…. yes, that’s Russia paying Ukraine.
The economic blowback from destroying NordStream2 is adding to the backlog of economic problems stretching back to the crash in 2007/8. On top of that, european governments’ must be praying for another mild winter.
Here in the U.K. we continue to import up to 20% of our electricity needs on many occasions (not today though) As I write, over 50% of electricity comes from gas and less than 20% from wind and solar.
If the wise heads could at least get this stupid war stopped, then there is hope we can keep the lights on and businesses running…_
“On top of that, european governments’ must be praying for another mild winter”.
Why? They will be nice and warm. If the proles start to get restless, well, that’s why we have this wonderful military.
Nothing so mundane as the public keeping warm with lights on. The problems of business and what’s left of European industry are the big issue. Add in to that the problems of project NetZero targets and many unresolved issues come to the top of the agenda.
This conflict is tickling a lot of catastrophes. ‘Unseen consequences’ will probably be the next big meme amongst talking heads moving forward to winter, which is about ten weeks away now…_
The economic blowback from the destruction of Nord Stream is on another scale to the 07/08 financial crisis, which was obsessed over endlessly by the media-political class. Those same people today are pretending the destruction of Europe’s key energy supply has had no negative economic repercussions. At all. They are pretending, in Brussels, Berlin and London, to be unaware that someone vowed before the TV cameras (with the German Chancellor alongside him) to destroy Nord Stream. Nor to be aware of who has benefited enormously by its destruction. Nor of who is suffering. Are these the wise heads to whom you refer?
The longer term economic repercussions are likely to be even worse. Russia could easily predict the Western sanctions before launching the “special military operation” and wouldn’t have gone ahead without agreement of support from China. They’ve gained a resource rich satellite and are seeing American military dominance discredited globally. I reckon what we’re seeing is a major and permanent geopolitical realignment. Russia isn’t going to return to its previous economic links with Western Europe, in energy, manufactures or services. There will be a new economic Iron Curtain leaving Western Europe in a trade cul-de-sac.
Seeing as neither Nordstream pipeline was shifting any gas what ‘economic blowback’ is this?
higher gas prices with the US supplying the oil. by the way, Brian Berletic at the New Atlas is good source on the horrendous Ukrainian losses, far worse than the 1 to 1 Craig likes to believe for some reason. artillery kills.
Sanctions stopped fuel imports to Europe from Russia. Norway and USA exports of LNG to Europe went north along with prices. The world constantly develops and with energy supplies disrupted it causes major problems.
NordStream2 was ready to deliver oodles of cheap fuel…_
“Seeing as neither Nordstream pipeline was shifting any gas what ‘economic blowback’ is this?”
Most of the time, the gas supply to your house isn’t delivering any gas, but I expect you would find it inconvenient if someone permanently disconnected it.
– “NordStream2 was ready to deliver oodles of cheap fuel”
Sort of, but not on its own. The old southern gas fields, opened in the Soviet era, are depleted, and can now deliver gas at only a third of their peak rate, which was decades ago. These days they can barely supply faster than the Russian domestic consumption rate. That’s why, the winter before the war, Russia was refusing to sell to the EU – Russia was filling up its storage.
Nordstream 2 was part of a bigger, longer term project, which included greatly increasing production at the newer gas fields some 1500 kilometre north. This is why Russia was refusing to increase sales on the EU “spot markets”, instead insisting on long term contracts – for steady investment to develop major new extraction and pipeline infrastructure.
” Brian Berletic at the New Atlas is good source on the horrendous Ukrainian losses, ”
Once again where is he getting his information from? Just guesswork and wishful thinking as far as I can see.
Nordstream 1 was shut down for ‘maintenance’ by the Russians in August, flow having previously been reduced to 20% of max capacity in July. Nordstream 2 was yet to be signed off by Germany and after the invasion started it looked like it never would be,
Pears Morgaine celebrating a world-historic act of environmental terrorism, a deliberate degrading of western European industry/ standards of living, because it boosts US hegemony and corporate profit.
The position of moderate reason, matching as usual that of the wise heads of MSM and parliament.
“Nordstream 1 was shut down for ‘maintenance’ by the Russians in August, flow having previously been reduced to 20% of max capacity in July. Nordstream 2 was yet to be signed off by Germany and after the invasion started it looked like it never would be”
So the fact that it was down for maintenance means that it doesn’t matter that it was destroyed, then? I hope you would take a similarly sanguine view if the garage that had your car for a service crashed it beyond repair delivering it back to you: “You weren’t actually able to use it at the time, so it doesn’t matter”.
NS1&2:
In Germany it was a big issue that already under Trump the US government threatened the German town involved with its side of the pipeline constr. with legal steps and economic sanctions.
When it was under Trump it was a scandal.
In the summer of 2021 the new POTUS Biden in contrast was a good guy. But policy did not change. Only the mode:
Biden and Merkel – as reported in the WaPo back then by Michael Ignatius – quietly agreed to shut down NS1&2 if RU attacked UKR.
The US government had been harshly opposed to RU-FRG rapprochement on this level since the 1970s, when chancellor Schmidt and Egon Bahr laid the ground for the economic cooperation.
Schmidt was a much more conservative Social Democrat than Willy Brandt, also re: USSR, but he understood the rules of the game as well. The fact that RU and FRG had to be kept on distance from each other from US POV is of course common logic.
As to depleted levels of RU gas ressources – this is all contested. The RU government says they have rich new ones farther in the east. But thx for reminding of that, CLARK.
By all means the LNG-terminals are pure suicide for all but the company profitting.
Rumour has it that the GREENs in Berlin did speculate that a “fait accompli” situation in terms of no more cheap fossile fuel would force the green-energy turn. However without any realistic infrastructure backing that. Since the Scholz government had been in place only for a year. And could not have implemented such new big style energy policies.
I have some contestations with Alastair Crooke´s social theories (Europeans being a minority among minorities is utter nonsense) but he correctly described this GREEN policy a high risk gamble – the first time in history an industrial nation, Germany, wants to develope energy independence by not fossile ressources but by technological progress (fusion reactors + green hydrogen). And noone knows if this works out. And they seem to have done this without any proper preparation. The solar/wind industry is in shambles for decades after Merkel got it defunded etc.
Its madness on every level. Regarding that, the RUs are not mad.
(What could have EU and RU achieved together in terms of energy revolution?! sigh…)
AG, true; Russia has undeveloped / underdeveloped supergiant gas fields in the east as well, which I had forgotten about. But like the ones in Siberia, they need long term investment in massive new infrastructure.
AG I was reading somewhere that many Russians scientists still subscribe to the abiotic theory of the creation of hydrocarbons, developed in the postwar years, meaning hydrocarbons are not created from long dead organic matter! East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.
I briefly researched the abiotic theory, and found it a starling and fascinating story in equal measure, as to whether the theory is valid or not doesn’t matter to me, I don’t care. it stimulated my imagination the way a really good Sci-fi book/film does.
will moon
I agree the abiotic hypothesis offers good Sci-Fi. I try to look into it more closely.
Albeit in the real world its not a solution for anything (may be one reason most google hits on a quick search I find are sponsored by oil companie) . As EVs are no serious solution for solving our traffic problem.
But the USSR had a plethora of research on various fields that could help us now with all these issues. With the various climatic regions part of USSR territory and the native peoples there. A lot of knowledge to unearth. Instead of selling weapons.
(correction to my above comment, even if noone will notice: its David Ignatius, not Michael naturally, don´t know why that mix-up)
The trouble with Mr Murray’s analysis of Russia is he makes sound points, punctuated with *foreign office* talking points. Is it a personal animus or something else?
The Russian column to Kiev was hardly “wreaked” to start with it pulled back in good order. The Soviet equipment the Ukrainians have is equivalent to NATO equipment of the same era(Western superiority is a MIC talking point). And they have full ISR support and have been trained (and paid for eight years by NATO). Comparisons to the two Gulf Wars are risable.
As is any sweeping judgement on how either state has fought the war, given it’s the largest conventional war since WW2 between two modern armies.
As for the casualty claims they may be “double-counted” for both sides, but given the increasingly harsh Ukrainian conscription regime. It’s clear that the Ukrainians have suffered severe losses due the RF air-superiority & long-range strike capability. Plus their well documented habit of using territorial milita as expendable troops.
“The Russian column to Kiev was hardly “wreaked” to start with it pulled back in good order. The Soviet equipment the Ukrainians have is equivalent to NATO equipment of the same era”
You are barking mad.
Er, Mr Murray, you have lost me there. What exactly do you disagree with in Urban Fox’s comment? (Apart from the obvious typo “wreaked”).
As far as I can see he made two reasonable statements, with both of which I agree. Actually it’s an understatement to say that “The Soviet equipment the Ukrainians have is equivalent to NATO equipment of the same era”. In the current fighting, it seems to be distinctly superior. Probably most Soviet tanks were superior to the M1 Abrams, too – as Colonel McGregor, who commanded Abrams in action has recently stated. (With particular reference to the gas turbine engine – that really is barking mad).
And surely to say “You are barking mad” is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of your moderation policy? I have been threatened with banning by the moderators for words that were hardly less temperate.
It certainly sounds unparliamentary.
No, what current fighting shows is that up to date Russian equipment is the equal of a small jumble of forty year old NATO cast offs, when holding well prepared defensive positions with air superiority.
The Ukrainians did not start with up to date Russian equipment but clapped out old Soviet stuff.
“The Ukrainians did not start with up to date Russian equipment but clapped out old Soviet stuff.”
Isn’t that what Urban Fox said, “The Soviet equipment the Ukrainians have is equivalent to NATO equipment of the same era”? In what way is that “barking”?
“The Ukrainians did not start with up to date Russian equipment but clapped out old Soviet stuff”.
That’s fairly typical of the emotionally-biased language one hears all too often. “Old” isn’t necessarily bad: I’m old, Mr Murray is fairly old; but we are still magnificent thinkers and writers.
It’s the “clapped out” part that prejudices the statement. While I respect Mr Murray’s character and his mastery of many fields of knowledge, I suspect that he is not an expert in military equipment. If in doubt about the efficacy of 40-year-old Soviet or NATO weaponry, I would take Andrei Martyanov’s, Douglas McGregor’s, or Scott Ritter’s opinion over his.
What forty year old NATO cast offs was Mr Murray referring to? The M1 Abrams, which has not put in an appearance yet? The Bradley? The Challenger 2 and Leopard 2, which are only about 33 years old?
The fact is that, in the Ukrainian context of today, a tank is a tank is a tank. None of them on either side has much chance of survivig a hit from serious weaponry. They are no longer the king of the battlefield.
The Russians have gone over to defence because that is winning the war for them. They will probably stay on defence as long as the Ukrainians keep suicidally hurling themselves to their deaths.
This year, Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko all said that the eight years before the war had been used for making the Ukrainian army much stronger than in 2014. I’m sure that must have involved a huge upgrading of the USAF’s military hardware. The Kremlin and the Russian army must have noticed that too and was not expecting a quick victory.
If shooting down a civilian plane with a crew of 3 innocent people isn’t war porn, what do you suggest.
As they say, “play it again, SAM”
” The Russians have gone over to defence because that is winning the war for them. ”
Defensive tactics don’t win wars. The mighty Russian army should’ve humiliated Ukraine inside of a month but they failed and they failed because they’re rubbish. Now they’ve dug themselves into prepared defensive positions which might be hard to assault but will make it psychologically and physically difficult to move forward from when the generals order another advance. They will have to ‘go over the top’ some time if Russia is to achieve its stated objectives.
Once before when Russia was bogged down in trench warfare it resulted in mutiny, mass desertions and revolution.
Again foreign office taking points. I don’t know why you decide to stick to it.
The MIC won’t pay you for your trouble. Unlike their chauvanstic “magic-Western-wonder-weapons” war-pigs and shills.
I think the Saudi example is worthwhile here. They had every fancy whiz-bang toy the West could sell them, along with logistical support and hired help. They still struggled for years to *not* beat literally starving, cholera-ridden Yemeni militia. Who were genuinely of-times armed with clapped-out Soviet gear.
But here’s rub, outside a few systems most stuff isn’t really “up to date” a lot of RF equipment is a modernized/refurbished version of Soviet era models. The equivalent is true by and large of NATO.
Also that “clapped out” comment really is nonsensical to the point of discredit. As others have posted. The Ukrainians had upgraded their equipment (or had same done for them by former WTO states all funded by NATO) and received large quantities of such modernized armaments from Eastern Europe, along with Western gear since the beginning.
The numbers run into the thousands, so hardly a “small jumble”. The AFU has also flung tens of thousands of troops into their offensive, and the Russian lines barely moved, whilst they suffered lop-sided casualties. So I don’t know what point you *think* you were making there.
You also categorically ignore the role of ISR on both sides (particularly for Ukraine it seems) and extensive large-scale drone use.
In fact at the end of the day, it really looks like manned armoured vehicles (or manned aircraft for that matter) of *anyone’s* manufacture have real problems of survivability against a peer opponent in a modern war. Israel also got a bloody nose, when it tried to have a go at Lebanon sixteen years ago?
@ Pears
“Defensive tactics don’t win wars.”
Tactics go with operations and strategy; defensive tactics are easily compatible with an offensive strategy.
Take a peek at German military strategy 1870 to 1914: attack, find a flank to get round and let the opposition try to fight their way out. Look at the Allies in Normandy, smashing every German attempt to conduct a counter-offensive until Mortain, then exploiting the German concentration at the west end of the front to attack in the east and forestall some of the redeployment with Operation Bluecoat at the same time.
“The mighty Russian army should’ve humiliated Ukraine inside of a month but they failed and they failed because they’re rubbish.”
“The Russian Army failed to live up to the standards that I set for them, so they’re rubbish” Great argument there.
There were reports that AFU soldiers refused to use the new NATO tanks as they turned out worse than expected.
I dont´t know if this was true for one crew or many tank crews.
But as it appears the tank superiority in battle is even less true by now than it was a few years back.
They have become more vulnerable even with air support.
If I read it correctly, NATO advisors were overwhelmed with the task of implementing adequate tactics integrating the various battlefield elements because they have not been used to it on the current scale.
Particular aspects worked out well in the beginning on a limited scale, due to UKR efforts and NATO equipment but eventually the RUs adapted.
So I wonder whether the issue is still more shiny NATO tanks that have never been seriously tested under battle conditions.
F-35 showed serious performance issues when used on carriers which were not foreseen on the drafting table.
Electronic Warfare has just begun to alter the how war is fought. I guess this surprised many. And was expected by as many.
As someone here wrote, quick major battlefield movements are less likely since they are located instantly.
That makes tanks less valuable. No one wants tanks as sitting ducks in a trench.
i believe you are correct.
The M1 Abrams seemed to perform reasonably well against Soviet- and Chinese-built tanks in the past, Tom – which is probably the reason the good colonel is still with us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
(160 Iraqi tanks destroyed; 0 US tanks lost)
Our host’s blog, our host’s rules. Oh and it’s Macgregor, rather than McGregor.
Do turkey shoots really count Lapsed Agnostic, when assessing the efficacy of weapons platforms? A rabble is a rabble whether it is a rabble of tanks or a rabble of soldiers. Air dominance, EW dominance, satellite recon dominance, decapitation strikes etc, etc ad nauseum.
Einsatzgruppen administrators would send reports to Berlin saying things like “14,371 partisans shot and killed, weapons seized 4 rifles ,2 pistols. No casualties”. One can guess what sort of military action it was by the casualties sustained by the protagonists
So no relevant data in yet regarding the performance of the weapons platform against a near-peer competitor. This system, M1, employs a gas turbine engine and has a very high silhouette. The engine has many critics and the silhouette speaks for itself. Only time will tell, the data you mention is not applicable, as far as I can discern.
Thanks for your reply Will. It might have been less of a turkey shoot had the Iraqi Army had Abrams tanks as well, rather than T-72’s etc. Is there any chance you could name any of the ‘many critics’ of the Abrams’ engine, other than Col. Douglas Macgregor* (preferably current or retired members of the armoured units that employ it)?
* He’s someone else who seems to think that the Ukrainian military has suffered over 400,000 deaths in the War/SMO, and so, if our host is anything to go by, would fall into the idiot/Putin shill camp.
The Iraqi Army was subjected to the list l gave, air dominance, EW dominance, satellite recon dominance, decapitaion strikes etc. It was a disorganised rabble facing untenable shortfalls over several crucial domains, without command and control functions an army is just some people and some machinery.
As for McGregor, I watched him in the November before the fighting began, on the gray zone, interviewed by Aaron Mate. I have not watched him since, so you know more than me. I remember two things he said. He predicted the conflicts start, accurate within a week and secondly when Mate tried to vaguely summarise the Vietnam War, he bristled overtly at every statement Mate essayed yet they seemed innocuous historical points, Mate abandoned the question and moved on. I got a fleeting impression some part of him was fighting the Vietnam War or dwelling on the result.
I don’t have favourite soldiers, they are necessary we are told, maybe so but I think of the military as toilet paper, used to mop up shit. Useful as bog paper is, I wouldn’t fetishise it or turn into a cult and I would not spend billions on it or is that trillions nowadays?
It wouldn’t have helped Iraq to have better weapons systems, what was needed was a functioning army.
Lapsed Agnostic, you have said nothing that supports your contention that the M1’s “big win” is relevant – we learnt nothing from it other than people can be killed. iIt was a turkey shoot, aka shooting fish in a barrel, aka a massacre.
Eh? You should consider the fact the Iraqis were using locally produced knock-offs of WTO “export model” tanks. Or as they charmingly called them “monkey models” the clue is in the name.
Plus the Iraqi army had gotten its pan thoroughly knocked-in by the Iranians in a nine year war, that had only just ended. Roughly half a million total Iraqi dead, from a population of twelve million.
Then factor in Saddam’s *wonderful* idea of parking his army in the flat, desolate, inhospitable terrain of Kuwait’s southern desert to be seen & bombed with impunity for months. Rather than say hunker down in Kuwait City.
By the the time Coalition ground forces got to them the Iraqi army was ptetty well demoralised & finished as an effective force. It would even be fair to say their best fighting men were dead *before* the Gulf War even started.
That’s why I view the triumphalism over the first Gulf War as a little sordid. It’s like Connor MacGregor beating an unsuspecting seventy year old man in a pub.
The Americans could’ve been using Sherman tanks, and they still would’ve won with everything else so ridiculously in thier favour.
Thanks for your reply Will. The Iraqi tank brigades at the Battle of 73 Easting weren’t a disorganised rabble; they were capable of co-ordinated manoeuvres. According to his interview with Tucker, the colonel* joined the army at the end of the Vietnam War – not sure if that has informed his views in any way. The problem with a country not spending billions on its military is that it may be invaded by other countries that have.
The US’s big win / turkey shoot at the Battle of 73 Easting is relevant to debunking Tom Welsh’s claim that most Soviet-era tanks are superior to the Abrams. Of course it was a tragedy for the families of the Iraqis that were killed, but it wouldn’t have happened if Saddam hadn’t invaded Kuwait.
* As I told Tom, it’s Macgregor, not McGregor.
————————
Thanks for your reply UF. The Iraqi tanks that fought in the Battle of 73 Easting were still operational beforehand whether they’d been previously attacked by US air power or not. According to Wiki, Macgregor’s squadron didn’t call in air support or artillery during the battle*, but still managed to take out nearly 70 Iraqi vehicles (probably mostly tanks).
I’m not an expert on the Iran-Iraq War, but I’d imagine that its eight-year duration would have led to a survivor bias towards those tank crews and units who had a reasonable idea of what they were doing. The ‘monkey models’ of T-72’s were produced in the Soviet Union, but to a slightly reduced spec compared to models destined for the Soviet Army. In most cases, however, the Abrams were able to take out Iraqi tanks simply because their guns outranged theirs. This would equally apply to the Soviets’ (and now Russia’s) versions.
Oh and it’s Conor McGregor, not Connor MacGregor – too many McGregors/Macgregors in these comments.
* That’s not doing things by the book, to say the least, but then he seems to be a bit of a maverick. Here’s another fun fact about the colonel: he was a ‘top planner’ of NATO’s bombing of Belgrade, even though he (correctly) thought that all it would achieve would be to ‘put a Muslim drug mafia in charge of [Kosovo]’. He also supports the US embassy being moved to Jerusalem.
Casualty ratios of 160-0 is a massacre by my lights but you disagree. Do you know something I don’t?
Thanks for your reply Will. I probably know quite a few things you don’t, but where have I said that the Battle of 73 Easting wasn’t a massacre? Put it this way: if your side has sniper rifles with decent optics and the opposition only has sidearms, and you’re fighting in a desert which provides no cover, then it’s going to be a massacre whether your enemy is a disorganised rabble or a highly-disciplined fighting force, because in that situation, sniper rifles are much more effective than handguns.
“The M1 Abrams seemed to perform reasonably well against Soviet- and Chinese-built tanks in the past, (160 Iraqi tanks destroyed; 0 US tanks lost)”
The only way that the M1 could perform that well would be if the range of their main gun was greater than the range of the main gun of the Iraqi’s tanks and the M1s could knock out the enemy before the enemy got close enough to use their own guns. Having a longer range main gun doesn’t necessarily make for a better tank all round, nor does it mean that the Abrams would perform well against tanks of a similar spec. The Abrams is heavier (and thus less manouverable), taller (and thus less easy to conceal) and uses more fuel than its Russian equivalent. In case you had not noticed, the Ukraine war is quite different from the Iraq war. Saying that the Abrams M1 performed well against enemy tanks over 30 years ago says nothing about its capabilities today. Just because Liverpool beat Man U 30 years ago doesn’t mean that they are going to beat them again this year.
Lapsed Agnostic
a historic study may be of interest (it´s new in Germany so not yet read myself), originally Princeton Univ. Press
“Forging Global Fordism: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and the Contest over the Industrial Order”
by Stefan J. Link
A new global history of Fordism from the Great Depression to the postwar era
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177540/forging-global-fordism
Link points out e.g. that USSR outperformed Nazi Germany on every level of military industrial poduction, except submarines and ships. Eventually turning USSR into a major host for Fordistic concepts post 45.
M1
Macgregor in his Tucker encounter – (why on Earth is this Tucker so popular? He is simply a 2nd rate actor, RFK performs much better on camera as does Macgregor…) – reminded of its turbine engine which today makes M1 a perfect target for drones due its heat signature which makes it stand out like a christmas tree.
Then with its operational duration its simply an “8 hour” tank.
Besides those engines seem to be pretty dangerous for the people operating it.
Stick a fighter-jet turbine into a ground-borne machine.
No surprise.
See for that also said Tucker interview.
My point is if one has accurate casualty figures , one can deduce what sort of engagement has taken place without needing to know any tactical details, if the ratios are extreme as the example you cite Lapsed Agnostic In this case there is no relevant tactical information to be gleaned from this encounter. It was no contest. So M1 combat performance versus Soviet weapon systems is a meaningless concept. One can deduce this from the fact the lraqi forces scored zero, they didn’t lay a glove on the M1
Whether the Iraqi forces, if armed with more effective weaponry could have performed more effectively, seems unlikely in view of “Shock and Awe” and its attendant consequences.
Bayard, you make a strong case but can I suggest we maybe are seeing some sort of paradigm shift in military theory and practice. For example, to use your football analogy,
regardless of competitiveness in the top flight Liverpool would always be expected to beat lower tier opposition eg Tranmere or Cheltenham Town, both days past and hence. Yet in the top flight defence has proved dominant, and apart from the use of NBC systems there is little evidence that either side can develop an operational advantage, except in staccato bursts of small attacks. The dominance of the tank, as several here have observed, is no more. It is still a very powerful weapon but ATGM’s and drones have ended its unique overrun capability.
We live in a panopticon now. So the kill zones in Ukraine are a panopticon, everything is potentially observed, satellites passing overhead, drones loitering, so small attacks erupt with incredible rapidity and just as smartly terminate. A few tanks with a platoon of mobile infantry in AFVS, maybe some armoured close support, advance firing at short halt or in motion with massive artillery and/or rocket attacks. The infantry dismount and attempt to find cover and dig in. The AFV’s reverse at top speed and its all over in 60 seconds, win or lose. It seems so much more deadly than any previous conflict. If one side gained a significant enough logicistical or quantitative advantage things might change. One thing is for sure the gates of hell are open in Ukraine.
AG are you joking about the jet engine? If true it explains the expensive maintenance cycle. I read somewhere that GEC electrified large cities like Irkutsk and others in1924-25 and several US corporations built major industrial infrastructure such as dams and 10,000 ton presses The Bolshevik industrial program benefitted to a greater degree from help from the Revolutions mortal enemy. I think the public and party line was still world revolution at the time.
“ The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Thanks for your reply Bayard. As I stated in my reply to UF, the Battle of 73 Easting was won by the Americans largely because their tanks outranged the Iraqi ones, although US artillery and air strikes also played a role. However, tank battles can also be won if one side’s tanks have significantly better armour than the other’s. This seems to have been the case in the Iran-Iraq War (which I’ve been genning up on) in the Iraqis’ favour. I had noticed that the War/SMO in Ukraine is different to the Iraq War, and also that the Battle of 73 Easting took place in the Gulf War.
———-
Thanks for your reply AG, and for the link to the book. It might be a while before I get chance to read it though, as there’s already a big stack of unread books in my room. On a related note, I’ve finally got around to reading Max Blumenthal’s ‘The Management of Savagery’ which, although I don’t concur with him on everything as you might imagine, is still pretty good.
I can see why Tucker is popular in the US – I think part of it is his slightly disappointed / confused default look – I can imagine thousands of Yanks the length and breadth of the country thinking: Tucker looks like I feel. Anyway, this is an absolute masterclass in getting senior US politicians to go along with exactly what you want them to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WfwAwQQCUk
These days, pretty much all tanks (with engines big and small) are visible day and night on the modern battlefield. From what I can gather, the Abrams tank’s engine has a reputation for being fairly reliable, and probably fairly safe. The US military has an annual budget of around $800 billion ($700 billion if you discount retirement packages); I can’t see it sticking with an engine on its workhorse MBT for over 30 years if there were major problems with it.
———
Thanks for your reply Will. I’m still not sure what your point is. As far as I can see, the Battle of 73 Easting was a rout largely because the Americans’ Abrams tanks were better than the Iraqis’ mostly Soviet ones. ‘Shock and Awe’ happened at the start of the War in Iraq in 2003; the Battle of 73 Easting was fought in the Gulf War, 12 years prior.
My point is when a protagonist in a battle does no damage while suffering massive casualties, maybe upto 100 percent. I would draw no tactical inferences
Shock and Awe emerged in 2003 as a media concept, it was practised from Korea onwards with increasingly deadliness, as new domains were opened and new weapon systems became available. Though branded in 2003, it was long in formation. Only becoming overt when the Sovs collapsed and no peer competitor could restrain the US I think it owes a lot to Britain’s colonial control policies which in 1920’s featured air power and poison gas deployed against men riding camels a cheap method of colonial policing, if one ignores the human costs
I watched “Jarhead” ten year ago, regardless of this films merits it suggest that the whole thing was a joke to the US personnel
WILL MOON
I would agree with the change of the battefield. 100% surveillance and drones have upset everything.
If there is a surprising sea-change it´s not political (that was long in the planning) but military in nature.
p.s. jet engine in the Abrams – yes! I have heard that many times in the past. It stands as a truism for the thinking of MIC where money and personel are secondary. Same with the first design of BRADLEYs. They were lethal to their own crew. The officer who uncovered this and brought it to the Senate´s attention was demoted/fired. BUT they re-designed it. So it was a decent APC eventually. F-35 has a legacy of incompetence of its own…German Leopards turning into boiling pots after simple attacks by Kurds.
Lapsed Agnostic
thx for the Blumenthal. And Verso Publishing´s always a good address.
problems with army gear:
M1 – Macgregor who is often overblown but does know the battlefield as a “practitioner” has criticized the Abrams first generations since he knows them. The fact that a piece of gear has become standard in an army can have various reasons, least of which is reliability or safety (one of the major points of criticism by conservative US miitary experts today).
But eventually those M1s were never tested in anything on the present level. That´s why NATO, they have said so themselves, is so keen on this war. The mass of data all arms manufacturerers have been collecting since Febr. ´22 must be worth billions in terms of R&D and is one of the main reasons this is going on. Think of it as possible preparation not just for wars in general but war againt China. Even if all this hopefully remains theory. Thats enought to demand 1trillion budgets.
William Hartung, I think, recently pointed out that the A-10 “tank-killer” was, on strictly military terms, one of the best pieces designed since WWII. But the company lost the bidding war which is why it was not produced in huge numbers. And now they are trying to get rid of the A-10s.
One reason not supplying UKR with A-10s (I always wondered), I think, it was to prevent the chance for good perfomances so A-10s could become popular again.
In Germany e.g. in WWII the Messerschmidt had some issues for the pilots (difficulties on heights, no 360 view, little tank) – still those were not solved even though the Reich was then in “full” flowering. And Messerschmidts remained their backbone even after the superior Focke-Wulfs came in.
(Of course every nation has such issues. I forgot what made the British Hurricanes very vulnerable or the Typhoon. Not to speak of Japanese Zeros made entirely of balsa wood if I remember correctly. US pilots in Korea had problems seeing and aiming in their late generation Corsairs. F-16s appear to be very difficult in terms of maintenance. Certain F4 Phantoms over Vietnam had no machine gun only missiles which became a deadly problem against Soviet MIGs. And so on.)
The A10 has always brought the Soviet Sturmovik ground attack aircraft to mind. A case of just the right design producing a type which performs exceptionally well at it’s assigned role. Though the Sturmovik was a two seater and it was a different era, the resemblances both in design and performance attributed to it, mark this aircraft, like the A10, as a “best of breed” war plane. I watched a documentary featuring an old lady who had been a combat pilot on the Eastern Front and was credited with many, many tank kills. Panzer formations were generally AA heavy as they were favoured by the Wehrmacht’sn replacement system, so a ground attack pilot had to brave, skilful and lucky to kill German armour and even more so, to destroy lots of it, as this incredible veteran had done when the Blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank
The Sherman was nicknamed “the Ronson” by it’s crews, due to a design flaw which made the tank prone to explode and burn when hit, precluding crew survival. I guess the US produced more of these than any other type in the country’s history perhaps 40,000 or so. It maybe was sorted out but not in 43-44 when most of the the fighting was taking place. Many tankers who kept diaries or who published books after the war mention this problem, most with cynical anger.
During Korean War F-86 Sabres came with a “highly advanced” gun sight which was eschewed by it’s pilots in favour of a piece of bubble gum stuck on the front window, which in time became known as the “gum sight”!
US torpedoes didn’t work very often for the first 18 -24 months of WW2, a source of great frustration for their submariners and torpedo bomber pilots. The Japanese didn’t ever use the convoy system so their merchant ships were easy targets. Once the US had a reliable torpedo, they sunk nearly every freighter in the Japanese merchant marine. One wonders why the Bomb was dropped when the country was unable to feed itself but deposing the Emperor was likely to lead to revolution, so in the terrible logic of capitalist realpolitik, nuclear holocaust was preferable. Hirohito could surrender and save face because the US had deployed “a new and terrible weapon”
To paraphrase Noel Coward, only mad MICs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun!
Thanks for your reply Will. I would say that you can draw tactical inferences from the Battle of 73 Easting. Let’s just agree to differ, shall we? I’d also say that the ‘shock & awe’ strategy started in World War II – nearly three million tons of ordnance were dropped on Continental Europe alone, much of it on civilian targets – but it only got that name in the Iraq War.
——-
Thanks for your reply AG. Don’t know that much about WWII planes even though my grandad helped to build quite a few of them. I know a bit more about some of the more recent military aircraft. The A-10 is slow and very vulnerable to SAMs; after a fair few were lost early on in the Gulf War, its use was restricted to near the Kuwaiti border. US grunts may think that the ‘Hawg’ can solve all military problems*, but fortunately they don’t generally sit in on mid-level planning meetings. There’s a reason why Ukraine wants F-16’s even though they won’t be perfect.
* This is still one of my favourite memes: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/188306828158676108/
Yes, let’s.
I disagree with the origins of Shock and Awe. Most of those bombs were dropped in strategic bombing campaigns against civilians, killing millions deliberately, not the same as Shock and Awe, which is a tactical/operational concept. It’s genesis is to be found in Leigh-Mallory’s long and prolonged campaign to destroy French transport infrastructure in 44, in support of the D-Day landings. Leigh-Mallory was a RAF Air Marshal . The campaign killed many thousands of French civilians, who worked or lived near such infrastructure but it was not targeted against them. The idea is to break the logistical chains which reach the combat line, isolating it and allowing one’s forces to overwhelm the enemy, due to logistical and informational dominance. Needless to say, in Korea RAF Air Marshals did not get to plan air campaigns, that is why I suggest it started in Korea.
The US military owns Shock and Awe, it is the American way of war. It is a “fitting” method for an economically dominant state with military preponderance, who care little for lives of civilians especially “enemy” ones. I would bet the Roman Empire had some version of it.
Thanks for your reply Will. From Wiki:
‘Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military *strategy* based on the use of *overwhelming power* and *spectacular displays of force* to paralyze the enemy’s perception of the battlefield and *destroy their will to fight*.’ [my emphases]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
Nothing there about logistics or ACM Leigh-Mallory.
Lapsed Agnostic, I would exercise caution as far as wikedped is concerned. Many voices on the internet and even on this blog, suggest that there are issues concerning political interference and even outright falsehoods – especially if the information sought concerns the Land of the Free. I would not know myself because I don’t use it, except for something like the formal name of a country or similar trivia. Just because wikedped doesn’t mention something is not indicative of anything and just because someone brands an idea at a certain time doesn’t mean that the idea originated with them.
It is probably better if we leave it there, we are not getting anywhere.
I lack time to comment every single comment here but reading them with great interest, thx.
re: US military planning:
may be of interest:
2 US military planning documents on implementation of the “Full Spectrum Dominance” Concept
written in 1997:
“Joint Vision 2010 by Joint Chief of Staffs”
http://drseres.com/tavoktatas/irodalom/stb/jv2010.pdf
written in 2000:
“Joint Vision 2020”
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA526044
May be these were indeed “paper tigers” as they say in German, and may be boastful Andrej Martyanov is not mistaken with some of his criticism.
If you ignore Martyanov´s style one finds valuable items.
I have not profoundly enough looked into Martyanov´s posts yet.
But while his personal comments are difficult to judge adequately, he does give good sources which he always quotes and links.
like in below examples:
quoting Milley e.g. on AFU, mine-fields and F-16s:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2023/07/joint-vision-lol.html
“(…)So I’m confident that they can do this, and especially if they execute the tactics, techniques and procedures that they’ve been taught, which they are doing, and execute these operations at night, which would deny the Russians the ability to use any of their airpower anyway. So the real problem is the minefields. It’s not right now the airpower. Now, having said that, just do a quick math drill here. Ten F-16s are $2 billion, so the Russians have hundreds of fourth- and fifth-generation airframes. So if they’re going to try to match the Russians one for one, or even, you know, two-to-one, you’re talking about a large number of aircraft. That’s going to take years to train the pilots, years to do the maintenance and sustainment, years to generate that degree of financial support to do that. You’re talking way more billions of dollars than has already been generated. So the key thing is to focus on air defense.(…)”
Here he quotes a critique by Milley in “The Hill” of another military official, obviously a rival:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2023/07/joint-vision-lol.html
“(…)Milley’s case for inter-service harmonization is, more specifically, a case for a wholly joint approach to doctrinal, technological and strategic development. It rests not upon new technology, but on technology that came into being during the Cold War. Milley’s point of departure is AirLand Battle, the doctrine that assisted the flowering of operational theory in U.S. military practice. Milley’s criticism of AirLand Battle is that it was insufficiently joint — it never included a naval role, nor did it delineate properly between aerial and ground responsibility for long-range fires. This criticism is telling in that Milley’s argument does not actually rest upon the new technologies he mentions. Rather, it rests on the assumption that the greatest change in modern warfare in the last century is the development of jointness itself, embodied in an empowered chairman and the centralization of force design and doctrinal development in the Joint Staff.(…)”
p.s. not of importance but from Martyanov I learned that Mr. Borrel from the EU holds a Master in mathematics from Stanford, which makes some of his decisions even more noteworthy. (would not over-stress the siginificance of “Stanford” nor “math2 but there is a lesson how politics work.)
AG I will take another look at Martynov, previously his prickly style has put me off.
I will also take a look at those links, thanks.
Soviet Marshal Tukhachevsky talked about something similar to AirLandBattle in the 1920’s/30’s and developed operational concepts to implement it, however Stalin wasn’t keen so it never became a reality. Maybe US have being going thru his papers! Would not be suprised, he was a unique military thinker and gathered around himself military intellectuals like Putna and others, they became known as the “spets” (specialists). Stalin called him “Napoleonachik”
Will Moon
“Napoleonachik”
I like that.
Even though I luckily am past my childhood infatuation with Napoleon.
Today as far as I understand one of his major contributions was the unsentimental use of force and sacrifice of life if it served tactical and strategic goals. This horror was new, since casualty numbers during battles in the European theatre for many centuries were rather limited.
In fact apparently at the beginning of Napoleon´s rise the bloodiness of his approach was one factor how he beat the various imperial armies – them aristocrats were not used to this bloodshed. They were abhorred.
(introduction of total warfare? – there is much stuff on this by Simplicius on his blog, which I will have to study.)
In the Hollywood movie “Patton” (1970) there is a phrase by Patton when he awaits an attack by Rommel in the desert.
He is impressed by the fact that Rommel intentionally lets his infantry be sacrificed within the offensive formation.
I forgot the details however.
Wonder what “school” Tukhachevsky belonged too? sacrifice or not?
Geoffrey Roberts made some comments on Stalin´s strategic performance during WWII, saying that Stalin was able to stop his early mistakes, learn and develop his skills and understanding of warfare.
Wasn´t Wellington one who learned to avoid high casualty numbers for his defensive approach?
Or is that just urban legend.
will moon
re: criticism of US military
sry but this I just watched, 3 min. from Judging Freedom with US Veteran Matthew Hoh from the Eisenhower Media Network.
He explains that US generals rise through the ranks often based on group think and lacking real experience, instead referring to war games that are “rigged” so the military goals would be met. In his lingo “fairy-dusted”.
Its short and funny but good info and, yes, a bit confirming Martyanov´s views.
Unfortunately I only found it on Judging Freedom´s fb-site. So you would have to look there or look on YT
(I never find anything on YT)
It would start to the end of the show at 20:00.
—
[ Mod: The video is linked below.
Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom: “Ukraine War & Diplomatic Malpractice w/ Matthew Hoh” (30 Jun 2023) – 22m 30s, YouTube or Rumble. ]
I watched the Judge in the early 2000’s on Fox in a performance I can only describe as “putting out fires with gasoline”. I have avoided him like the plague since.
He reminds me of the barkeeper in the Simpson, Mo , in several ways
This was very good, both made a valuable contribution and watching has cured me of my prejudices of Napolitano, thanks.
Hoh is good and was unknown to me – simple language conveying complex, politico-historical info whilst avoiding the “Putin shill” moniker. He gives the impression that he is powered by integrity not vanity.
Two visual elements will remain after the words have been forgotten- the white lapel flower and the Free Assange poster behind his head. I will listen/read more of him, to see if he is consistent. Without suggesting anything negative about Hoh, peaceniks in the US can only be intelligence assets or authentic – so intense is the ideologically driven militarism whipped up by the MIC in that country and so to is the all encompassing apparatus of surveillance and repression that genuine peaceniks face there.
Napoleonachik was of the of the Rommel/Napoleon school. I saw a photo of him standing on a runway, gazing at a TB-3 ( a lumbering 30’s heavy bomber/transport model) about to take off with parachutists laying on the planes wing. They were to be dropped from very low heights, 250 feet or so. The environmental conditions in the photo are apocalyptically frozen, maybe minus 20 o 30 with the snow laying in massive drifts higher than a person so I don’t think he was much of a “snowflake”
Remember the Patton scene well, it was the battle of Kasserine, if remember rightly.
RU tank engine:
This German language text is one of the very very few that tries to take seriously the RU arms industry. (I am sure NATO does so as well internally but that wouldn´t serve the PR well for the current state of war.)
https://www.telepolis.de/features/Russischer-T-80-Panzer-Der-Irrtum-Retro-Waffe-im-Ukraine-Krieg-9307517.html?seite=2
It suggests that RU will focus on producing the T-80 which was equipped with a gas engine. T-80s were built at the same time as Leopard 2. Gas engines have the advantage of being able to start more quickly than diesel engines in -50 degree environment.
If this is indeed true I don´t know. Or what the time difference between both engines is. I believe to remember that gas engines needed hours to heat up. (But I am obviously no expert.)
The article additionally considers it a sign for “war economy” in RU since NATO is entirely in war mode not yielding to any pre-war demands. Posing an existential threat.
If this justifies the term “war economy” I would doubt, since the US has had at least 10-fold defense budgets as RU, sometimes even more and no one ever called the US a “war economy”. Besides almost every major constituency is depending on US arms producers why the US Senate so heavily relies on them.
However this appears to be of significance for the new NATO border via Finland and Murmansk harbour which creates a volatile situation to put it mildly.
What makes me skeptical, again the sources are as always almost entirely Western. But that the RUs are ramping up tank production has been reported in RU too and is obviously no secret.
As long as it’s only threats, fair enough.
Parliamentary is a thing of the past
“Parliamentary is a thing of the past”.
Ain’t that the truth.
And you are just plain rude.
Your KIA figures are your own.
Your balanced views are anything but.
That is a silly reply. Do you have evidence that the whole Kiev operation was not an attempt to convince the Ukraine to negotiate in Istanbul which was aborted thanks to intervention by the UK and US?. Do you have evidence that the Russians did not withdraw in good order?
Finally you seem to have very little sympathy for the Russian population of Donbass and the Ukraine for a Scottish Nationalist and a supporter of Catalonia.
From what I recall, that column didn’t do much at all. It drove in, sat there for a while, then withdrew. The most notable thing was how this massive sitting duck was never reported as being under air attack, which told us that the Ukrainian air force was neutralised. If it had been, we’d have heard all about it. As I see it, everything is consistent with it being a feint to draw Ukrainian forces away from the territory Russia really wanted to take: the land route to Crimea with its naval base. The military mind is always going to see things like that as its top priority. Notice how, out of all its choices along the front line, Ukraine is throwing its troops and equipment against what’s going to be the most strongly defended sector, trying to reach Melitopol and cut that land route.
I too notice the lack of pseudojournos cosplaying as soldiers sending back their reports from the front/ Drone footage is too ‘videogamelike’ so does not serve the purpose.
Clearly, this is a real shooting war with enemies who can shoot back with parity and even superiority so few want to be in the front line and the Ukrainians are far less able to protect their embeds from the Russians and even their own side.
This war is winding down and unless some fresh escalation happens will degenerate into a Korean War style stalemate. Which is probably what the MIC wants anyway.
Too bad for the millions of innocents who suffer, but they never figure in the MICs spreadsheets….
Even if you are correct, Craig, that Russia is BOUND to win, the price they’ll pay will be horrendous. As a matter of realpolitik, is the West not justified in propping up Ukraine as long as possible, in bleeding the Russians as much as they can? Because it occurs to me that, had Putin had a quick and easy win in Ukraine, NATO forces would now be engaged with Russia in Poland, or more likely, the Baltic states. It also seems to me that an utterly corrupt pseudo-state could never have put up this level of resistance for so long. Ukrainians clearly don’t want to be run from Moscow, no matter how corrupt their own government might be. Does this not come under the heading “will of the indigenous people”? You know, like the Palestinians?
“As a matter of realpolitik, is the West not justified in propping up Ukraine as long as possible, in bleeding the Russians as much as they can?”
That is a pleonastic tautology; the definition of realpolitik is that moral factors such as “justification” are excluded from consideration.
Morally, the policy you recommend – which indeed seems to be exactly the US government’s policy – is indefensible.
Even in practical terms, how wise is it deliberately to “bleed” the only nation on Earth that could utterly destroy the USA (and all its allies) in a couple of hours?
realpolitik
n noun politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
It’s wise because the only alternatives are either to fight Russia directly or roll over for them and give them back their empire.
“It’s wise because the only alternatives are either to fight Russia directly or roll over for them and give them back their empire.”
Or arms limitation treaties, like the ones Amerika tore up, could be negotiaited.
they don’t want an empire. so, that’s not a problem.
Re: ‘That is a pleonastic tautology’
All tautologies are pleonastic, Tom, because they use more words than are necessary. So, amusingly, unlike the sentence it refers to, which is a rhetorical question, your above phrase is a tautology itself.
“Itself” is redundant. ;O)
Thanks for your reply Squeeth. I’ve always been fairly pleonastic myself. Ooops, I did it again. Hope you enjoy the weekend.
I’ll try but I got sacked yesterday.
Thanks for your reply Squeeth. Sorry to hear about that. Hopefully you’ll be able to find another job soon – assuming you want one. You should be helped in that regard by the UK unemployment rate currently being low*, although I’m still not quite sure how that’s come about.
* assuming that you live in the UK
Not in Hull, it’s as terminal as 2018, the last time I was on the rock. Employment-unemployment statistics aren’t necessarily so.
Thanks for your reply Squeeth. Yes, I suppose there is quite a bit of local variation on the jobs front. Don’t know that much about Hull – I’ve only been there once, and that was by mistake. Good luck with job-hunting – hope you don’t get one of those arsey ‘job coaches’ who insists you show voluminous proof of spending 35 hrs a week looking for jobs to avoid getting sanctioned. Anyway, here’s some inspirational upbeat music which I hope will spur you in your quest for gainful employment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEYYI1ii0AU
(Content warning: Contains Anglo-Saxon words from the start)
Lots of people come here by mistake; I did for two years, thirty years ago. ;O)
I’m glad you understood my joke, LA.
Thanks for your reply Tom. I’m not sure I do understand your joke. I’m probably not clever enough. Are you pretending to be someone who doesn’t understand literary devices for comic effect? Hope you enjoy the weekend.
“It also seems to me that an utterly corrupt pseudo-state could never have put up this level of resistance for so long”
It couldn’t have if it didn’t have the whole force of the USA and NATO behind it. But even that hasn’t been enough.
The whole force of the US and NATO was behind the former Afghan government. It folded faster than a Chinese laundry because, American money or not, no one would stand and fight the Taliban. The Ukrainians ARE fighting, and fighting hard. Does this tell you nothing?
Those fighting hard are disproportionately fanatical Nazis. An element that has been mad for Russian blood since 2014 and who thwarted the peace most Ukrainians voted for in 2019. Regardless of fanaticism they would have been squashed without US/NATO money, training and weaponry.
“Because it occurs to me that, had Putin had a quick and easy win in Ukraine, NATO forces would now be engaged with Russia in Poland, or more likely, the Baltic states.”
So you think that the policy of the West is justified by a totally imaginary outcome if they had done otherwise? Why stop at Poland? Surely the Russians would be hell-bent on taking over the whole of Europe, perhaps leaving the UK to become “Airstrip 1”?
It’s amazing how the lack of a quick and easy win in Vietnam stopped the US from taking military action against any other country in future, isn’t it?
“Ukrainians clearly don’t want to be run from Moscow, no matter how corrupt their own government might be.”
Quite possibly not, but how do they feel about being run from Washington?
‘Surely the Russians would be hell-bent on taking over the whole of Europe, perhaps leaving the UK to become “Airstrip 1”?’
And Australia. Don’t forget Australia. And New Zealand, and Canada. And the Malvinas.
We are the “baddies” and Murray knows this.
“bleeding Russia” you say. You are a nasty person.
Nobody wants Ukraine, just US/NATO
Yes, Annie, I’m a nasty person. That certainly disproves anything I’m saying.
“That certainly disproves anything I’m saying.”
No it doesn’t. You can be a nasty person and still be right. The fact that you are completely wrong has noting to do with your personal qualities.
– “Ukrainians clearly don’t want to be run from Moscow…”
This is both a gross generalisation, and based upon extremely polarised exaggeration. Some Ukrainians wanted closer ties with Russia, while others wanted less, as reflected in the voting map inked below. Many will not have cared, and others will have seen varying advantages each way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010
Craig blogged about this back in 2014:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/02/why-should-ukraine-not-split/
Athanasius, your assumptions and language are the very fuel of war. Please consider that people matter more than politics and the rivalries of power factions.
Athanasius, your comment reeks of pro-war propaganda, for instance:
– “is the West not justified in propping up Ukraine as long as possible, in bleeding the Russians as much as they can?”
Your language conflates people living in Russia with the Russian government and “Russian national identity”, just as it conflates people living in Ukraine with the Ukrainian government and “Ukrainian national identity”. This is the language that governments always use to make ordinary people fight and kill other ordinary people.
And you have completely disregarded NATO expansionism. No. Over the course of decades, the Russian government repeatedly stated that it would invade Ukraine if NATO were to operate there, as indeed NATO started to two years before the Russian invasion. But the Russian government never said any such thing about Poland.
Yes, one who died excommunicated and declared himself “Athanasius contra mundum.”
A: “– “is the West not justified […] in bleeding the Russians as much as they can?”
A Russian friend, at the start of all this, told me that she was aghast at this war. And that “I don’t want Ukrainians to die, I don’t want our men to die, and I don’t want you to freeze in winter”.
So no, actually – definitely no. The west isn’t justified in wanting this woman, her husband and their infant to be ‘bleeding’ as much as we can.
That’s jingoistic and dehumanising. Ever come across the book “Faces of the enemy”, by Sam Keen?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/525514.Faces_of_the_Enemy
” Does this not come under the heading “will of the indigenous people”?
Yes but only some of them, mostly in the north east of ukraine.
“As a matter of realpolitik, is the West not justified in propping up Ukraine as long as possible, in bleeding the Russians as much as they can?”
The short answer is “No”.
The slightly longer answer is “God forgive for you sitting in a warm and comfy house, typing that abomination of a sentence and signing it with the name of a Christian Saint.”
I could not fail to notice the ongoing interest of our gracious host to the Prigozhin saga 🙂 – which, some say, was pretty transparent in its core. I agree. I feel similar interest to what was really happening in Turkey and shortly after – after the Ukrainians, as we learned recently, signed a peace deal with Russia. But I guess I will be left in the dark about that and to about the same degree as Mr. Murray says he is in the dark about Prigozhin. And as we all forever will be about the outcome of the latest assassination attempt on Prigozhin. Considering the quality of the modern news media, especially, officially approved.
Now, it seems there was an explosive hidden in the landing gear of the plane, where Prigozhin was listed among the passengers. Who planted it? Mr. Murray, it seems, sure that it was Putin. I feel that this is highly improbable. Instead, let me entertain you with a small passage from a Russian-language source (translated for you pleasure by a hybrid intelligence – but not of the sort briefly mentioned in the piece 🙂
“The British were the party most interested in the assassination of Prigozhin. For already more than five years there has been a battle aimed to destroy the British monopoly on the non-state-controlled power structures, and the main players were the Wagner Group and G4S. That is, the fight was (and is) between these two, while the rest were mostly observing. Previously, no PMC, even of ten people, could operate without permission and direct control of the British. They had a detailed dossier (including political views) on every PMC employee around the world. Uncontrolled or disobedient groups were simply annihilated.
I will not give you the details of this ongoing battle, but it is really a tough one. Hundreds of former officers of the British special services and special forces have already perished, and many more will. As is the habit, and when the rank is sufficiently high, so some public announcement has to be made, they die in various accidents – eg. of fire during cruise on a tourist boat in Mediterranean, scuba diving, climbing solo, flying Cessna in the mountains etc – all the normal activities for their occupation during some hot conflict somewhere important. The bulk, of course, chooses to die in a less exotic fashion. Very little is known about Wagner casualties, but the count is also in the hundreds.
The problem is that the British elites have become completely detached from reality. They totally lost the ability to think about the unavoidable and most obvious consequences of their own decisions and, most importantly, their actions.
Wow…so not only Prizoghin but Dmitri Utkin was also killed, Utkin was allegedly the founder of Wagner, perhaps the mastermind.
Accident? I do not think so, either Ukraine or the russian military which Wagner constantly, with full merit, critizied, I assume being the culprit here.
i dont think the coup attempt was meritorious.
Depends on who you ask I believe, deep down many russians are more hawkish than Putin and probably sympathized with Prizoghin’s criticism of the russian war effort.
Regardless, killing off the best fighting force Russia ever had is not something that Russia would gain anything from (if the russian military actually were involved in this ….assassination or whatever it was).
they arent killing off the best fighting force (that would be the Chechens), and Wagner goes on.
“…deep down many russians are more hawkish than Putin…”
Very true, I think, Jack. Which is why Mr Putin has to be so very careful. As well as being the trustee of the safety of Russia and all its citizens, he also has a strong influence on the fate of the whole world. In 1916 Winston Churchill told Admiral Jellicoe to go cautiously, as he was the only man on either side who could lose the war (WW1) in an afternoon.
Mr Putin is one of a very few people in the world today who could exterminate the human species (and many others).
As George Kennan explained in a Reith Lecture in 1957, “There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue”.
In order to whip up enthusiasm for war, governments often recruit the media and then subject their citizens to massive and prolonged propaganda campaigns. Unfortunately, this can generate a vicious circle – rather like a hurricane – if public opinion becomes so overwhelmingly in favour of war that the government is swept away by it. The Western nations are much closer to such a loss of control than Russia.
That is something of which Mr Putin is clearly aware, and which causes him to soft-pedal everything as much as possible. He has to be the moderate voice of reason, because – as you say – the Russian people feel much angrier and more aggressive than he does.
“Unfortunately, this can generate a vicious circle – rather like a hurricane – if public opinion becomes so overwhelmingly in favour of war that the government is swept away by it.”
which was exactly what happened with the Crimean War. The Russians had actually acceded to the demands of Britain and France, but the public had been whipped up into such a fever for war – that’s when jingoism was invented – that the governments were compelled to go ahead.
“The aim was regime change”
That was certainly the aim in 2013-14 and it will continue to be wherever any dissenting government exists. Does not matter how far away from Washington DC. That will never change and “we” will keep endorsing every one of them.
“Regime change” seems to be developing as a two way street. Not only are the NATO forces failing to provision Ukraine adequately, the new kids on the block in the Middle East are shunting the old leaders of ‘the rules based world order’ in to a blind alley.
Such change is welcome, but let’s be very careful of what we wish for, change for changes sake comes with unknown consequences…_
I wish for an end to US bullying of the rest of the world. Done in plain sight with complete impunity and uniform approval of British politicians and media who represent US war criminal leaders as inspiring global leaders.
Not conflicted or wary about that ending in any way.
I view our rules based international order through the same clear lens as Harold Pinter did: “US foreign policy is best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in. It is as simple and as crude as that.”
Hey
Moderator, you just erased the full comment I was writing
Bad for you
—
[ Mod: Nonsense. Nobody touched your comment, whether it was already posted or still being typed. It sounds more like a glitch on your own device. ]
Could it be a bad trick from the MSM
Nothing is ever nonsense, Jonnhy. I’m sure Craig can agree.
Nobody touched Prigozhin’s plane either. But it still disappeared
There are many ways the text of a comment can be deleted while it is being typed. On a keyboard, the Control key may be pressed mistakenly instead of the Shift key, causing the next key pressed to be interpreted as ‘cut’, ‘delete’ or ‘undo’. If characters suddenly start disappearing (as famously happened to Luke Harding while in Russia, making him very paranoid), maybe the Backspace key has become stuck down, possibly due to marmalade transferred to the key from ones fingers. Keys may activate without being pressed due to spillage of coffee onto the keyboard. Different but similar effects apply to touchscreens; try using one in a steamy bathroom. Etc…
Even worse, even without touching any key or spilling coffee and marmalade on the keyboard, not only your post but the the whole laptop may disappear if you happen to travel on a train in Germany
Marmalade… mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
Silver Shred – happy bygone days.
Your theory Craig is not supported by any evidence. It’s merely an opinion.
It’s the very definition of “opinion”: it’s not supported by evidence.
As opposed to “fact”. Inspector Clouseau knew a lot about that.
Regarding “opinions”, the wisest thought is summed up in the old Russian proverb:
‘Opinion is like asshole. Everyone has got one”. Guess Tatyana has a good joke about it!
Well, we know it wasn’t Putin behind the crash, because the UK media immediately said it was.
My understanding is that the Russians marched to Kiev to make clear to Ukraine that they were serious and would not tolerate NATO on their border. It is also my understanding that a draft treaty was fairly quickly agreed between Russia and Ukraine in Turkey – initialled on behalf of both countries and that the Russian forces withdrew from Kiev – in good order – as a gesture of good faith. This initialled treaty was recently produced by Putin in one of his international meetings. However our very own idiot Boris Johnson hastened to Kiev to tell Zelensky in no uncertain terms that he was not allowed to make peace and so Boris like the disgraceful Tony Blair has the blood of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children on his hands. I should say I have followed this US campaign against Russia since 2014 where I first heard of the most blatant coup in history – announced in advance – from Michael Hudson, listened to the late and great and sadly missed Stephen Cohen’s weekly chats with John Batchelor. The west is on the wrong side of history and the rest of the world is rejoicing, joining BRICS, discussing a gold backed currency, looking forward to a world of prosperity without the petro-dollar and the murderous US sanctions.
“However our very own idiot Boris Johnson hastened to Kiev…”
Oh, Boris is no idiot. Disloyal, traitorous, murderous, certainly. Psychopathic, perhaps. But not stupid.
Quite agree but Boris was the errand boy like Willard.
BabsP
A draft treaty was not agreed and initialled in Turkey. Proximity talks were however underway to end the war. They were torpedoed by the USA. I was there.
Regarding casualty counting, I thought Alexander Mercouris, in a recent Duran broadcast, hit the nail on the head when he accused the BBC of being morally irresponsible for not using their (in his view) reasonably robust methodology for estimating Russian deaths to assess Ukrainian deaths also. This then raises the question what is the BBC (as well as all the rest of the western corporate media on behalf of their states paymasters) hiding from Joe and Joan Public? My suspicion is that they don’t want a can of worms opened about this war that would stimulate debate and arouse opposition, as was the case with the Iraq war, so that they remain in complete “narrative control”. However, the cracks might just be appearing.
“[W]hat is the BBC… hiding from Joe and Joan Public?”
That the UK has no national interests that clash with Russia’s, China’s, or Iran’s. Or Venezuela’s or Syria’s.
That there is not the slightest reason for us to harm the Russians, or to incur their (potentially devastating) enmity.
That the UK government, like those of the USA and the other NATO nations, does not represent the interests of the British public, but those of a tiny handful of very rich and powerful people who have quite deliberately started wars (including the world wars) simply for their own profit.
That they find it convenient to stir up wars abroad to distract our attention from the hideous destruction they have caused at home – and plan to go on causing.
The western ideology is based upon the ‘God given’ right to have unconstrained access to the resources of any country. This includes, but is not limited to, financial systems, manufacturing, retail, defence, natural resources, health care, education, etc. The beneficiaries of this access is the multinationals, the MIC and the billionaires. The politicians are the useful fools used to enact ‘the rules’ and, via the revolving door, get access to ‘the club’.
Any country that attempts to put constraints on this access is deemed an enemy and is targeted for measures from the western playbook: IMF/WB controls, sanctions, Colour revolution, regime change, invasion. All under the excuse of democracy and rules based order.
This is why the peoples of the West are getting poorer and losing more and more rights. And yes, the MSM and the BBC in particular are just PR organisations for the establishment. A Bunch of Bast@rd C*nts, indeed !
No relation but the man seems to know what he is talking about.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1693761723230990509
Just bear in mind this is a white supremacist you’re promoting here.
glenn_nl
White supremacism? Give us a break.
I am so tired of this phenomenon: leftists that become so moralizing and uppity everytime someone link to Tucker Carlson.
I could quote Malcolm X on many things, so can you, does that mean that you support…black supremacism? Of course not so just relax with this lousy labeling of people.
Jack, are you fully aware of the racism and bigotry that this toxic, excessively privileged rich-kid has been promoting for _years_, while presenting himself as some kind of ‘everyman’?
Being ‘Uppity’ – getting above one’s station – has generally been the term to describe blacks who dare to raise their eyes from the ground for many a long year. Perhaps you’ve been listening to the dictator-loving, fascist leaning Carlson a bit too attentively, and soaked up a few of his phrases?
A white supremacist is precisely what Carlson is, so no – you get no break from me while you’re sticking up for a fascist. I’m rather surprised at you, to be honest.
glenn_nl
Sigh. No I am not aware of that because there are no such things to begin with. Fact is that Carlson is perhaps the only anti-war critic in the whole western MSM, so it makes no sense defaming him. He have guests like Glenn Greenwald, Roger Waters.
One does not have to agree with everything someone have allegedly ever said, if Carlson say good things about the war, why should we not support that? Why do you take the same position as the neo-con warmongers on Carlson that also hates his guts?
Uppity being a racist term? Oh come on. This is what I mean, some people on the left see oppression everywhere, even coded into words, this politically correctness and self-censorship are so outdated. Break free from that!
You should read Norman Finkelstein’s latest book, if you dare.
I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It! Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom
https://www.amazon.com/Heretical-Thoughts-Identity-Politics-Academic/dp/B0BSJXB7WN
“Uppity being a racist term? Oh come on. This is what I mean, some people on the left see oppression everywhere, even coded into words”
Well in this case you can see the oppression in the dictionary, like this from the Wiktionary entry for “Uppity”:
“Usage notes: This term has historically been used in America to describe black people who were considered to be acting above “their place”, and is considered by some to have racist connotations when applied to people of color; sometimes arrogant or presumptuous, invoking the same idea, are used as codewords for it.” (italics added)
So it’s either mistaken or dishonest to imply that the racist connotations are merely a delusion of “people on the left”.
Similarly, you can’t be unaware of the moral stench around Tucker Carlson. (Try a web search for his name with the word “racist” for examples.) His media career is based on dogwhistling reports and interviews with dubious people such as the great warmonger Douglas Macgregor – who not only defended the Iraq War, but argued in his book Warrior’s Rage that it didn’t go far enough and should have happened earlier. Almost all Macgregor’s short-term predictions about the Ukraine-Russia conflict have proved to be wildly wrong, which hardly inspires much faith in his analysis and commentary.
If you supplement the word “apologist” to web searches for both “Carlson” (link) and “Macgregor” (link) you’ll see who they’re widely regarded as apologists for: Putin. They can hardly be portrayed as impartial analysts and a buddy’s chat between them can only lean one way.
Jesus another one…
Ok here we go again: It is a word, I did not use in any racially disparaging way lol, I used it to describe a certain a political left that have become stuck in telling other people what words they can use or what political commentator they are allowed to read. We can call these authoritarian left, perhaps you belong there too yourself.
Jesus why are you repeating the whole tirade against Carlson that I just responded to? Did I not tell you that one can agree with some things and disagree with other claims 1 person have, allegedly, made? Why is this so hard to grasp?
I could probably quote Hitler on multiple things he said that was on point so can you. Does that mean that you and I are closet-nazis? Get a grip!
Why do you being up Macgregor all of a sudden lol? You know Carlson was also supportive of the Iraq war (and most likely yourself considering what you write on this blog). Guess what, both Macgregor and Carlson have publicly renonunced their positions that they were wrong. What a lame attempt to crush the anti-war commentators, it is so obvious what you are doing.
Have you not been wrong on things yourself, ever btw? Again, this moralizing, holier-than-you are so outdated. You do not stand above anyone, nor do I but I do not go around lecturing people on what they can say like you do.
I will not engage further in this off-topic nonsense.
“it is a word”. Yes, that’s true, Jack, I agree it is – and words have connotations which influence their meaning depending on context. I merely corrected your exaggerated denial that the word is associated with oppression. Sorry if that touched a jangling nerve.
In your flurry of exasperation, you’ve missed the point again. Both Carlson and Macgregor are widely regarded as Putin apologists, because of their history of defending his actions, including the invasion of Ukraine. Click on the search results to see some examples. Macgregor in particular is an aggressive military hawk who has been cheerleading an emphatic Russian conquest since the beginning of the invasion. He said on Fox News : “The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle.” That’s not an “anti-war” position. He just wants the Ukrainians to stop fighting back (as he did with the many Iraqis that he killed in action.)
That point is clearly on topic, despite your frenzied dismissals. And as for your “most likely” personal smear, I demonstrated against the Iraq war and told a party branch leader to his face that it was the reason why I quit. So – as with your blustering about Hitler and “closet-nazis” (which surely deserves a Godwin award) – you could hardly be more wrong. To be clear: wrong about those specific points, but not necessarily wrong about others. As it happens, I tend to agree with many of your comments elsewhere on this site, which seem quite level-headed, iirc. (It’s odd to see you getting so worked up at over-generalisations; it’s not a good look, so I’m glad you’re taking a breather to calm down.)
” Both Carlson and Macgregor are widely regarded as Putin apologists, because of their history of defending his actions, including the invasion of Ukraine. ”
You imply there that everything Putin does is evil, which is quite obviously absurd. A moment’s reflection outside of a purely dualistic frame of reference would show that to refer to explaining why someone might have done something as “defending his actions” and to the person making that explanation as an “apologist” is no better than the racist abuse that you are trying to decry. It is not an argument, merely an airing of prejudices.
“You imply there that everything Putin does is evil, which is quite obviously absurd.”
Don’t be ridiculous, Bayard. Of course that isn’t implied, and it isn’t required. Such absolute judgements are obvious distortions of the truth, and it’s lazy to attribute them to others without applying the same principle to yourself. “Everything Putin does is evil” is no more credible than the stupid “Putin is perfect” premise that Craig laments.
““Everything Putin does is evil” is no more credible than the stupid “Putin is perfect” premise that Craig laments.”
However, the nobody is actually saying that “Putin is perfect” on the comments to any of the blog posts. Craig’s lament is against a straw man of his own stuffing. To brand all those who are less critical of Putin than he as the “Putin is perfect” brigade is exactly the same exaggeration as saying that anyone who criticises him is saying that “Everything Putin does is evil”. That is why the one expression implies the other.
Carlson is a white supremacist. He’s frequently expressed support for Replacement Theory, a far right conspiracy that claims that an elite cabal (more often than not Jewish) is deliberately replacing white citizens with non-white immigrants in order to destroy white christian culture.
Macgregor is wrong about the M1A1’s engine as he is about everything else, in the basic idle (750rpm) , the tank uses 10 gallons (US) per hour, 30 gallons per hour in a tactical idle (1500 rpm), and 60 gallons per hour when traveling cross country.
Pears Morgaine, I’m sure your stats are spot on. I have read that it is the maintenance of the engine that is the problem, highly trained personnel are required for significantly longer times than standard petrol/diesel engines. Seasonal mud in Ukraine won’t suit this behemoth neither nor will minor bridges, due to it’s great weight.
Uh, hold on wasn’t MacGregor literally a tank officer. During the Gulf War?
Also you’re presumably quoting theoretical specs, which I assure you have sweet bugger all to do with how a system actually performs in combat.
That was 30 years ago. He’s 76 and his memory is probably failing.
“Macgregor is wrong about the M1A1’s engine as he is about everything else”
Ah, yes, “he’s wrong on some things, which means he’s wrong on everything” argument. Always so convincing.
“He’s 76 and his memory is probably failing.”
and presumably his sight, too, if he is no longer able to read the publication from which you got your stats on the M1. Or perhaps he has read them and knows, from personal experience, that they are somewhat ..optimistic, shall we say.
MalcolmX was not a black supremacist, so I’m not sure what your point is.
glenn_nl Who do you mean? Carlson or MacGregor? I know the history of neither. It just sounded to me that the Colonel knew what he was talking about plus it’s difficult to see that an ex US Government advisor would be pro Russian in assessment by choice.
glenn_nl
“Just bear in mind this is a white supremacist you’re promoting here.”
It’s an interview of Douglas Macgregor, during which Tucker Carlson remains almost entirely silent, and demonstrates himself to be a good listener. Who cares whether he’s a white supremacist or not in that case?
When you referred to the Russia “Invasion” it seems you CONVENIENTLY left out that the so-called Ukraine, which has NEVER actually been a country and at one time was mostly owned by Russia , until, for no logical reason the DRUNKEN Kruschev, I believe it was, gave CRIMEA away to Ukraine. He had no right to do that and thus he, in effect, started what we see now.
The TRUTH is the so-called UKRAINE had been bombarding and murdering Russian people in DONBASS, for at least 2 years which was the REAL REASON Putin came into this fight. Further,the people of CRIMEA VOTED to return to Russia AND that is the RIGHT of the PEOPLE
Ukraine as a country is considerably older than many of the current members of the UN. The problem is not that it is a young country, but that it was bolted together after WWI out of bits of two separate empires, the Austro-Hungarian in the west and the Russian in the east, with different religions and cultures. Like all the other chimeras created at that time (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia), it was bound to come apart eventually.
“come apart eventually”
I am not sure about this Bayard.
I thought It came apart immediately and after the resolution of the Civil War spent the next 70 years as a republic of the USSR?
It depends what you mean by “come apart”. Yes, Ukraine separated itself from Russia, but it remained within the same boundaries as has today, give or take various additions and subtractions. By “come apart” I meant split in two, like Czechoslovakia.
Czech and Yugoslavia were created at treaty of Versailles by the victorious allies in about 1919. The current “version” of Ukraine was created in 1991, when Moscow told the regions to swallow as much sovereignty as they could handle.
There was another country called “Ukraine” created at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk by Germany in 1917 but that did not include Crimea. So they are not the same country. I suspect this “Ukraine” was a German vessel state, a protectorate.
What is common to both these geopolitical constructions ie “Ukraine” of 1917 and Ukraine of 1991, amongst other things, is they both contained an area known as Galicia.
Ukraine was not created around the same time as Czech or Yugoslavia.
Now you are being stupidly picky. The addition of Crimea doesn’t make Ukraine a different country. Poland is still Poland, even though it has changed borders many times and even disappeared for a while.
The “current version” of the UK was created in 1937, when Ireland achieved independence. Would you maintain that the UK of today only dates back to then?
We can only go on what is we have got. You must believe it is the same place as the German protectorate, I don’t. I made my point lazily, by mentioning Crimea – but this was meant as “shorthand” to indicate that entity created in 1917 was not the same as the one created in 1991
You speak of “creation”, surely this a political act and not a cultural one? Ukraine was created in 1991. Politically speaking that is it. Why not go to the days of the “Hetman” as several pro-Ukrainian writers do? In view of how much trouble is going on in that country should we not try to be as accurate as possible?
Yet I would still insist it was not created at the same time as Czech and Yugoslavia but 80 years or so after. The cultural idea of Ukraine, in some minds, is probably far older than 1917.
The current, sovereign version wasn’t created out of two broken empires but out of the dissolution of USSR. This seems to be an indisputable historical fact.
Are you being pickily stupid? I don’t think so. So what exactly do you mean?
Plenty of war porn on Telegram but I agree, it doesnt have a convenient Western narration with an authoritative voice showing our goodboys’ bravery.
Do get yourself a Telegram though (if you want unnarrated content) but be sure to get the apk from their website because the versions from Google play store AND FDroid have been censoring a LOT of articles (almost all from the other side). Very weird and inconvenient if someone wants to have a look at different views, but it seems important to have only one viewpoint for the West’s narrative.
loss numbers just a few official sources
(I know there are many others. You should compare them. I wonder how many truly independent sources there are in total. Since most governments in the West will relate to numbers provided by US/UK, I assume.)
human losses UKR
open source, constantly developing their calculating model
https://wartears.org/en/posts/2023-02-02-math-model-v3/
(They are also pointing out that it can take several months to include new data since they rely on relatives reaching out to them. This also explains decreases in their graphs showing loss numbers)
here they suggest 175.000 KIA, I think.
Unfortunately the graph annotations are in RU.
A downloadable Excel data sheet gives the current list of names and their fate KIA, MIA, POW
something around 165.000 names listed
https://wartears.org/en/posts/opendata-snapshot/
“On 21st September 2022, we got an opportunity to check our estimations against official numbers. On that day Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Defense of Russian Federation in his speech announced the official numbers of 61,000 killed AFU soldiers at that moment. Our model predicted 67,000 on the same day. ”
* * *
Lost vehicles
(of course no way to verify. I know that numbers given by often pro-Russians on Moon of Alabama e.g. are different)
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html
Ukraine – 4225, of which: destroyed: 2818, damaged: 323, abandoned: 145, captured: 939
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Russia – 11818, of which: destroyed: 8042, damaged: 470, abandoned: 442, captured: 2864
https://ukr.warspotting.net/russia/
RU losses:
Destroyed 7434
Captured 2815
Abandoned 425
Damaged 452
no numbers for UKR losses
Russian MoD – on UKR losses:
In total, 462 airplanes, 246 helicopters, 6,012 unmanned aerial vehicles, 433 air defence missile systems, 11,476 tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, 1,144 fighting vehicles equipped with MLRS, 6,024 field artillery cannons and mortars, as well as 12,408 special military motor vehicles have been destroyed during the special military operation.
https://eng.mil.ru/en/special_operation/news/more.htm?id=12477048@egNews
Ukrainian MoD on RU losses:
The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 24.08.23 were approximately:
personnel ‒ about 259160 (+340) persons,
tanks ‒ 4375 (+2),
APV ‒ 8511 (+23),
artillery systems – 5333 (+15),
MLRS – 723 (+1),
Anti-aircraft warfare systems ‒ 494 (+3),
aircraft – 315 (+0),
helicopters – 316 (+0),
UAV operational-tactical level – 4344 (+20),
cruise missiles ‒ 1406 (+0),
warships / boats ‒ 18 (+0),
vehicles and fuel tanks – 7773 (+28),
special equipment ‒ 801 (+1).
https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2023/08/24/the-total-combat-losses-of-the-enemy-from-24-02-2022-to-24-08-2023/
In January NATO chief Cavoli gave the number of 2000 destroyed RU tanks.
I dont know for what period. He stated RU artillery rounds per day at 20.000. I guess that was true for high points at Bakhmut.
May 31st Gordon Hahn stated “Total casualties for the Ukrainian army in and around Bakhmut since November easily reached 200,000, almost all of whom will never return to the battlefield.” Whatever that means in detail.
Too tired now to look more carefully into it.
Unlike the craven British media, and I assume the European media too, the US media appears to be on the turn and beginning to call for negotiations/peace talks as rumours mount that the US administration is seeking a cease fire if not an outright end to hostilities.
Most definitely not part of any “Putin cult” Ray McGovern quotes US media as reporting 500,000 troops dead, although they, rightly rejected by McGovern, estimate that Russia has the greater proportion. Watch from 1:20 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM_mi5WuBz8
Also most definitely not part of any “Putin cult” Colonel Doug MacGregor regularly reports that the Ukrainian army has lost up to 400,000 men. Sorry, it’s late and I can’t find the citation but he also reports that Ukraine is on its third army, two armies already having been destroyed and needed to be replaced.
one last thought tonight:
RU is experiencing a threat no major Western power has experienced since 1945.
The countless wars fought by member states of NATO have always been exclusively “luxury adventures” far off their own soil usually to the detriment of the other nation(s) abroad.
So the principles of judgement applied by the Western public and their intellectual “elites” of those same powers now are founded on completely different mind-sets than Russia.
It´s easy to call for Art. 51 if it´s not your own country that contemplates a genuine pre-emptive war (which is illegal but which it is in fact now. Iraq was no pre-emptive war. Iraq was pure fiction.)
The US was attacked just once. We know what it led to, the so-called forever wars and several million dead, several countries wrecked etc. Destruction of hitoric proportions.
And that 9/11 was nothing in comparison to the confrontation between RU and UKR now.
The national integrity of France, Germany, GB, Italy, Japan, Spain, the US etc. was never at stake in any form in the last 78 years.
Otherwise we would have long set the world on fire. (well, there was Cuba.)
What do you think the US would have done to Germany if it had been on the RECEIVING end of a September 26, 2022?
Americans would have demanded with a single voice that Germany be reduced to ash.
Would that have been an unnatural reaction?
Regardless the exact number of Ukrainian casualties they’re not being replaced. Certainly not like for like. Those being forced into the fray at this stage lack the ability and passion to fight. That’s not going to change for as long as the war lasts. Zelensky is desperate for passionate, martial-minded men. So there are vacancies galore at the front for the UK’s Slava Ukraini brigade, virtually regardless of age. Every one of them would be hailed as a hero by our politicians and our once-upon-a-time embedded war reporters. Will any seize their chance for glory?
Zelenski is busy training young women to do frontline duties and pressing the young generation’s minds into his dreams of Nato coming to the rescue.
All the martial-minded fairs and rock events where he and his fellow Nazis indoctrinated those young with music and combat training, who are now refusing his war without an end philosophy and have to be pressed into fighting, have failed.
To train young women who are the guarantors of the future is abominable stupidity. These women will not have children when they cant see a future in piles of rubble and destruction.
But they can always come here, where councils fly their flag and help them with preferential treatment and support. Some refugees are more wanted than others, although the experience of those who opened their private homes to them for backsies from the Government, talk of their problems with demanding and surreal Ukrainians.
Zelenski is guilty as much as anybody else and should answer to the charges of dehumanisation of his people with empty propaganda.
The Battle of the Somme was the beginning of the end of the German Army. At the start of 1916, Falkenhayn returned to an offensive strategy in the west and contemplated demobilising the Landwehr, being flush with manpower. By the late 1916 the Germans were hanging on by their fingernails and hoping for winter to arrive. Germany was defeated at Verdun, the Somme and (with Austria-Hungary) southern Russia.
Fighting the Somme: German Challenges, Dilemmas and Solutions by Jack Sheldon (2017)
Germany was more defeated at Verdun than on the Somme, if one is going talk about the two. Everybody was getting desperate at the end of 1916, which led to the widespread mutinies of 1917. It wasn’t only the Germans, who were more defeated in the end by the blockade than anything else.
No, you’re wrong. The blockade only tightened when the Americans came in. The German empire was defeated militarily when the gamble of the spring offensives in 1918 failed. As in 1914, open warfare was shown to be vastly more costly in casualties than trench warfare. More German divisions fought on the Somme than at Verdun, some in both places. In the first ten days of Verdun the Germans suffered 25,000 casualties when they attacked and suffered 40,000 in the first ten days on the Somme, when they were defending. The British and French recaptured more territory on the Somme than ever before and the Germans spent the autumn and winter building the Siegfriedstellung which they retreated to in early 1917. The French bruited the Nivelle Offensive as the war-winning last push which cost both sides about 160,000 casualties and forced the Germans to retreat from part of the Chemin des Dames which set them up for defeat at the battle of La Malmaison in October. The Germans also bruited the spring offensive in 1918 and had a similar collapse in morale in 1918, part of the terminal state of the German army after June.
You’ve rather cherry-picked there, to end up saying what is not very new, and little to demonstrate that I was wrong. The big factor was the contemporaneous mutinies/revolutions which struck France and Russia in 1917, a consequence of the disastrous battles of 1916, which Britain was lucky to escape, and for Germany was only delayed.
Come off it! After the French army mutinies, the French army fought the Battle of the Observatories on the Chemin des Dames all summer, fought in the Third Battle of Ypres and completed the recapture of the ground at Verdun lost to the Germans in 1916. When the Russian and German armies mutinied, they stopped fighting. French success in 1916 with methodical battle was the reason for going back to a strategy of decisive victory in spring 1917 and then returning to methodical battle after it failed.
“Quoi qu’on fasse, on perd beaucoup de monde.”
Kubrick made “Paths of Glory” which starred Kirk Douglas in 1957. It is a discussion of a mutiny in the French army during WW1. You have both probably seen it but for any that haven’t give it a look. One of the best films ever made, it discusses the human factor in war and on a deeper level the meaning of our common European home
Though I am heavily armoured monster, a stranger to tears, I wept several times during the film – a reminder that I am, despite all appearances, still human.
“I was sitting in a great waiting-room and it’s name was Europe. The train was due to leave in a week. I knew that. But no one could tell me where it was going or what would become of me. And now we are again seated in the waiting-room and again it’s name is Europe! And again we do not know what will happen! We live provisionally, the crisis goes on without end!”
Ernst Kastner Fabian (1929)
Well, shifting topic.
The whole thing with Prigozhin, reminds me of the Mr X scene from JFK. There were just too many people who had reason to want him dead.
Hell, he apparently even had dealings with the North Koreans. They have form for both vindictiveness and “plane jobs”.
Fair to say, there isn’t going to an “objective investigation” by anyone that’s for sure. Thus the stories spread will suit the interest of the spreader…
Cui bono ?
Sonny?
Just speculation.
Maybe the PMC Wagner.
I don’t think mercenaries and Mob types of people like to be on front pages across the world and every step monitored.
Would you be surprised if Mr Prygozin “betrayed” some of the commanders. Lot of murky business going behind the closed doors in that kind of environment.
Let’s remember he was not in charge of military operations! He is a wheeler dealer and a PR man and a funny troll. Btw some of his main commanders were ex FSB (kicked out or left).
“Cui bono ?”
So many that that isn’t a useful question, this time, sadly.
yeah, it’s like with Epstein.
“The whole thing with Prigozhin, reminds me of the Mr X scene from JFK.”
Reminds me of “Murder on the Orient Express”
There was a time when I had a lot of respect for your reasoning – not any more! As for your abusive attitude towards comment writers, you really have lost it – gone off the rails. I’m out of here with just one regret, that I once supported you with regular donations,
“Daddy what does regret mean?
Son the funny thing about regret is it’s better to regret the things you have done than the things you haven’t done. Oh and by the way if you see your mom this weekend be sure and tell her SATAN”
Sweet loaf by the Butt Hole Surfers on the Locust Abortion Technician album.
Alan Fenn, things could be worse for you if the Butt Hole Surfers are correct. Don’t let it bring you down, it’s only castles burning…
Do bear in mind everything Mr Murray has suffered recently, Alan. I beg of you to be more patient and charitable.
I think that Mr Murray has gone off rather half-cocked about Ukraine, but only because he is insufficiently informed. None of us can reason rightly without the facts.
While I disagree with him about Ukraine, I admire his resolution, honesty, and sincerity. Please reserve your anger for the many, many people who deserve it.
Mr. Murray,
Calling dissenters out is just bad manners. Implying dissenters to your view are Putin fanz is ad hominems’ with a plummy accent.
The northern incursion by Russia in Feb 2022 had all the hallmarks of a ruse de guerre, I don’t know how true that was, but it sure as hell led to a land corridor from Russia to Crimea being established and held ever since. A GCSE student knows that Crimea wasn’t to be surrendered, it was a priority above all other priorities.
There is also the evidence that the Kyiev advance was ‘walked back’ because of bad faith from the NATO side who fooled Russia in to believing that Minsk would be negotiated in good faith. …I can’t recall the date, but I can remember Putin subsequently apologising to his commanders because he had been deceived and fooled. I can’t quote him verbatim but he responded something along the lines of ‘I promise you, that will not happen again’ ….I still don’t know how he managed to get away with that without being deposed. Maybe the ‘power behind the presidency’ is all powerful.
As to your recent claim that Russia did not perform to a high standard at the beginning of the SMO, when both sides only had Soviet era weaponry, all I can point out to you is that Russian weaponry had already got US air and land forces effectively denied any role in commanding the Middle East. I put Syria as an example.
What the hell has changed otherwise to explain China negotiating an accord between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It wasn’t climate change, it was a changing of the ‘world based rules order’
As any GCSE student will tell you, the USA doesn’t operate old Soviet weaponry. But they were denied the right to roam at will in an area of the world they have literally called the shots on for decades. The US$ is getting closer to its use by date as well…_
“I still don’t know how he managed to get away with that without being deposed”.
A wise and gentle father is given a lot of rope. Russians know Mr Putin quite well by now – and his accomplishments – and I don’t think they would want him replaced at such a critical time by an unknown. Or by a ferocious hawk like Mr Medvedev.
Tom, it could also be that he is the best of a bad bunch, or simply the only one left…_
I always appreciate your insight, Craig. But regarding the relative strength and the casualties on both sides, you are most likely mistaken, a victim of the very effective western propaganda. Macgregor was, as I understand it, the first to name 400,000 ukrainian casulties (interview with Tucker Carlson). Larry Johnson explains why losses on the ukrianian side are much higher and overall catastrophic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqsU8yd3Dg8): it’s the ammo! Anyway, 70,000 lost ukrainians in Bakhmut, something like 65,000 lost since the beginning of the ‘counteroffensive’, I believe these numbers make sense and eventually add up to the named 400,000. Dismissing this as russian propagnda doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid.
Also, since ukraine is now basically a terror state (Daria Dugina, Kerch Bridge, cargo ship attacked with naval drone, anti-person mines in Donetzk city, center, etc., etc.), and most of these seem concocted by MI6, it would suit youto do a piece about the evil doings of your(!) Britsh government in this terror operations.
Always yours
S.
“…[U]kraine is now basically a terror state…”
Astonishingly, Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, in a speech to the Security Council on Thursday,
‘…voiced concern over the possible impact on civilians of the shelling of Russian border communities and drone attacks deep inside Russia, including Moscow.
‘“Attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure – wherever they may occur – are indefensible and strictly prohibited under international law,” she said’.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1140052
Admittedly this brief lucid interval came in a speech overwhelmingly dedicated to attacking Russia. But it’s gratifying to see even a few honest words coming from an American diplomat.
(Of course the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs is an American diplomat! Who else could it be?)
I have to agree with other commentators here on the regime change claim by Craig: I have seen no claims by Russia that their aim was regime change, matter of fact Russia pointed out this repeatedly – from the first day of the war – (that this was not the goal). At the same time one do not have to judge what Russia have said one can simply judge by the way Russia is conducting the war to realize that regime change was not a goal of Russia.
That is: If Russia actually wanted to kill Zelensky and bring forward a new regime or even total chaos, they could and would of course have targeted Zelensky long time ago.
Besides, Ukraine did not have a weak military force, it have been equppied with western arms, tech., training years prior to the invasion. Here you have Stoltenberg boasting about such a support:
NATO Sec. Gen.: We’ve ‘trained’ Ukrainian armed forces ‘for many years’
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/nato-sec-gen-we-ve-trained-ukrainian-armed-forces-for-many-years-135793221949
The reason for the slow and sluggish russian invasion is because of the the coloassal arms/money aid to Ukraine by the west – something which Russia did not anticipate.
Also majority of ukrainians are led to believe Ukraine can win this, because every (give and take) media in Ukraine is heavily censored and that the war is going fine so some of them will certainly put up a fight, let alone forced, to put up a fight.
“The reason for the slow and sluggish [Russian] invasion is because of the the [colossal] arms/money aid by the west, something which Russia did not anticipate”.
I think the Russians did anticipate everything that has transpired, although they probably hoped for a better outcome.
It’s not really the NATO aid that has slowed down the SMO. It’s the fact that it is a “special military operation” rather than a war. The Russians could have gone in hard, the way the Americans always do, blown Kiev apart, and captured smoking ruins. They didn’t, because:
1. They are decent people, and try to use a minimum of force. (As advocated by Sun Tzu and Clausewitz among many others).
2. They consider Ukrainians (well, most Ukrainians) as a brotherly people, and want to burn as few bridges as possible. Nothing will change the fact that Ukraine lies right next to Russia, and will not be moving to California or Florida – much as some Ukrainians would like that.
3. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Russia is going to have to take over much of Ukraine and completely disarm and neutralise the rest. It’s a case of, “You break it, you own it”. Rebuilding Mariupol, for instance, must have cost a great deal; but it has already been done. Every road, railway, bridge, and building that is blown up will have to be rebuilt, so it makes sense to get by with as little blowing up as possible.
4. The Russians want to minimise deaths and injuries as far as possible consistent with the objectives of the SMO. (Denazify, disarm, neutralise). First and foremost they want to avoid civilian deaths; second, Russian soldiers; third Ukrainian soldiers. Hence it makes sense to create strong defences and allow the Ukrainian soldiers to get killed attacking them, while civilians are mostly out of the way.
Possibly: 5. The Russians underestimated the duplicity of the EU (or the extent to which it had been infiltrated and corrupted by the US). They may still, initially, have hoped to enforce compliance with Minsk II. It seems they got to the point where a draft peace treaty had been agreed, at which point the US/UK rushed into crush it, while various EU leaders admitted Minsk had been fraudulent all along and devised only to allow the arming of Ukraine.
Yes, even though I do not support the invasion, one cannot blame them for the war breaking out since Russia did everything trying to find a peaceful solution prior to the invasion:
*For 40 years they have protested against Nato expansion – Nato did not care and expanded with 10+ members
*Prior to the “Maidan” coup Russia sought a deal that could benefit both Russia and the west – EU/west responded with rejection and that Yanukovich had to pick either the EU or Russia.
*For 8 years they acted, from what I reckon, in good faith to solve the Donbass issue with Minsk I/II even though Ukraine shelled, killed ethnic russians in Donbass right in front of Russia – Germany, France, Ukraine came out publicly that the Minsks’ was all a ploy on their side.
*For months prior to 2022 invasion they called upon the West to engage by diplomacy to solve Russia’s security concerns. – Every concern was rebuffed by Nato/West.
West believe Putin is some hardliner in Russia but he is a skilled, calm diplomat: obviously the west have no idea what kind of a hardliner that most likely will rise to the top after Putin’s departure, thus west should work with Russia right now, today! Tomorrow’s Russia will not be any easier. But obviously the west lack real diplomats.
Just take this annoying buffoon:
From ‘Genghis Khan with rockets’ to a ‘gas station with nukes’: How the EU’s top diplomat updated a lazy Russophobic slur
“Russia is an economic dwarf, it is like a gas station whose owner has an atomic bomb,” Borrell stated.
https://swentr.site/russia/581541-genghis-khan-with-rockets/
I never understood the pro-EU commentators here, this right here^^ is the real face of the EU.
You’re absolutely right
There are no more real diplomats in the west, ever since Mr. Murray resigned, many years ago.
Nowadays, the real diplomats are sheltered in Russia and in North Korea.
At the end of the day, the SMO is nothing else than a diplomatic response to centuries of aggression.
Melrose
Indeed, Craig have the traits a real diplomat should have. Honesty, well-read and being able to see both sides argument.
Unfortunately majority of the so called diplomats of today have the exact opposite personality: Deceit, ideological bias and see every conflict in black-white and most of all they represent cowardice.
Valid summary, “Tom Welsh”.
There is another point, repeatedly stressed by Col. Konstantin Sivkov in his interviews (Google who he is, if you need) – that most Russian “setbacks” on the battlefield in Ukraine, including and especially so, their pull-backs from Kiev and Kherson, were entirely due to the political (not military) reasons – mainly due to their (the Russian’s) so far unrealized expectations that the “west” would follow any of the mutual agreements that had been achieved. I am sure Mr. Murray would have enlightened us, lay people and the public, about some details of at least one of these, were it not against his patriotic obligations – which position we have no choice but to admire (and quite sincerely so 🙂
To some extend Sivkov’s views on the subject above are described eg. here https://www.memri.org/reports/russian-military-expert-konstantin-sivkov-90-percent-all-difficulties-encountered-ukraine .
(for those, who want Sivkov’s views on how the nuclear conflict might develop and proceed in Europe, here is a remarkably clear and IMHO likely perspective, using Poland as a regional example (note that with regards to the description there, Britain will be in no way different country 🙂 – the same criteria of winning a nuclear war will apply https://www.youtube.com/@Alex-zb8ns )
Add to the above that about 300 000 fresh Russian troops have remained in reserves so far and that, according to some reports, all modern military gear goes there, rather than to the front line with the NATO (yes, with NATO, not with already long dead Ukrainian quasi-state). As whom this military power has been preserved for, your guess is as good as mine and it would be hard to miss 🙂
When the SMO/invasion happened, I expected the following:
1 – that Russia wouldn’t try to conquer the whole of Ukraine. That could have led to a long lasting Afghanistan style situation with a hostile population egged on and supplied by the West. They wouldn’t want to go there again.
2 – that the West would impose loads of sanctions.
3 – that the West would supply loads of weapons.
4 – that the West would send in air support.
5 – that the West would not send in ground troops. Vietnam looms in the American mind.
So it transpires that 4 was wrong but the others were broadly correct. I’d expected the weapons to be supplied with alacrity, not in the dribs and drabs we’ve seen. Russia wouldn’t have launched the operation if they’d assessed they would lose. If their guesses were similar to mine then they are in better than the worst case situation they’d have considered though they might have hoped for something easier.
Item 2 is telling. They knew they could ride out the sanctions and I reckon this is because China had already agreed to support them.
“I’d expected the weapons to be supplied with alacrity, not in the dribs and drabs we’ve seen”
Perhaps it fits a strategy of weakening Russia with a prolonged war, leading to internal unrest and regime change.
Eh? More like a recipe for throwing ill-equipped Ukrainian troops into battles, leading to unnecessary casualties and avoidable loss of morale. In my view, these dribs and drabs are driven by PR rather than any military strategy. “Oh, our public are losing faith. We’ll tell them the tide’s going to turn once we supply this new wonder weapon.”
The US doesn’t care if Ukrainians die. they expect to lose, they just want to bleed Russia to weaken it.
Russia wouldn’t have launched the operation if they’d assessed they would lose.
At the same time, just becaue the war did not supposedly developed as Russia expected does not mean they prepared for this very situation they have found themselves in today.
I do not think Russia would have started the war if they knew it would drag on like this and bring so much casualties and destruction on their own side. I think it all boils down to being caught off-guard by west absurdly gigantic aid of arms and money to Ukraine.
In what way has the war not developed in the way I outlined? You can rest assured that if Ukraine was making any progress at all, it’d be all over our TV screens. Including “war porn” shots of our wonderful high-tech tanks cutting through the Russian lines “like a hot knife through butter”.
I was not speaking of your predictions but a general analysis of the development of the war. One cannot get around the fact that Russia was in a much better position prior to the invasion than before on every imaginable criteria. That do not necessarily mean that Ukraine will win but Ukraine have also retaken quite a lot of regions from the russians, one should not be surprised if such an event could occur once again.
In the best of worlds a war, especially a military operation, is done quick, get in, accomplish the goal with few or no casualties – get out. Not this dragged out war.
Jack
Most of the Russian withdrawals have been voluntary, not forced by Ukrainian attacks.
I think you are wrong here; Russia has a better and more effective military now, and more confidence in its own economy. sanctions have been a failure. Russia did not start the war because it wanted a war, it responded to a series of escalations because it perceived an existential threat if it did not escalate itself.
I beg to differ:
*Their intelligence have failed to anticipate and stop the constant drone attacks inside Russia, opening up a completely new threat they have never seen before, thus they have become more vulnerable than ever.
*Their military has been decimated: both material and troop-wise
*Their conventional and nuclear deterrance has been weakened
*They have lost all economic ties to the west
*They have lost more ethinic russians than ever before
*They have lost the upper moral/hand in the eyes of millions of people world wide
*Their head of state cannot even travel to a BRIC member-state fearing western controlled ICC indictment
etc
This is not a stronger Russia, this is a weakened Russia. It must be admitted in my opinion.
i think they anticipated drone attacks. I don’t think their deterrence has been weakened, practically it has been strengthened as they and the US knows how poorly US and NATO weapons perform in the field. they are developing new economic ties with Asia and Africa, as the US sanctions wreck European economies.. they lost 20 million or more in world war 2, the number of ethnic Russians dying here is a drop in the bucket compared to that. they have gained the moral upper head in the eyes of most as the US frantically scurries around trying to prop up its fading empire, in Taiwan and Africa and Central and South America. Putin doesn’t fear ICC indictment, he rightly suspects he might be assassinated. The ICC is a kangaroo court. The west is not the world. Even Fiona Hill, noted warmonger, has admitted the American loss of prestige, due to this war and its general foreign policy.
“*Their intelligence have failed to anticipate and stop the constant drone attacks inside Russia, opening up a completely new threat they have never seen before, thus they have become more vulnerable than ever.”
Nobody could have anticipated the use of drones in the way that has been developed, because it is something new that has arisen precisely because of this war. If you had been paying attention to everything rather than just those that supported your particular narrative, you would have observed that.
“*Their military has been decimated: both material and troop-wise”
Bollocks, there are a lot of made-up figure being bandied about about but no hard evidence.
“*Their conventional and nuclear deterrance has been weakened”
Evidence?
“*They have lost all economic ties to the west”
What part of “we need them more than they need us” are you struggling with? They are selling their natural resources to others, we have no others from which to buy them anything like as cheaply. Also many millions of dollars’ worth of Western-owned factories and other assets have effectively been abandoned in Russia for the Russians to take over as a result of sanctions. Russia’s economic weakness was that it relied on selling natural resources and buying back manufactured goods. Now it has to make those manufactured goods for itself, which strengthens their economy.
“*They have lost more ethinic russians than ever before”
Now you have lost the plot. Did you bother to check how many Russians died in WWII?
“*They have lost the upper moral/hand in the eyes of millions of people world wide”
Why should they give a rat’s turd about what the West thinks of them? They know that they have always been hated and can do no right. There are plenty of people that admire Russia, just not the governments of the USA and its satellites.
“*Their head of state cannot even travel to a BRIC member-state fearing western controlled ICC indictment”
The ICC is just Russophobia given a legal veneer. The fact that the USA has resorted to such tactics and that Russia has not retaliated in kind shows the US in a worse light than Russia, don’t you think?
“Putin doesn’t fear ICC indictment, he rightly suspects he might be assassinated”.
Is there a difference? Look what happened to the (innocent) Mr Milosevic.
Nobody could have anticipated the use of drones in the way that has been developed, because it is something new that has arisen precisely because of this war. If you had been paying attention to everything rather than just those that supported your particular narrative, you would have observed that.
Drones have been used for the last 12 years in modern armies, Russian military must have been asleep.
Drones show up on radar too, why isn’t russian radar put in place long at the very ukrainian/russian border? How are they unable to pinpoint where all these airborne, let alone naval, drones are sent from?
Something is obviously off in Russia if Ukraine could freely send an exploding drone over Kremlin building and Russia didn’t notice it before the actual boom? And no arrest made in connection with this grave crime.
Bollocks, there are a lot of made-up figure being bandied about about but no hard evidence.
No bullocks at all, the losses have been immense, not sure how you could have missed this.
Evidence?
Before the war there was a perception of the big mighty russian military and their nukes, but west are not afraid of that obviously. They probably were in the very beginning wondering how Russia would react with all these arms being shipped to Ukraine, but when Russia did nothing about it, russian deterrence was not taken seriously any longer.
What part of “we need them more than they need us” are you struggling with?
Russia’s biggest trading partner was with the west, now economic ties are cut and that do not benefit Russia in anyway. Their pipeline was blown up and still they have no clue of the culprit!
Yes they sell to some other parties and in turn to a lower price.
Now you have lost the plot. Did you bother to check how many Russians died in WWII?
I despise this callous argument. Do you imply 20+ million russians have to die in this war?
The ICC is just Russophobia given a legal veneer. The fact that the USA has resorted to such tactics and that Russia has not retaliated in kind shows the US in a worse light than Russia, don’t you think?
How would Russia respond in kind? They have no agency, they have let alone zero influence in this important organizaiton.
I see that Russia just announced that Putin will not travel to G20 BRIC nation India. If BRIC members cannot visit each other, well then the organization have no real future.
“Drones have been used for the last 12 years in modern armies, ”
If you actually read what I wrote beyond “Nobody could have anticipated the use of drones” where you appear to have stopped reading, you will see that I followed that with “in the way that has been developed,”. Yes drones have been around for a long time, but not used to the extent and in the way that they have been in this war.
“why isn’t russian radar put in place long at the very ukrainian/russian border? ”
You obviously have no idea what this would involve, nor the length of the Russian border with Ukraine.
“the losses have been immense,”
Do you have access to sources denied even to Craig, with all his ex-FCO contacts? How do you know they are “immense”? Neither side is saying, all the figures are extrapolation at best and speculation at worst.
“They probably were in the very beginning wondering how Russia would react with all these arms being shipped to Ukraine, but when Russia did nothing about it, russian deterrence was not taken seriously any longer.”
I think you need to brush up on what constitutes “evidence”. Hint: it is not unsupported speculation.
“Russia’s biggest trading partner was with the west, now economic ties are cut and that do not benefit Russia in anyway.”
The Russians sold the cheapest oil and gas in the world to the West. Now they sell it to someone else. The West has to buy much more expensive oil and gas. Who is the loser here? The Russians got dollars for their oil and gas. They used those dollars to buy manufactured goods from the West. Now they either make those manufactured goods themselves, in the factories that the western businesses so kindly ran away and left them with, or they buy them from someone else, like China. Again, who is the loser here?
“Their pipeline was blown up and still they have no clue of the culprit!”
Everyone knows who did it, the motive, the means and the opportunity. It’s just that no-one wants to be the first government in the West to come out and say it.
“Yes they sell to some other parties and in turn to a lower price.”
So what if the price is slightly lower? At least you get to keep what you are paid for it. There’s little point in selling for a high price in dollars when those dollars are robbed from you. You might as well give it away. In any case the oil and gas cost almost nothing to get out of the ground.
“Do you imply 20+ million russians have to die in this war?”
Not at all. You said “*They have lost more ethinic russians than ever before”. “Ever before” encompasses all of history, including the Mongol invasions, Napoleon’s invasion and WWs I and II.
“How would Russia respond in kind? They have no agency, they have let alone zero influence in this important organizaiton.”
The ICC has no agency either. It is powerless to do anything without the force of one of the Western powers that set it up to do their bidding. Even the US ignores it. It is a sham, not any sort of “important organisation”.
“I see that Russia just announced that Putin will not travel to G20 BRIC nation India. If BRIC members cannot visit each other, well then the organization have no real future.”
For you, the internet is something that happened to other people.
“
Bayard
If a modern army like Russia(?) is not up to date on drone tech. who are supposed to be up to date about drones? Even if one are not up to date on this, the drone attacks have been going on for months now but nothing has been made to stop them in their tracks.
Again, drones show up on radar. The war have now been going on for atleast 8 years, just today I read that once again Ukraine managed to strike inside Russia killing some civilians.
It is not about “long border” or whatever argument, it is about Russia is still not prepared for what is going on, they never seems to learn from the mistakes, instead the mistakes are just repeated which of course in turn bolster Ukraine and west. As I said earlier, it is like the russian are play hooky day in and day out.
Could you imagine lets say Mexico and US being at war and that US would sit idly by when a russian-backed-armed Mexico send drones every day killing americans and even setting off a bomb over the White house and the americans would do nothing in return? Of course Ukraine/west will keep doing this, because west are also complicit:
West enabling Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian targets – The Economist
Kiev’s drone program depends on Western-provided intelligence to circumvent Russian defenses, the British news magazine has reported https://swentr.site/news/581931-west-enabling-drone-strikes/
The loss have been immense whatever source you want to use.
Russian losses already surpass american/nato forces losses in their last 30 year of wars.
I think you need to brush up on what constitutes “evidence”. Hint: it is not unsupported speculation.
Nope it is the reality, US recently said that every arms shipment to Ukraine was judged on the basis how Russia would react. Thus, if Russia never react = the arms shipment will go on which they have.
No Russia selling to a price below what they did to the west.
Re Nordstream: West certainly know who did it (either themselves or Ukraine) still Russia are clueless about the culprit, just as they are clueless about the constant sabotage, assassinations and the war in general.
Not at all. You said “*They have lost more ethinic russians than ever before”. “Ever before” encompasses all of history, including the Mongol invasions, Napoleon’s invasion and WWs I and II.
Ever before referred to ethnic russians killed in Ukraine prior to the invasion. Part of the invasion was to stop the shelling of russians, instead the invasion have caused even more ethnic dead russians inside of Ukraine.
ICC is not impotent, they managed to effectively ban Putin from even meeting his allies in the BRICS meeting!
Jack, Russia and Ukraine are fighting a war, what military types call a main force war.
NATO’s efforts are akin to colonial police actions, I don’t think it a fair comparison
Main force wars are complete carnage for both sides. Colonial police actions are usually carnage for one side.
Your point about Mexico is spot on. I have heard no persuasive counter argument.
Craig, I had no idea Germans in WW1 had access to drones, artillery with 10x the range and explosive effect of WW1 guns, multiple rocket launchers, 500 kg glide bombs, cruise missiles, and other gear that makes WW1 weapons look like firecrackers. This alone should give you an idea why you’re laughably wrong, lethality of both is simply incomparable. And you don’t ‘see’ piles of corpses because current front line is 4x the length of the Western front one, and was 6x longer before Russians shortened it. Plenty of space to dilute the corpse quotient, but you can see massive new cemeteries (and digging up of old ones to make space) which again, should give you a clue given the fact Ukraine simply abandons most of the dead to rot on the battlefield (of there is little to collect after Russian artillery turns the bodies to tiny bits) how bad their situation is.
And your claim about parity of losses is even more wrong seeing Russia fires 10x artillery shells, is defending against human wave attacks in well dug in positions, and has proper air support from both planes and helicopters (or Lancets, another weapon Ukraine has no equivalent of or reply for, responsible for hundreds of burned out armored vehicles so far). Each of these factors alone would multiply the opposing losses, all of them together turn it into a massacre, but sure, believe in “”parity”” even though Russians only need volunteers to refit front units while on the opposing side, you see brutal gestapo-like human hunts in more and more videos plus sending of people simply unfit due to age, health, or mental conditions to the front lines with barely any training. Please, do show us even ONE Russian cemetery just as bad as dozens of Ukrainian ones – I won’t be holding my breath
What WW1 artillery might have lacked in technology they made up for in size and numbers. The ‘Big Bertha’ siege guns that destroyed the Belgian forts in 1914 could hurl a one tonne, 420mm diameter shell over 8km. In preparation for the Battle of the Somme British artillery alone fired 1.5 million shells in the space of a week. I doubt if the number fired by both sides in Ukraine number more than a few hundred thousand.
Artillery was the biggest killer of WW1 accounting for 60% of the four million deaths on the Western front. About 1.5 billion shells of varying calibre were fired so you can work out for yourself how many shells it took to kill one man.
By the most recent count about 500 Lancets have been used resulting in 170 vehicles destroyed and others damaged. It might be impressive but it’s not enough to be decisive.
Three points. First, Germans build only a handful of BB guns. Their effect was also very limited because they were extremely inaccurate and due to awful metallurgy 120 years ago, only a very small amount of explosive (relatively speaking) could be placed in the shell. Thus, they were completely ineffective against anything other than fort sized targets, as hitting a trench required so much luck only a direct hit could do anything to well dug in infantry. Compare it to modern Russian equivalents, 500 kg gliding bomb (which has pinpoint accuracy and Russians already used more of them than BB battery fired shots over multiple years of the war) and 203 mm 2S7 Pion guns, which, thanks to drone correction also have excellent accuracy and funnily enough, similar explosive content in a shell – except Russians have dozens of them, not a handful. Both systems make Berthas look like child toy in both potency and quantity.
Second, most common allied artillery gun in WW1 was 75 mm, firing 5 kg shells. Now, Russians use 152 mm guns firing 60 kg shells with far more accuracy (and the above point about amount of explosive filler you could put into shell than and now applies here too, making the comparison even more one sided). Take a guess, which one is going to be more lethal?
Third, 500 lancets? What? I saw more vehicles damaged by them than that, and that’s just videos Russians managed to capture from another and publish. If you count the videos that aren’t uploaded, or not confirmed by another drone, the number must be far higher than that. And it is decisive because it makes impossible for Ukr to place artillery in 30 km belt behind front line (save for quick run in and shoot then run bursts) and movement of bigger columns in the same belt as each target of note is quickly attacked and killed. Disrupting enemy logistics and back support might not look sexy or be notable to outside observer, but it has massive effect on the enemy capability to deploy and engage, something we see with small size of attacking units in “counteroffensive” relying on rush to get through danger zone ASAP – which drastically decreases their effectiveness and increases losses…
As of today, most of the war porn has gone to TikTok and such.
But all wars eventually come to an end.
The Treaty of Berwick was a good example of that, and not to much avail.
Is this the best you can do Craig? Surely a comment or maybe a bit of inside info on political developments, esp. from the Brits is needed. What is the gung-ho FO doing to repair the damage caused when they sent Boris in to scupper the peace treaty? 100s of 1000s of dead bodies later, do they still think they can topple Putin, defeat Russia and get Ukraine into NATO? Your expertise is vital here!
(The last time I posted here, you told me to literally, fuck off. Go on, do it again)
You should consider yourself fortunate, most people, including myself, have never had the privilege of communicating with a famous person such as Craig Murray – though I did touch the bottom of Gary Glitter’s trousers in 1973. That doesn’t count as communication of course, more an unheard cry for mercy. Most famous people are very driven we hear and I found Glitter no different.
telling comment on Responsible Statecraft:
“Even when regional actors are the ones taking military action, that does not guarantee that the intervention will be welcome or effective. Unless there is good reason to believe that an intervention will leave the affected country better off than it would have been, it is better for outside actors to refrain from using force even when they may believe they are justified in doing so.”
This of course is about Niger since ECOWAS has stated an ultimatum.
The piece is against an intervention. And suggests US forces out in case the intervention does happen.
another quote:
“As analyst Chris Ògúnmọ́dẹdé explained in a recent column, “Many in Niger and elsewhere in the wider region will likely regard such an operation as little more than a fig leaf for U.S. and French meddling in Niger, at a time when both powers are making strategic adjustments to their overseas security footprints that they say will feature more local and regional leadership.”
“There was similar openness to military action by regional actors when the U.S. supported Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia in 2007, and the Ethiopian action was initially successful before it led to the longer-term destabilization of Somalia.
The Obama administration welcomed and supported the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen in 2015 for similar reasons, and thus helped enable one of the most destructive wars and largest humanitarian crises in recent memory. ”
see:
“ECOWAS sets ‘D-day’ for intervention in Niger”
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/08/21/ecowas-establishes-d-day-for-intervention-in-niger/
How would ordinary Americans have responded if critical infrastructure of the USA had been destroyed by Germany?
For once an accurate account of the war so far.
It’s interesting how the ‘Putin perfect’ believers who delude themselves that the war is going the way the Russians planned it hang on the words of the likes of Ritter, Macgregor and Berletic despite the number of times they’ve changed tack. Before the invasion they all scoffed at the idea of Putin invading, he wouldn’t be so stupid they all said, then when he did they sought to justify his ‘stupid’ action and confidently predicted that it would all be over in a week; then two then maybe a month as ‘paratroopers dropped on Kyiv and mass tank divisions poured across the border’. I’ve lost count of times Russia was on the cusp of ‘the most decisive military victory since WW2’, that the bulk of the Ukrainian army was trapped in a ‘cauldron’ and would soon be dying or surrendering in large numbers. Then when the Russians were driven back from Kyiv and had to retreat from Kherson all of a sudden that ‘wasn’t the way the Russians wage war’. Something these ‘experts’ forgot to mention at the start although surely they must’ve known it all along. Unless of course they were making it up as they went.
keep in mind the russophobic media environment in which said people have operated publicly via YT etc. and in which their audience in the West is living day-to-day. Our mass media put out and still do a frenzy, I personally have never before encountered in its hatred and bias of enormous idiotic proportions. Thus many very simply were extremely thankful to get a different view. Because out there there was nothing else in the offer. And still isn´t. Despite some misgivings we shouldn´t see Ritter and his merry men as a bad thing. They did a lot to help laymen to learn scrutinize these matters they before wouldn´t think about at all. Matters which suddenly would dominate discussions in the canteen or a pub. I prefer the discourse with all the Scott Ritters out there than without. (Admittedly I have heard Berletic once, and Ritter not for many months. the General very seldomly by now. But everyone of them does know his profesional specialty.)
Is this because of how the counteroffensive is going? Desperation to score some kind of win for Washington online?
I remember similar stories the other way around.
Orcs running out of shells, equipment, drunk, demoralised, Showel washing machine chips etc.
They will leave in few weeks.
Precisely. If you believe the propaganda emanating from either side, you are a fool or a knave.
I don’t think I am a knave, so I must be a fool. Mind you, to call all the reports and comments from both sides “propaganda” is prejudicial, isn’t it?
To my mind, having followed such matters carefully since the second NATO invasion of Iraq, it’s clear that the Western governments and their tame media lie consistently and methodically – as a matter of course. They would no doubt think it foolish to tell the truth. Sometimes it seems to me that people like the CIA often lie when there is no need to, or even when it is counterproductive, just from habit or because they take a spiteful pleasure in deceiving others.
Meanwhile I believe that official Russian sources, while understandably discreet on some subjects – such as their own losses – are pretty credible when they do utter. I first began to follow the Russian MoD reports during the second NATO invasion of Iraq, after I gave up reading the Western reports in sheer disgust as they were so obviously untrue. The Russian reports, in contrast, while brief and to the point seemed accurate.
I look at the Russian MoD reports on the present SMO, not daily, but occasionally. They seem credible. Mostly I follow Andrei Martyanov and Military Summary, and Westerners like Douglas Macgregor, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Moon of Alabama, and John Helmer. Dmitry Orlov is an extremely clever and knowledgeable engineer whose writings about the collapse of societies have usually turned out to be absolutely correct. For a long time Andrei Raevsky (aka “The Saker”) ran a brilliantly informative site, but he retired a while ago.
It’s difficult for anyone living in the West to give complete and accurate accounts of proceedings in Ukraine and Russia without incurring the wrath of the authorities, the media, and the mob.
All parties tell lies during wartime to benefit their own cause but the main difference in this war is that the ukrainian /western propaganda is never exposed by the western media, not once, meanwhile every claim by Russia is considered propaganda by the same western media.
I also believe that russian propaganda have been very absent in general even though they have been quite some low hanging fruit to utilize. I follow all kinds of pro-russian media, I have seen thousands of articles by now, I would say a mere handful could be considered disinformation.
Ukraine on the other hand have been a full media spectacle from the beginning whereas every statement by Zelensky is carefully crafted to reach into the western minds – it helps that Zelensky is an actor and like to show himself off.
In the words of John Maynard Keynes, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
“For once an accurate account of the war so far.”
Presumably that’s the new meaning of “accurate”, ” agreeing with how I want the world to be” rather than the fuddy-duddy old definition that you might find in the OED, “corresponding to how the world is”.