You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE.
WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work, complete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
— George Orwell, 1946
EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24
Mr. Emory has launched a new Patreon site. Visit at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory
FTR#1245 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Jacques Baud
NB: This description contains material not included in the audio portion of the broadcast.
Introduction: The second of a projected four-part discussion of the decisively important work of former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud, this program presents and details fundamentals of the Ukraine war and the history leading up to it. This analysis will be supplemented in the remaining programs in the series.
His CV is presented below, and will be supplemented by more detail in an interview presented with him.
The reading of this article is continued from our last program.
Baud points out that the presentation of the war in the West is badly skewed, with politicians and media pursuing ideologized fantasies, rather than substantive analysis coming from intelligence agencies.
The essence of Baud’s war analysis is presentation of compelling documentation that the Ukraine war was begun by the West—the U.S. and NATO in particular—in order to weaken Russia.
Facilitating a murderous program of systematic atrocity committed by Ukraine’s government against the Russian-speaking minority of Ukraine, it is the West and the Biden administration in particular, that bear responsibility for the conflict.
As will be seen, analysis of the actual conflict itself is fundamentally skewed in the U.S. and Europe. Far from being “incompetent,” Russia quickly executed maneuver warfare to cut-off the bulk of the Ukrainian army, which was poised for a lethal offensive against the Russian-speaking East.
Russia’s primary objective—completely misunderstood in the West and systematically misrepresented by political and media interests alike—was largely achieved within a short period.
The Russian forces occupied territory roughly equivalent to the U.K in a matter of days, fixing Ukrainian forces with a diversionary move toward Kiev, eliminating Ukraine’s ability to move large numbers of troops and trapping the primary Ukrainian forces in the East.
This will be more completely discussed, analyzed and presented in the remaining programs featuring Baud’s work.
Key Points of Analysis and Discussion Include: Baud’s first-hand involvement in NATO training of the Ukrainian military; Baud’s former position as chief of Swiss intelligence’s division on Warsaw pact forces during the Cold War; Baud’s extensive UN experience on proliferation of small arms, their distribution to civilian populations and the deleterious effects of that distribution; The fundamental, institutionalized distortion of the conflict—politicians and media ignoring reality (including and especially that presented by intelligence professionals) and inculcating the public (and themselves) with an inflammatory, demonstrably false narrative that engenders a dangerous policy of escalation; The essential misunderstanding of the genesis of the Ukrainian conflict; The central issue of the post-Maidan government’s banning of the Russian language in Ukraine’s Eastern districts; The fundamental misunderstanding of, and misrepresentation of, the civil war in Ukraine’s East as a dynamic involving “Russian Separatists” and “interference” by Putin; Putin’s advice to the Russian-speaking Eastern districts NOT to seek a referendum on autonomy; The Ukrainian government’s launch of an ill-fated military suppression against those districts; The fundamental corruption and ineptitude of the post-Maidan Ukrainian military; The false narrative distributed in the west that Russia was involved in any way with the civil war in Eastern Ukraine; The failure of the civil war against the Eastern districts because of that ineptitude; The defection of large “maneuver” units of the Ukrainian armed forces—armor, artillery and missile formations; The monumental failure to report for duty of the Ukrainian reserve personnel; Ukraine’s pivot to NATO to form the Ukrainian military; Jacques Baud’s role in that attempted formation; NATO’s creation of the fascist “reprisal units,” exemplified by the Azov Regiment; The Azov regiment’s symbolic, and historical nostalgia for the ”Das Reich” Division—2nd Waffen SS; The operational strength of the NATO-created fascist territorial defense units—102,000; The reality behind a 2021” hijacking of a RyanAir flight in Belarus; the fact that the “journalist”—Roman Protassevitch—was a prominent member of the Azov regiment; the fact that the action was in keeping with the rules of force; The war’s genesis with a Ukrainian campaign to conquer and decimate the Russian-speaking regions of the East; the Duma’s advocacy of diplomatic recognition for the Russian-speaking regions; Putin’s initial refusal to recognize the regions; France and the West’s refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements; France and the West’s insistence on direct confrontation between Ukraine and Russia; Zelensky’s call in March of 2021 for Ukraine’s reconquering of Crimea; The Ukraine’s initiation of the conflict by bombarding the Russian-speaking districts and massing their army for an all-out assault; Putin’s granting of the Duma’s request and diplomatic recognition of the independence of the Russian-speaking regions; Those regions’ request for military assistance; Putin’s positive response to that request, initiating the conflict; The Russian strategy of using pressure on Kiev as a diversion, drawing Ukrainian forces around it and permitting the encirclement of the bulk of the Ukrainian army in Eastern Ukraine; The West’s fundamental misunderstanding of Putin’s and Russia’s war aims, due to their own strategic and operational myopia; The “slowdown” of Russian operations, due to the fact that they have already achieved their objective; The “reprisal” units’ deliberate blocking of civilian evacuation corridors, so that the civilians can be used to deliberately impede Russian military progress; The West’s manipulation of Zelensky and Ukraine, in essence bribing him with arms purchases to “bleed Russia;” The distribution of small arms to Ukrainian urban populations, a development that Baud feels will lead to atrocities committed against fellow civilians; The strong probability that the Azov Regiment was using the Mariupol maternity hospital as a strategic vantage point, and that the Russians fired on it as a legitimate military target; The West’s using of that “War Crime” to justify further arms shipments; The West’s systematic distortion and “weaponization” of war coverage; The joint security provided to the Chernobyl nuclear plant by BOTH Ukrainian and Russian soldiers to prevent sabotage; Baud’s observation that the West’s providing of large amounts of small arms to the populations of Kiev and Kharkov will lead to trouble; Baud’s observation that political and media elements in the West are presenting information at variance with what intelligence services have been able to verify; The murder of Ukrainian diplomats and politicians who have been willing to negotiate with Russia.
In the ongoing series on the Ukraine war, Mr. Emory has advanced the metaphor of the war and its attendant coverage as something akin to the mythical Philosopher’s Stone of the alchemists. Instead of changing lead into gold, it is changing individuals and institutions in the West into the same fabric as Volodomyr Viatrovych’s Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.
Recently, Yahoo News has begun regularly posting articles from Ukrainska Pravda.
This is part of a U.S.-funded media array in Ukraine, designed to communicate openly propagandized coverage of things Ukrainian.
Yahoo’s presentation of Ukrayinska Pravda exemplifies Mr. Emory’s metaphor.
Part and parcel to the whitewashing of the Nazi affiliation of the Azov formations in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Kalush Orchestra–winner of t he 2022 Eurovision song quest–capped off their performance with a call to release the Azov combatants holed up in the tunnels beneath the Azovstal steel mill.
The absence of commentary on the Nazi orientation of the Azov units is routine in the West at this point.
Also exemplifying the ideological and journalistic perversion of Western coverage of Azov formations is the New York Times piece about Azov wives requisitioning international aid for the Azovstal combatants.
The article featured mercy pleas from Kateryna Prokopenko–the wife of Azov commander Colonel Denys Prokopenko.
Colonel Prokopenko’s perspective on the possible “false flag” explosion on the Mariupol Drama Theater is interesting. We can but wonder what he might disclose to Russian intelligence officers about the incident.
- “ . . . . On March 7, an Azov Battalion commander named Denis Prokopenko appeared on camera from Mariupol with an urgent message. Published on Azov’s official YouTube channel and delivered in English over the sound of occasional artillery launches, Prokopenko declared that the Russian military was carrying out a ‘genocide’ against the population of Mariupol, which happens to be 40 percent ethnic Russian. . . .”
- “ . . . . Prokopenko then demanded that Western nations ‘create a no fly zone over Ukraine support[ed] with the modern weapons.’ It was clear from Prokopenko’s plea that Azov’s position was growing more dire by the day. . . .”
Joe Biden manifested consummate hypocrisy with his condemnation of Payton Gendron, the apparent Buffalo shooter. Endorsing the 14 words minted by David Lane and utilizing the Sun Wheel symbol embraced by the Azov Battalion, Gendron was aligning himself with the same forces the U.S. backs in Ukraine.
As discussed in FTR #780, Svoboda maintains a street-fighting cadre called Combat 14. ” . . . . the name points to the number ‘14.’ In fascist circles this refers to the ‘fourteen word’ slogans of commitment to the ‘white race.’ As the leader of Svoboda’s ally ‘C14’ explained, his organization is in a ‘struggle’ with ‘ethnic groups’ that are wielding, among other things, ‘economic and political power.’ The ‘ethnic groups’ he is referring to are ‘Russians and Jews.’[6] . . . .”
Combat 14’s name derives from “the fourteen words” minted by David Lane, a member of the Order that killed talk show host Alan Berg. (See excerpt below.) The words are: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
Gendron’s manifesto referenced Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch, NZ shooter, who had apparently visited Ukraine and allegedly networked with the Azov Battalion.
Symbol of Azov Battalion, with sun wheel aka sonnenrad
Even The New York Times noted the possible contact between Azov and Tarrant.
” . . . . In the wake of the New Zealand mosque attacks, links have emerged between the shooter, Brent Tarrant, and a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, white supremacist paramilitary organization called the Azov Battalion. . . .”
1. Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism, in particular Le Détournement published by SIGEST, Gouverner par les fake news, L’affaire Navalny. His latest book is Poutine, maître du jeu? published by Max Milo.
This article appears through the gracious courtesy of Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement, Paris. Translated from the French by N. Dass.
“The Military Situation in Ukraine” by Jacques Baud; The Postil; 4/1/2022.
Part One: The Road To War
For years, from Mali to Afghanistan, I have worked for peace and risked my life for it. It is therefore not a question of justifying war, but of understanding what led us to it. I notice that the “experts” who take turns on television analyze the situation on the basis of dubious information, most often hypotheses erected as facts—and then we no longer manage to understand what is happening. This is how panics are created.
The problem is not so much to know who is right in this conflict, but to question the way our leaders make their decisions.
Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is not true. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. For the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language. A bit like if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
This decision caused a storm in the Russian-speaking population. The result was a fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which was carried out beginning in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and some massacres (in Odessa and Marioupol, for the most notable). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained.
At this stage, too rigid and engrossed in a doctrinaire approach to the art of operations, the Ukrainian general staff subdued the enemy without managing to prevail. The examination of the course of the fighting in 2014–2016 in the Donbass shows that the Ukrainian general staff systematically and mechanically applied the same operative schemes. However, the war waged by the autonomists was very similar to what we observed in the Sahel: highly mobile operations conducted with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of Ukrainian forces to repeatedly “trap” them.
In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not “fit” with the information coming from the OSCE—despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.
But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Bis repetita placent: poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.
It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very, very, very few of those who actually have) will note that it is written in all letters that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution to the Ukraine.
That is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their implementation while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of the Ukraine. On the other side, the West—led by France—systematically tried to replace the Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23–24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in the Ukraine today.
The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, the chief Ukrainian military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, stated that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from illnesses, 318 from road accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisonings (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of security regulations, 228 from murders and 615 from suicides.
In fact, the army was undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoyed the support of the population. According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO [anti-terrorist operational] area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help make its armed forces more “attractive.” Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But this is a long-term process and the Ukrainians wanted to move quickly.
So, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. They are essentially composed of foreign mercenaries, often extreme right-wing militants. In 2020, they constituted about 40 percent of the Ukrainian forces and numbered about 102,000 men, according to Reuters. They were armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There were more than 19 nationalities—including Swiss.
Western countries have thus clearly created and supported Ukrainian far-right militias. In October 2021, the Jerusalem Post sounded the alarm by denouncing the Centuria project. These militias had been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if one can argue about the term “Nazi,” the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic. Their anti-Semitism is more cultural than political, which is why the term “Nazi” is not really appropriate. . . .
. . . . These militias, originating from the far-right groups that animated the Euromaidan revolution in 2014, are composed of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov Regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division, which is revered in the Ukraine for liberating Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before carrying out the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France.
Among the famous figures of the Azov regiment was the opponent Roman Protassevitch, arrested in 2021 by the Belarusian authorities following the case of RyanAir flight FR4978. On May 23, 2021, the deliberate hijacking of an airliner by a MiG-29—supposedly with Putin’s approval—was mentioned as a reason for arresting Protassevich, although the information available at the time did not confirm this scenario at all.
But then it was necessary to show that President Lukashenko was a thug and Protassevich a “journalist” who loved democracy. However, a rather revealing investigation produced by an American NGO in 2020 highlighted Protassevitch’s far-right militant activities. The Western conspiracy movement then started, and unscrupulous media “air-brushed” his biography. Finally, in January 2022, the ICAO report was published and showed that despite some procedural errors, Belarus acted in accordance with the rules in force and that the MiG-29 took off 15 minutes after the RyanAir pilot decided to land in Minsk. So no Belarusian plot and even less Putin. Ah!… Another detail: Protassevitch, cruelly tortured by the Belarusian police, was now free. Those who would like to correspond with him, can go on his Twitter account.
The characterization of the Ukrainian paramilitaries as “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” is considered Russian propaganda. Perhaps. But that’s not the view of the Times of Israel, the Simon Wiesenthal Center or the West Point Academy’s Center for Counterterrorism. But that’s still debatable, because in 2014, Newsweek magazine seemed to associate them more with… the Islamic State. Take your pick!
So, the West supported and continued to arm militias that have been guilty of numerous crimes against civilian populations since 2014: rape, torture and massacres. But while the Swiss government has been very quick to take sanctions against Russia, it has not adopted any against the Ukraine, which has been massacring its own population since 2014. In fact, those who defend human rights in the Ukraine have long condemned the actions of these groups, but have not been supported by our governments. Because, in reality, we are not trying to help the Ukraine, but to fight Russia.
The integration of these paramilitary forces into the National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim. Among the many examples, that of the Azov Regiment’s insignia is instructive:
In 2022, very schematically, the Ukrainian armed forces fighting the Russian offensive were organized as:
- The Army, subordinated to the Ministry of Defense. It is organized into 3 army corps and composed of maneuver formations (tanks, heavy artillery, missiles, etc.).
- The National Guard, which depends on the Ministry of the Interior and is organized into 5 territorial commands.
The National Guard is therefore a territorial defense force that is not part of the Ukrainian army. It includes paramilitary militias, called “volunteer battalions” (добровольчі батальйоні), also known by the evocative name of “reprisal battalions,” and composed of infantry. Primarily trained for urban combat, they now defend cities such as Kharkov, Mariupol, Odessa, Kiev, etc.
Part Two: The War
As a former head of the Warsaw Pact forces in the Swiss strategic intelligence service, I observe with sadness—but not astonishment—that our services are no longer able to understand the military situation in Ukraine. The self-proclaimed “experts” who parade on our screens tirelessly relay the same information modulated by the claim that Russia—and Vladimir Putin—is irrational. Let’s take a step back.
The Outbreak Of War
Since November 2021, the Americans have been constantly threatening a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. However, the Ukrainians did not seem to agree. Why not?
We have to go back to March 24, 2021. On that day, Volodymyr Zelensky issued a decree for the recapture of the Crimea, and began to deploy his forces to the south of the country. At the same time, several NATO exercises were conducted between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, accompanied by a significant increase in reconnaissance flights along the Russian border. Russia then conducted several exercises to test the operational readiness of its troops and to show that it was following the evolution of the situation.
Things calmed down until October-November with the end of the ZAPAD 21 exercises, whose troop movements were interpreted as a reinforcement for an offensive against the Ukraine. However, even the Ukrainian authorities refuted the idea of Russian preparations for a war, and Oleksiy Reznikov, Ukrainian Minister of Defense, states that there had been no change on its border since the spring.
In violation of the Minsk Agreements, the Ukraine was conducting air operations in Donbass using drones, including at least one strike against a fuel depot in Donetsk in October 2021. The American press noted this, but not the Europeans; and no one condemned these violations.
In February 2022, events were precipitated. On February 7, during his visit to Moscow, Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed to Vladimir Putin his commitment to the Minsk Agreements, a commitment he would repeat after his meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky the next day. But on February 11, in Berlin, after nine hours of work, the meeting of political advisors of the leaders of the “Normandy format” ended, without any concrete result: the Ukrainians still refused to apply the Minsk Agreements, apparently under pressure from the United States.Vladimir Putin noted that Macron had made empty promises and that the West was not ready to enforce the agreements, as it had been doing for eight years.
Ukrainian preparations in the contact zone continued. The Russian Parliament became alarmed; and on February 15 asked Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he refused to do.
On 17 February, President Joe Biden announced that Russia would attack the Ukraine in the next few days. How did he know this? It is a mystery. But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbass increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts or intervenes. It will be said later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries have deliberately kept silent about the massacre of the Donbass population, knowing that this would provoke a Russian intervention.
At the same time, there were reports of sabotage in the Donbass. On 18 January, Donbass fighters intercepted saboteurs, who spoke Polish and were equipped with Western equipment and who were seeking to create chemical incidents in Gorlivka. They could have been CIA mercenaries, led or “advised” by Americans and composed of Ukrainian or European fighters, to carry out sabotage actions in the Donbass Republics.
In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun shelling the civilian population of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem, or to stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed.
If he decided to intervene, Putin could invoke the international obligation of “Responsibility To Protect” (R2P). But he knew that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention would trigger a storm of sanctions. Therefore, whether Russian intervention were limited to the Donbass or went further to put pressure on the West for the status of the Ukraine, the price to pay would be the same. This is what he explained in his speech on February 21.
On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.
In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware. Jurists will judge.
In his speech of February 24, Vladimir Putin stated the two objectives of his operation: “demilitarize” and “denazify” the Ukraine. So, it is not a question of taking over the Ukraine, nor even, presumably, of occupying it; and certainly not of destroying it.
From then on, our visibility on the course of the operation is limited: the Russians have an excellent security of operations (OPSEC) and the details of their planning are not known. But fairly quickly, the course of the operation allows us to understand how the strategic objectives were translated on the operational level.
Demilitarization:
- ground destruction of Ukrainian aviation, air defense systems and reconnaissance assets;
- neutralization of command and intelligence structures (C3I), as well as the main logistical routes in the depth of the territory;
- encirclement of the bulk of the Ukrainian army massed in the southeast of the country.
Denazification:
- destruction or neutralization of volunteer battalions operating in the cities of Odessa, Kharkov, and Mariupol, as well as in various facilities in the territory.
2. Demilitarization
The Russian offensive was carried out in a very “classic” manner. Initially—as the Israelis had done in 1967—with the destruction on the ground of the air force in the very first hours. Then, we witnessed a simultaneous progression along several axes according to the principle of “flowing water”: advance everywhere where resistance was weak and leave the cities (very demanding in terms of troops) for later. In the north, the Chernobyl power plant was occupied immediately to prevent acts of sabotage. The images of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers guarding the plant together are of course not shown.
The idea that Russia is trying to take over Kiev, the capital, to eliminate Zelensky, comes typically from the West—that is what they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and what they wanted to do in Syria with the help of the Islamic State. But Vladimir Putin never intended to shoot or topple Zelensky. Instead, Russia seeks to keep him in power by pushing him to negotiate, by surrounding Kiev. Up till now, he had refused to implement the Minsk Agreements. But now the Russians want to obtain the neutrality of the Ukraine.
Many Western commentators were surprised that the Russians continued to seek a negotiated solution while conducting military operations. The explanation lies in the Russian strategic outlook since the Soviet era. For the West, war begins when politics ends. However, the Russian approach follows a Clausewitzian inspiration: war is the continuity of politics and one can move fluidly from one to the other, even during combat. This allows one to create pressure on the adversary and push him to negotiate.
From an operational point of view, the Russian offensive was an example of its kind: in six days, the Russians seized a territory as large as the United Kingdom, with a speed of advance greater than what the Wehrmacht had achieved in 1940.
The bulk of the Ukrainian army was deployed in the south of the country in preparation for a major operation against the Donbass. This is why Russian forces were able to encircle it from the beginning of March in the “cauldron” between Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and Severodonetsk, with a thrust from the East through Kharkov and another from the South from Crimea. Troops from the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) Republics are complementing the Russian forces with a push from the East.
At this stage, Russian forces are slowly tightening the noose, but are no longer under time pressure. Their demilitarization goal is all but achieved and the remaining Ukrainian forces no longer have an operational and strategic command structure.
The “slowdown” that our “experts” attribute to poor logistics is only the consequence of having achieved their objectives. Russia does not seem to want to engage in an occupation of the entire Ukrainian territory. In fact, it seems that Russia is trying to limit its advance to the linguistic border of the country.
Our media speak of indiscriminate bombardments against the civilian population, especially in Kharkov, and Dantean images are broadcast in a loop. However, Gonzalo Lira, a Latin American who lives there, presents us with a calm city on March 10 and March 11. It is true that it is a large city and we do not see everything—but this seems to indicate that we are not in the total war that we are served continuously on our screens.
As for the Donbass Republics, they have “liberated” their own territories and are fighting in the city of Mariupol.
3. Denazification
In cities like Kharkov, Mariupol and Odessa, the defense is provided by paramilitary militias. They know that the objective of “denazification” is aimed primarily at them.
For an attacker in an urbanized area, civilians are a problem. This is why Russia is seeking to create humanitarian corridors to empty cities of civilians and leave only the militias, to fight them more easily.
Conversely, these militias seek to keep civilians in the cities in order to dissuade the Russian army from fighting there. This is why they are reluctant to implement these corridors and do everything to ensure that Russian efforts are unsuccessful—they can use the civilian population as “human shields.” Videos showing civilians trying to leave Mariupol and beaten up by fighters of the Azov regiment are of course carefully censored here.
On Facebook, the Azov group was considered in the same category as the Islamic State and subject to the platform’s “policy on dangerous individuals and organizations.” It was therefore forbidden to glorify it, and “posts” that were favorable to it were systematically banned. But on February 24, Facebook changed its policy and allowed posts favorable to the militia. In the same spirit, in March, the platform authorized, in the former Eastern countries, calls for the murder of Russian soldiers and leaders. So much for the values that inspire our leaders, as we shall see.
Our media propagate a romantic image of popular resistance. It is this image that led the European Union to finance the distribution of arms to the civilian population. This is a criminal act. In my capacity as head of peacekeeping doctrine at the UN, I worked on the issue of civilian protection. We found that violence against civilians occurred in very specific contexts. In particular, when weapons are abundant and there are no command structures.
These command structures are the essence of armies: their function is to channel the use of force towards an objective. By arming citizens in a haphazard manner, as is currently the case, the EU is turning them into combatants, with the consequential effect of making them potential targets. Moreover, without command, without operational goals, the distribution of arms leads inevitably to settling of scores, banditry and actions that are more deadly than effective. War becomes a matter of emotions. Force becomes violence. This is what happened in Tawarga (Libya) from 11 to 13 August 2011, where 30,000 black Africans were massacred with weapons parachuted (illegally) by France. By the way, the British Royal Institute for Strategic Studies (RUSI) does not see any added value in these arms deliveries.
Moreover, by delivering arms to a country at war, one exposes oneself to being considered a belligerent. The Russian strikes of March 13, 2022, against the Mykolayev air base follow Russian warnings that arms shipments would be treated as hostile targets.
The EU is repeating the disastrous experience of the Third Reich in the final hours of the Battle of Berlin. War must be left to the military and when one side has lost, it must be admitted. And if there is to be resistance, it must be led and structured. But we are doing exactly the opposite—we are pushing citizens to go and fight and at the same time, Facebook authorizes calls for the murder of Russian soldiers and leaders. So much for the values that inspire us.
Some intelligence services see this irresponsible decision as a way to use the Ukrainian population as cannon fodder to fight Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This kind of murderous decision should have been left to the colleagues of Ursula von der Leyen’s grandfather. It would have been better to engage in negotiations and thus obtain guarantees for the civilian population than to add fuel to the fire. It is easy to be combative with the blood of others.
4. The Maternity Hospital At Mariupol
It is important to understand beforehand that it is not the Ukrainian army that is defending Marioupol, but the Azov militia, composed of foreign mercenaries.
In its March 7, 2022 summary of the situation, the Russian UN mission in New York stated that “Residents report that Ukrainian armed forces expelled staff from the Mariupol city birth hospital No. 1 and set up a firing post inside the facility.”
On March 8, the independent Russian media Lenta.ru, published the testimony of civilians from Marioupol who told that the maternity hospital was taken over by the militia of the Azov regiment, and who drove out the civilian occupants by threatening them with their weapons. They confirmed the statements of the Russian ambassador a few hours earlier.
The hospital in Mariupol occupies a dominant position, perfectly suited for the installation of anti-tank weapons and for observation. On 9 March, Russian forces struck the building.According to CNN, 17 people were wounded, but the images do not show any casualties in the building and there is no evidence that the victims mentioned are related to this strike. There is talk of children, but in reality, there is nothing. This may be true, but it may not be true. This does not prevent the leaders of the EU from seeing this as a war crime. And this allows Zelensky to call for a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
In reality, we do not know exactly what happened. But the sequence of events tends to confirm that Russian forces struck a position of the Azov regiment and that the maternity ward was then free of civilians.
The problem is that the paramilitary militias that defend the cities are encouraged by the international community not to respect the customs of war. It seems that the Ukrainians have replayed the scenario of the Kuwait City maternity hospital in 1990, which was totally staged by the firm Hill & Knowlton for $10.7 million in order to convince the United Nations Security Council to intervene in Iraq for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
Western politicians have accepted civilian strikes in the Donbass for eight years, without adopting any sanctions against the Ukrainian government. We have long since entered a dynamic where Western politicians have agreed to sacrifice international law towards their goal of weakening Russia.
Part Three: Conclusions
As an ex-intelligence professional, the first thing that strikes me is the total absence of Western intelligence services in the representation of the situation over the past year. In Switzerland, the services have been criticized for not having provided a correct picture of the situation. In fact, it seems that throughout the Western world, intelligence services have been overwhelmed by the politicians. The problem is that it is the politicians who decide—the best intelligence service in the world is useless if the decision-maker does not listen. This is what happened during this crisis.
That said, while some intelligence services had a very accurate and rational picture of the situation, others clearly had the same picture as that propagated by our media. In this crisis, the services of the countries of the “new Europe” played an important role. The problem is that, from experience, I have found them to be extremely bad at the analytical level—doctrinaire, they lack the intellectual and political independence necessary to assess a situation with military “quality.” It is better to have them as enemies than as friends.
Second, it seems that in some European countries, politicians have deliberately ignored their services in order to respond ideologically to the situation. That is why this crisis has been irrational from the beginning. It should be noted that all the documents that were presented to the public during this crisis were presented by politicians based on commercial sources.
Some Western politicians obviously wanted there to be a conflict. In the United States, the attack scenarios presented by Anthony Blinken to the Security Council were only the product of the imagination of a Tiger Team working for him—he did exactly as Donald Rumsfeld did in 2002, who had thus “bypassed” the CIA and other intelligence services that were much less assertive about Iraqi chemical weapons.
The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see:
- on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here);
- on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements;
- and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
In other words, we can naturally deplore and condemn the Russian attack. But WE (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out. We show compassion for the Ukrainian people and the two million refugees. That is fine. But if we had had a modicum of compassion for the same number of refugees from the Ukrainian populations of Donbass massacred by their own government and who sought refuge in Russia for eight years, none of this would probably have happened.
Civilian casualties caused by active hostilities in 2018–2021, per territory
In territory control- led by the self-pro- claimed “Republics”
In Government- controlled territory
In “no man’s land”
Total
Decrease compared with previous year, per cent
2018
128
27
7
162
41.9
2019
85
18
2
105
35.2
2020
61
9
0
70
33.3
2021
36
8
0
44
37.1
Total
310
62
9
381
Per cent
81.4
16.3
2.3
100.0
As we can see, more than 80% of the victims in Donbass were the result of the Ukrainian army’s shelling. For years, the West remained silent about the massacre of Russian-speaking Ukrainians by the government of Kiev, without ever trying to bring pressure on Kiev. It is this silence that forced the Russian side to act. [Source: “Conflict-related civilian casualties,“ United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine.]
Whether the term “genocide” applies to the abuses suffered by the people of Donbass is an open question. The term is generally reserved for cases of greater magnitude (Holocaust, etc.). But the definition given by the Genocide Convention is probably broad enough to apply to this case. Legal scholars will understand this.
Clearly, this conflict has led us into hysteria. Sanctions seem to have become the preferred tool of our foreign policies. If we had insisted that Ukraine abide by the Minsk Agreements, which we had negotiated and endorsed, none of this would have happened. Vladimir Putin’s condemnation is also ours. There is no point in whining afterwards—we should have acted earlier. However, neither Emmanuel Macron (as guarantor and member of the UN Security Council), nor Olaf Scholz, nor Volodymyr Zelensky have respected their commitments. In the end, the real defeat is that of those who have no voice.
The European Union was unable to promote the implementation of the Minsk agreements—on the contrary, it did not react when Ukraine was bombing its own population in the Donbass. Had it done so, Vladimir Putin would not have needed to react. Absent from the diplomatic phase, the EU distinguished itself by fueling the conflict. On February 27, the Ukrainian government agreed to enter into negotiations with Russia. But a few hours later, the European Union voted a budget of 450 million euros to supply arms to the Ukraine, adding fuel to the fire. From then on, the Ukrainians felt that they did not need to reach an agreement. The resistance of the Azov militia in Mariupol even led to a boost of 500 million euros for weapons.
In the Ukraine, with the blessing of the Western countries, those who are in favor of a negotiation have been eliminated. This is the case of Denis Kireyev, one of the Ukrainian negotiators, assassinated on March 5 by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) because he was too favorable to Russia and was considered a traitor. The same fate befell Dmitry Demyanenko, former deputy head of the SBU’s main directorate for Kiev and its region, who was assassinated on March 10 because he was too favorable to an agreement with Russia—he was shot by the Mirotvorets (“Peacemaker”) militia. This militia is associated with the Mirotvorets website, which lists the “enemies of Ukraine,” with their personal data, addresses and telephone numbers, so that they can be harassed or even eliminated; a practice that is punishable in many countries, but not in the Ukraine. The UN and some European countries have demanded the closure of this site—refused by the Rada.
In the end, the price will be high, but Vladimir Putin will likely achieve the goals he set for himself. His ties with Beijing have solidified. China is emerging as a mediator in the conflict, while Switzerland is joining the list of Russia’s enemies. The Americans have to ask Venezuela and Iran for oil to get out of the energy impasse they have put themselves in—Juan Guaido is leaving the scene for good and the United States has to piteously backtrack on the sanctions imposed on its enemies.
Western ministers who seek to collapse the Russian economy and make the Russian people suffer, or even call for the assassination of Putin, show (even if they have partially reversed the form of their words, but not the substance!) that our leaders are no better than those we hate—for sanctioning Russian athletes in the Para-Olympic Games or Russian artists has nothing to do with fighting Putin.
Thus, we recognize that Russia is a democracy since we consider that the Russian people are responsible for the war. If this is not the case, then why do we seek to punish a whole population for the fault of one? Let us remember that collective punishment is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
The lesson to be learned from this conflict is our sense of variable geometric humanity. If we cared so much about peace and the Ukraine, why didn’t we encourage the Ukraine to respect the agreements it had signed and that the members of the Security Council had approved?
The integrity of the media is measured by their willingness to work within the terms of the Munich Charter. They succeeded in propagating hatred of the Chinese during the Covid crisis and their polarized message leads to the same effects against the Russians. Journalism is becoming more and more unprofessional and militant.
As Goethe said: “The greater the light, the darker the shadow.” The more the sanctions against Russia are disproportionate, the more the cases where we have done nothing highlight our racism and servility. Why have no Western politicians reacted to the strikes against the civilian population of Donbass for eight years?
Because finally, what makes the conflict in the Ukraine more blameworthy than the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya? What sanctions have we adopted against those who deliberately lied to the international community in order to wage unjust, unjustified and murderous wars? Have we sought to “make the American people suffer” for lying to us (because they are a democracy!) before the war in Iraq? Have we adopted a single sanction against the countries, companies or politicians who are supplying weapons to the conflict in Yemen, considered to be the “worst humanitarian disaster in the world?” Have we sanctioned the countries of the European Union that practice the most abject torture on their territory for the benefit of the United States?
To ask the question is to answer it… and the answer is not pretty.
2. In the ongoing series on the Ukraine war, Mr. Emory has advanced the metaphor of the war and its attendant coverage as something akin to the mythical Philosopher’s Stone of the alchemists. Instead of changing lead into gold, it is changing individuals and institutions in the West into the same fabric as Volodomyr Viatrovych’s Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.
Recently, Yahoo News has begun regularly posting articles from Ukrainska Pravda.
This is part of a U.S.-funded media array in Ukraine, designed to communicate openly propagandized coverage of things Ukrainian.
Yahoo’s presentation of Ukrayinska Pravda exemplifies Mr. Emory’s metaphor.
Ukrayinska Pravda
. . . . Not related to the original Pravda, this was founded in 2000 by Georgiy Gongadze, a Georgian right-wingterrorist. One of the most popular news outlets in Ukraine, they now have nearly one million followers on Twitter.
As is fitting for their history, they are unbelievably far-right. Indeed, the site has an entire section dedicated to historical revisionism. They worship Bandera and the OUN, alternate between denying and justifying genocide, and defend the SS Galicia division, war criminals responsible for many atrocities, I am still surprised from time to time how brazen the Ukrainian far right can be, in this country which the press tells us has no Nazi problem.
Their executive director, Andrey Boborykin, works for CORE. The editor-in-chief, Andrey’s wife Sevgil Musayeva, got somewhat famous back during the Maidan coup for founding Crimea SOS, an NGO founded with NED cash working for the return of Crimea to Ukrainian control, mostly by offering what they call “verified information” but given their funding, is likely anything but. . . .
3. Part and parcel to the whitewashing of the Nazi affiliation of the Azov formations in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Kalush Orchestra–winner of t he 2022 Eurovision song quest–capped off their performance with a call to release the Azov combatants holed up in the tunnels beneath the Azovstal steel mill.
The absence of commentary on the Nazi orientation of the Azov units is routine in the West at this point.
Ukraine band makes plea for Mariupol at Eurovision final;” Reuters.com; 5/14/2022.
Ukraine’s Kalush Orchestra on Saturday made a plea for the city of Mariupol and its Azovstal plant at the end of their appearance in the Eurovision Song Contest.
“Please help Ukraine, Mariupol. Help Azovstal right now,” lead singer Oleh Psiuk shouted from the front of the stage in the Italian city of Turin after the band performed its song “Stefania”.
Russian forces have been constantly bombarding the steelworks in the southern port of Mariupol, the last bastion of hundreds of Ukrainian defenders in a city almost completely controlled by Russia after more than two months of a siege. . . .
4. Also exemplifying the ideological and journalistic perversion of Western coverage of Azov formations is the New York Times piece about Azov wives requisitioning international aid for the Azovstal combatants.
The article featured mercy pleas from Kateryna Prokopenko–the wife of Azov commander Colonel Denys Prokopenko.
5. Colonel Prokopenko’s perspective on the possible “false flag” explosion on the Mariupol Drama Theater is interesting. We can but wonder what he might disclose to Russian intelligence officers about the incident.
- “ . . . . On March 7, an Azov Battalion commander named Denis Prokopenko appeared on camera from Mariupol with an urgent message. Published on Azov’s official YouTube channel and delivered in English over the sound of occasional artillery launches, Prokopenko declared that the Russian military was carrying out a ‘genocide’ against the population of Mariupol, which happens to be 40 percent ethnic Russian. . . .”
- “ . . . . Prokopenko then demanded that Western nations ‘create a no fly zone over Ukraine support[ed] with the modern weapons.’ It was clear from Prokopenko’s plea that Azov’s position was growing more dire by the day. . . .”
Symbol of Azov Battalion, with sun wheel aka sonnenrad
6a. Joe Biden manifested consummate hypocrisy with his condemnation of Payton Gendron, the apparent Buffalo shooter. Endorsing the 14 words minted by David Lane and utilizing the Sun Wheel symbol embraced by the Azov Battalion, Gendron was aligning himself with the same forces the U.S. backs in Ukraine.
. . . . At one point in his post, the Buffalo suspect asks himself the broadest question possible: “What do you want?”
He answered with a 14-word sentence that is a common slogan among neo-Nazi groups and argues for the preservation of the white race and its children.
That sentence — known in far-right circles as the “14 Words” — was coined by David Lane, a member of a far-right group known as the Order. It embodies the central white supremacist tenet that white people will not survive unless immediate action is taken.
The suspect’s use of the 14 Words is not the only time he makes reference to neo-Nazism in his writing. The first page of the work is emblazoned with a symbol called the sonnenrad or sunwheel. The sonnenrad is an ancient European rune that, like the swastika, was appropriated by the Nazis to embody their ideal vision of an Aryan identity. . . .
6b. As discussed in FTR #780, Swoboda maintains a street-fighting cadre called Combat 14.
“The Kiev Escalation Strategy”; german-foreign-policy.com; 3/06/2014.
. . . . On the other hand, this should draw attention because Svoboda honors Nazi collaborator, Stepan Bandera and his Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), responsible for having committed massacres particularly of Jewish Ukrainians and Poles.[4] Svoboda, according to activists in Kiev, still disposes of an illegal armed wing known as “C14.“[5] This has been confirmed a few days ago by the BBC, which reports “C14’s” size allegedly at 200 members — and took over the headquarters of the Communist Party, an act that turns the spotlight on the concept of rule of law applied now in the pro-Western Ukraine. The name “C14” (“Combat 14″) is probably a semantic flirt with the name “C18” (“Combat 18″) one of the international networks of neo-Nazi terrorist organizations, with which the “C14,” of course, shares no organizational ties. At the same time, the name points to the number “14.” In fascist circles this refers to the “fourteen word” slogans of commitment to the “white race.” As the leader of Svoboda’s ally “C14” explained, his organization is in a “struggle” with “ethnic groups” that are wielding, among other things, “economic and political power.” The “ethnic groups” he is referring to are “Russians and Jews.“[6] . . . .
6c. Combat 14’s name derives from “the fourteen words” minted by David Lane, a member of the Order that killed talk show host Alan Berg. (See excerpt below.) The words are: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
. . . . Neo-Nazi activist April Gaede, a Kalispell, Mont., resident who corresponded frequently with Lane, announced with great fanfare that she and “the gals from WAU [Women For Aryan Unity]” had established a David Lane Memorial Fund to cover the expenses of interring Lane’s remains.
According to Gaede, Lane told her that he wanted to be cremated and have his ashes placed in the capstone of a pyramid monument. However, Gaede wrote on the racist online forum Stormfront, “Since we are not in a situation to build a monument in a White homeland,” Gaede was arranging to instead distribute Lane’s ashes among 14 smaller, portable pyramids, which would then be enshrined in the homes of 14 white nationalist women. (The number of pyramids is a direct reference to “the 14 words,” the white nationalist catchphrase authored by Lane: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”) . . . .
7a. Gendron’s manifesto referenced Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch, NZ shooter, who had apparently visited Ukraine and allegedly networked with the Azov Battalion.
Even The New York Times noted the possible contact between Azov and Tarrant.
. . . . The Ukrainian far right also appears to have ties in other countries. Australian Brenton Tarrant, accused of slaughtering 50 people at two mosques in the city of Christchurch in New Zealand, mentioned a visit to Ukraine in his manifesto, and some reports alleged that he had contacts with the ultra-right. The Soufan Center, a research group specializing on security, has recently alleged possible links between Tarrant and the Azov Battalion. . . .
7b. A private intelligence group–the Soufan Center–has linked Tarrant to the Azov Battalion.
In the wake of the New Zealand mosque attacks, links have emerged between the shooter, Brent Tarrant, and a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, white supremacist paramilitary organization called the Azov Battalion. Tarrant’s manifesto alleges that he visited the country during his many travels abroad, and the flak jacket that Tarrant wore during the assault featured a symbol commonly used by the Azov Battalion. . . .
The Future: Technology, Theocracy and the Thousand Year Reich
While the conflict in Ukraine shows no end in sight, it does sound like we could be looking at the end of the initial stages of the war and the emergence of a new phase of conflict fueled by the advanced Western weapons systems already flooding into the country. And as the following articles remind us, these new weapon systems don’t just promise to change the balance of the conflict, but also the strategic nature of the fighting on the ground. In particular, powerful new missile systems could reshape the battlefield in part by dramatically extending the range of Ukraine’s offensive reach, both on land and at sea. According to reports from last week, the US is set to send Ukraine powerful new anti-ship missile systems that could potentially force Russia’s navy out of the Black Sea. So when we’re waiting to see whether or not Russia decides to occupy the entire Southern Coast of Ukraine and major cities like Odessa, the fact that Ukraine is poised to get the capacity to block Russian out of the Black Sea should be kept in mind.
But beyond those anti-ship missiles are the likely delivery of powerful Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) that could pose a powerful threat to Russian missile and artillery platforms. Experts predict that, with near weekly new aid packages being announced for Ukraine, it’s just a matter of time for the US delivers these weapon systems. And when that happens, the nature of the battlefield conflict could shift to one of dueling hit-and-run counter-battery attacks on the other side’s missiles and artillery platforms. A lot more missiles and artillery rounds are going to be fired much longer distances in both directions as Ukraine’s capacity to strike deep into the heart of rebel-held territories, or even inside Russia, is steadily expanded. So we should expect a intensification of fighting, but also likely an intensification of the destruction of civilian areas in particular in rebel held territories. In other words, while we have no idea how this next phase of the conflict will play out, we can be highly confident that it will involve a dramatic escalation in the destruction of rebel held civilian areas.
Ok, first, here’s a report from last week about the US getting ready to arm Ukraine with new anti-ship missiles. Missiles powerful enough to block Russia out of the Black Sea:
“But three U.S. officials and two congressional sources said two types of powerful anti-ship missiles, the Harpoon made by Boeing (BA.N) and the Naval Strike Missile made by Kongsberg (KOG.OL) and Raytheon Technologies (RTX.N) were in active consideration for either direct shipment to Ukraine, or through a transfer from a European ally that has the missiles.”
The arming of Ukraine is about to be taken up another notch: powerful anti-ship missiles that could effectively block Russia from the Black Sea are likely going to be delivered soon. It’s the kind of development that significantly raises the stakes of this conflict. If Russian doesn’t win, it potentially loses access ot the Black Sea:
But it’s not just longer-ranger powerful anti-ship systems that are under consideration. Powerful modern artillery and Multiple Rocket Launch Systems are aren’t pending approval:
And as the following article describes, these missile systems wouldn’t just be resupply Ukraine’s dwindling supplies. They could strategically transform the nature of this conflict into a battle of long-range hit and run counter-battery fire. And as Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel who studies the war for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, put it, at the rate the US is announcing new aid packages for Ukraine — about one a week now — he wouldn’t be surprised if the approval for these weapons systems could come as early as this week:
“To date, Russia and Ukraine have traded fire using some of the same systems, including the powerful 300 mm Smerch multiple-launch rocket system, which can shoot rounds some 55 miles, and aging 122 mm howitzers first fielded in the 1960s. The introduction of various Western artillery pieces is expected to accelerate a tactical shift by both sides to employ what is known as counter-battery fire, in which military forces seek out their enemy’s artillery, determine its location and attack, analysts said.”
A battle of dueling long-range artillery and missile counter-battery fire. That’s what experts are expecting to unfold after Ukraine receives these advanced weapon systems. Which could be approved as soon as this week. Or maybe it will be next week’s aid package. Or the week after that. It really is just a matter of time, and probably not very much time:
So with Ukraine poised to start receiving advanced medium range missile and artillery weapon systems that would significantly expand Ukraine’s ability to launch attacks against Russia’s own missiles and artillery systems, it’s important to keep in mind one of the implicit implications of this shift in the conflict: there’s going to be a lot more shelling of the separatist-controlled areas where Russian artillery and missile systems are operating. And that means presumably means a lot more shelling of those residential areas.
It raises the question of how the world is going to react to the heavy shelling by Ukrainian forces of those rebel-held cities and villages. So with that in mind, here’s a report from back in November 2021, about what life was like in those rebel-held cities before the start of Russia’s invasion: shelling. Constant shelling. That was how a 66-year-old resident of the town of Horlivka (Gorlovka), on the edge of rebel held territory, described life there since 2014. Regular shelling and even visible tracer bullets when she goes out at night. Some of the people interviewed were forced to live in the basement of a destroyed school since their house was destroyed by shelling in July 2014. So as the shelling of rebel-held civilian areas of Ukraine inevitably increase as a result of this shift on the battlefield, it’s going to be important to recognize that’s happening, but it’s also going to be important to recognize that these civilians areas have already been routinely shelled since 2014:
“Aleksander Studenikin and his wife live in the basement of a ruined school, with a candle burning on the table and an old TV set in the corner. Their own house was destroyed by shelling in July 2014.”
Again, that was November of 2021, three months before Russia’s invasion, an invasion justified in large part around claims of ongoing threats to the civilians in these rebel held areas like Horlivka. It’s part of the context of this expected delivery of much longer-range weapon systems capable of strike deep into rebel held territories. As Ukraine gets more and more of these longer-range weapon systems, we really should expect the leveling of these rebel held cities.
And as the following ‘War Crimes Watch’ report from the AP last week warns us, when these rebel held towns do end up experiencing attacks on civilian infrastructure, like hospitals and schools, we’re probably going to be told it was the result of Russian attacks. At least that was clearly the case in this War Crimes report on the targeting of schools in Ukraine. As we can see, even schools bombed in Horlivka (Gorlovka) are being blamed on Russia, despite the fact that the town is controlled by rebel forces and local news reports stated the school was destroyed by Ukrainian forces trying to capture the town. So when Ukrainian forces assault rebel held towns, the destruction is going to be blamed on Russia. That’s literally already happening. It’s an ominous sign of what to expect once all those missile launchers and howitzers are delivered:
“Intentionally attacking schools and other civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Experts say wide-scale wreckage can be used as evidence of Russian intent, and to refute claims that schools were simply collateral damage.”
Yes, widespread damage and destruction is seen as evidence of Russian War crimes according to some experts. And yet war crimes experts also point out in this same report that proving an attacking military’s intent ot target individual schools is difficult despite the widespread damage and destruction. But it’s in the case of the targeting of a school in Gorlovka (Horlivka), were we see how easy it can be for these kinds of investigations to get absolutely warped to the point of being an inversion of what happened: a school was destroyed in the city and it’s being treated in this war crimes report as an open question as to whether or not it was Russian or Ukrainian forces behind it, despite local new reports indicating it was Ukrainian forces trying to retake the area:
You have to wonder if the destroyed school is the same partially destroyed school that was already being used as a civilian residence in that above report from back in November. If not, it’s just a matter of time. The main question at this point for that unfortunate school in Gorlovka is what type of weapon systems will ultimately finish the job, assuming the job hasn’t already been finished.
@Pterrafractyl–
Some perspective on war crimes:
https://spitfirelist.com/news/french-medical-technician-breaks-the-media-narrative-on-war-crimes-in-ukraine/
Best,
Dave
How long before we get reports of mass desertions from the Ukrainian military? That’s the question raised by a recent Washington Post report based on the accounts of Ukrainian military personnel who literally sought out media attention to decry the extreme lack of support they are receiving from Ukraine’s military leadership. They make it sound like an effective suicide mission.
But as we’re also going to see, part of what makes the near complete blackout on any reports of Ukrainian casualties so ominous is that it turns out these troops who are going to the media to report on the lack of support from their leadership are overwhelmingly new civilian draftees who were given almost no training and then immediately sent off to fight on the direct front lines in the Donbass. It’s the kind of scenario that really does suggest new recruits are effectively being treated like fodder for Russian artillery.
So what kinds of losses are these troops describing? Well, the following report in primarily based on the accounts of Company Commander Serhi Lapko and his top lieutenant Vitaliy Khrus, who retreated from the front lines to a hotel last week where they reached out to the Washington Post to make public their concerns. According Lapko, of the 120 troops initially under his command three months ago, only 54 remain. The rest were injured, killed, or deserted. Lapko and Khrus were arrested for desertion hours after the interview. Interestingly, it sounds like Lapko’s decision to pull his troops from the front lines was triggered when he arrived at military headquarters in Lysychansk after two weeks in Toshkivka. His battalion commander and team had moved to another town without informing him, taking food, water and other supplies. It’s why Lapko responds to the charges by asserting that his unit was deserted first.
But the report isn’t based entirely on the account from this unit. Other units fighting in the Donbass have also posted on Telegram voicing a similar sense that they had been abandoned and left to wage a suicide mission.
So as we’re still left wandering this information black hole when it comes to accurate reporting on the situation in Ukraine, it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s not just the case that the Ukrainian military has imposed an information blockade on Ukrainian casualties. It’s also apparently the case that Ukraine has been sending barely-trained civilian recruits directly to the front lines of the Donbass with little to no training or equipment on what amounts to a suicide mission:
“The volunteers were civilians before Russia invaded on Feb. 24, and they never expected to be dispatched to one of the most dangerous front lines in eastern Ukraine. They quickly found themselves in the crosshairs of war, feeling abandoned by their military superiors and struggling to survive.”
They knew they were being conscripted. But these civilian soldiers weren’t exactly expecting to be sent to the front lines in the Donbass. But that’s exactly where they were sent, resulting in heavy losses. Of the 120 troops initially under the command of company commander Serhi Lapko, only 54 remain due to deaths, injuries, and desertions:
The sense of desperation, but also abandonment by Ukraine’s military leadership, has apparently gotten so bad that the Commander Lapko and his top lieutenant, Vitaliy Khrus, literally retreated with members of their company to a hotel away from the front lines and contacted the Washington Post to speak about this on record, and were arrested hours later. This was following their revelation that their commanders had already retreated without informing them. It’s all part of the grim context of the endless parade of stories seemingly depicting Ukrainian military invulnerability: In reality, Ukraine was apparently sending barely-trained new recruits to the front lines with little equipment on de facto suicide missions and covering it up with propaganda about its incredible military successes:
And note how it’s just just this one company. According to a video uploaded on May 24 by a platoon of the 115th Brigade 3rd Battalion near Severodnetsk, they felt like they were being sent to certain death:
So while we still don’t have access to accurate reporting on what’s happening in this conflict, a picture is emerging. A picture of the Ukrainian government sending untrained recruits into a meat grinder and hoping no one notices. And largely succeeding on that front.
Stories about corruption are nothing new for Ukraine. But after the Kyiv Independent’s publication of the following report on the corrupt military leadership of the Ukrainian International Legion, questions about the depth of the corruption guiding Ukraine’s military response are hard to ignore. Recall how we’ve already received warnings about the reckless military leadership experienced by some Ukrainian volunteers, issuing basically suicidal orders. It was so bad they literally left the front-lines and contacted the international press to highlight the situation to the world. The new report in the Kyiv Independent describes a similar situation, with commanders sending unprepared troops into extremely dangerous situations with little to no backup. It’s so bad that a number of volunteers with special forces experience have quit the unit, refusing to following commanders who seem to be trying to get them killed.
The new report is also notable for how extensive it is, with written testimonies from over a dozen current and former members of a specific unit in the International Legion. And as we’re going to see, that corrupt leadership appears to have the backing of the top leadership in the Ukrainian military. Nothing has been done about the complaints despite the soldiers bringing them all the way to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s office. That’s part of what makes the report so stunning: all of the reports of corrupt leadership are about this one particular unit, but way this unit’s leadership has been allowed to operated with impunity suggests these problems are far more widespread.
As the article describes, the International Legion is controlled by two branches of the Ukrainian military: Ukraine’s Ground Forces oversee some units, while the Defense Ministry’s Directorate for Intelligence (GUR) oversees the other. The particular unit in this report operates under the GUR, so this is, in part, an issue with the leadership of Ukraine’s military intelligence. It sounds like this unit was, at is peak strength, up to 500 people, compromising about one-third of the International Legion.
The commanders of the GUR-run wing of the Legion report directly to the head of the GUR, Kyrylo Budanov. Zelenskiy appointed Budanov to head the intelligence committee in the president’s office in late July. Officially, the GUR wing of the Legion is run by major Vadym Popyk. But unofficially, it’s a trio of figures who actually run the unit: Popyk’s right-wing hand Taras Vashuk (“young Taras”); Vashuk’s uncle (“old” Taras); and 60-year old Sasha Kuchynsky. As we’re going to see, Kuchynsky is basically a mobster who runs to the Tarases whenever he gets into trouble.
The fact that Sasha Kuchynsky is a criminal mobster who only joined the Ukrainian military in February of 2022 is notable in and of itself, but also keep in mind that Zelenskiy began releasing prisoners with “real combat experience” that same month, on the condition that these prisoners fight in the ‘hottest’ spots in the war.
So was Sasha Kuchynsky a former soldiers who happened to be imprisoned? Nope, it’s worse. Instead, it appears that ‘Sasha Kuchynsky’ is actually the Polish mobster Piotr Kapuscinski. Kapuscinski was wanted to fraud in Poland in 2014, when he disappeared, only to resurface in Ukraine in 2016. Kapuscinski was subsequently investigated by Ukrainian authorities for aggravated robbery and sexual assault in October 2016 and sentenced to a year in a Ukrainian prison. Poland requested his extradition upon his release in 2017, but Ukraine said they would try him themselves instead. That doesn’t appear to have happened. Instead, Kapuscinski/Kuchynsky resurfaced again in 2021 when he a pistol and bullets were found during a vehicle search. A subsequent search of a building he was using turned up explosives. Kapuscinski/Kuchynsky was facing seven years in a Ukrainian prison, and yet he was released almost immediately on a $2,500 bail. Then the war broke out in February, at which point he joined the Ukrainian military. The courts then suspended his case. His $2,500 bail was returned in May.
That’s the guy over a dozen soldiers are accusing of giving criminal orders. Orders that amount to effective suicide missions carried out in a manner that left a number of soldiers feeling like he was trying to get them killed. Beyond that, Kapuscinski/Kuchynsky apparently has a predilection for issuing order to loot. Like literally ordering soldiers under his command to go to a shopping mall and take all of the jewelry and electronics or expensive furniture. There’s even a Youtube video showing a group of soldiers refusing to go along with one of his looting orders as crowds of angry locals gather around. Weapons also seem to have a tendency to disappear under his command. In some cases it appears that he confiscated the weapons and ammunition and then sells to back to the soldiers. But this a mobster we’re talking about, we who knows where it’s all ultimately going.
So had there been any response now that these soldiers are alleging all of these crimes? Yes, in a sense. Things got worse after they filed their complaints with President Zelenskiy’s office. The soldiers who made these accusations started to feel under pressure and receive threats.
The other response is that a large number of these foreign volunteers have quit the unit, especially volunteers with special forces experience. It’s a remind that this story isn’t just about rampant corruption in Ukraine. It’s about how that rampant corruption is seriously disrupting Ukraine’s ability to fight this conflict. It’s part of why it’s going to be interesting to see what, if any, response there is from Ukraine’s Western partners in this war. It’s not like it’s helps the West achieve its goals against Russia if Ukraine is treating the volunteers so poorly that they’re quitting. And yet it also appears that this Polish mobster is being protected by people very close to the top of the military hierarchy. It’s a story about not just corruption but seemingly untouchable corruption:
“The allegations in this story are based on interviews with legionnaires, written testimonies of over a dozen former and current members of the legion, and a 78-page report they’ve put together about problems within this particular unit of the International Legion.”
This isn’t just some allegations from a handful of disgruntled soldier. Over a dozen former and current members of the International Legion provided written testimonies. And this 78-page report on rampant misconduct is just about a single unit.
And while it might be tempted to dismiss the allegations as just problems with a single unit of the International Legion, it’s the fact that these complaints have already gone all the way up to the presidential office and still don’t appear to be yielding any sort of results other than reprisals against the soldiers that suggests the problems with this unit’s leadership are far more widespread. The fact that we’ve already heard similar complaints about abuses and poor military leadership from Ukrainian volunteers also suggests that this isn’t just a problem with the International Legion. It’s a leadership corruption problem:
And in the case of this particular unit, the leadership corruption problems appear to stem from the top, with a trio a figures being seen as being at the heart of it: two intelligence officers — Taras Vashuk (‘Young Taras’), his uncle (‘Old Taras’) — and 60-year old Sasha Kuchynsky. It sounds like Sasha causes trouble and then turns to the Tarases for a cover-up:
But the scandalous nature of this unit’s leadership isn’t limited to a lack of any discipline for Sasha Kuchynsky. There’s also the fact that Kushynsky doesn’t appear to be who he claims to be and is instead Piotr Kapuscinski, a Polish criminal who fled in 2014 while under investigation by Polish authorities and resurfaced in Ukraine in 2016. He was investigated in Ukraine for aggravated robbery and sexual assault and ended up spending a year in prison. Warsaw asked for his extradition in 2017, but Ukraine said they would try him first. It’s not clear that Ukraine tied him at all. Instead, he resurfaced again in May 2021 when Ukrainian law enforcement searched his vehicle, found a pistol, and then search a building he used and found explosives. Facing up to seven years in prison on the explosives charges, he was almost immediately released on a bail of $2,500. He then joined the Ukrainian military Following the start of the conflict in February, at which point the courts suspending his case. His bail was even paid back in May.
The special treatment of Kuchynsky didn’t end there. According to Ukrainian law, foreigners can’t serve as officers in the military. He’s operating at a higher rank than Ukrainian law allows. Beyond that, it sounds like the suspension of his court case and payback of his bail after joining the military is a right granted only to Ukrainian citizens. For whatever reason, this Polish mobster just keeps getting special treatment. The kind of special treatment that has landed him into a position of an untouchable criminal military officer:
And beyond the ‘suicide mission’ orders he was given, there were the looting orders that were actually caught on video. That’s part of what makes this story seemingly emblematic of a much larger military corruption issue: they caught this looting on video. It’s posted on Youtube. We can see the soldiers refusing to go along with the looting orders, and hear Kuchynsky continue to demand that they engage in the looting. And yet nothing has been done. He’s allowed to act with impunity:
Finally, there’s the suspicious arms movements. Just how many weapons are getting siphoned off for Kuchynsky’s organized crime associates? Or just his own personal profit? We can only speculate, because it’s clear Ukrainian authorities are determined to look the other way:
Have any Western partners been shipping things like Stinger missiles to the International Legion? If so, let’s hope they’re keeping very close track of them because that sounds like the kind of hardware that a certain Polish mobster’s associates might be interested in.
And in other news...or maybe not...
Following up on the disturbing report in the Kyiv Independent — a report based on the testimonies of volunteers in the International Legion describing suicidal orders from their leadership, including a Polish mobster, and gross corruption including the theft of weapons and orders to loot civilian areas, and how the corruption leadership was being protected at the highest levels of government — here’s a set of article excerpts about what is becoming a major theme in the coverage of the conflict in Ukraine: the retraction and suppression of negative information about Ukraine’s conduct of the war.
This isn’t a new theme. Recall how the head of Amnesty’s Ukraine office, Oksana Pokalchuk, resigned in protest following the release of the report describing the stationing of Ukrainian military units in civilian areas. Despite those protests, Pokalchuk was listed on the Myrotvorets “blacklist” website as an enemy of Ukraine, listing her as a “participant in acts of humanitarian aggression in Ukraine” and “guilty of denying Ukraine’s right to defend itself.“ And as the following article notes, Amnesty ultimately retracted the report. Well, note exactly a retraction. Amnesty appeared to stand by its findings, but added the caveat that Russia is morally responsible for any civilian deaths suffered as a result of stationing of military units near civilians. Yep, that appears to be how this ‘retraction’ went down. But those details were largely lost in the coverage of the retraction. The headline of ‘Amnesty retracts report’ was the main story.
As we’re going to see in the second article excerpt below, CBS had a retraction of its own this month. In this case, it was report that found that only ~30% of the weapons shipped to Ukraine were actually reaching the front line. It obviously didn’t go over well. CBS ultimately retracted it on the basis that the person who was the source of that ~30% claim — Jonas Ohman, the founder of pro-Ukraine nonprofit Blue-Yellow — was referring to shipments in April when he that statement and has now concluded that the situation has “improved”. We aren’t told how much it’s improved (only 50% stolen?), just that it’s improved. Also, CBS notes that the US sent Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon to Kyiv to monitor weapons shipments. Those two details were apparently the basis for CBS retracting its report. It’s not exactly a compelling refutation.
And finally, as we’re going to see in a recent Grayzone article, there doesn’t appear to a shortage of people in Ukraine who are willing to share their experiences of rampant corruption, theft, the stationing of troops in civilian areas, or dangerous suicidal orders. Plenty of people have those tales to share. The shortage is in Western reporters who are allowed to actually convey these stories.
It’s an information blockade. An information blockade that requires the occasional forced retraction. Sometimes multiple retractions at the same time. So, first, here’s a look at the retraction of that Amnesty report. A retraction that wasn’t really a retraction, but more just a reframing of the underlying findings to make it sound less bad for Ukraine:
“Following the backlash, Amnesty said in a statement to CNN Sunday: “While we fully stand by our findings, we regret the pain caused and wish to clarify a few crucial points.””
Poof, it’s retracted. It’s the power of outcry. And yet, when we look at the modified version of Amnesty’s report, the group didn’t appear to be retracting its findings at all. Instead, they simply issued statements emphasizing that Amnesty’ finds Russia to be solely morally culpable for any civilian deaths experienced as a result of Ukraine’s decision to base military units in civilian areas. I was a non-denial denial. But that was good enough, as long as it prompted headlines about Amnesty retracting the report:
And on that same day Amnesty ‘retracted’ its report, we got reports about another retraction. This time it was CBS’s investigation on the rampant theft of aid, including weapons shipments. As CBS initially reported, only 30% of the donated weapons were actually making it there. It didn’t go over well, obviously. Like Amnesty, CBS’s ‘retraction’ was a little more substantive than Amnesty’s retraction in that it involved an actual revision of their findings. When Jonas Ohman — the founder of pro-Ukraine nonprofit Blue-Yellow — made that claim about only 30% of the aid making it through to the front lines, he was referring to the situation back in April. Amnesty updated their report to indicate that Ohman said the situation has improved. How much has it improved? Who knows. We’re just told it’s improved. Also, the US sent Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon — to Kyiv specifically to monitor the use of military aid. And that was it. Ohman’s statement about a vague ‘improvement’ in the flow and the US sending a general to assess the situation were the basis for CBS retracting the report:
“Among the material removed was a quote the founder of pro-Ukraine nonprofit Blue-Yellow, Jonas Ohman, who said in late April that only around 30% of aid was reaching the front lines in Ukraine.”
The heart of the report — the claims that only 30% of aid was making to the front lines — was removed. Why? Because the source of that claim now insists the situation has ‘improved’. And also the US sent a general to monitor the weapons flow. Keep in mind that if the US felt the need to send General Harmon to Kyiv to monitor the weapons flow, that’s not exactly contradicting the idea that there could be a problem with theft. Quite the opposite:
Also note the laughable assertions made by Mykhailo Podolyak, the advisor to Ukrainian President Zelenskiy: The locations of ALL donated weapons are know. It’s all very transparent, you see:
And those two same-day retractions of reports critical of Ukraine’s execution of the war bring us to the following Grayzone piece about those exact topics. As we’re going to see, the big story in this report is how the big stories aren’t getting out because it’s not being allowed. Whether it’s stories about stolen weapons, stolen medical supplies, the stationing of troops in civilian areas, or the issuing of suicidal orders. These kinds of reports are simply not allowed to get out in the Western press (at least not without some quit retractions):
“Andrey has been picking up extra work as a fixer, arranging interviews and translating for foreign journalists in Ukraine to cover the war. “I have worked with about a dozen journalists from different countries in Europe,” he said. “All of them have been shocked. They left Ukraine shocked. They said they could not believe the situation here. But this shock did not make it into any of their articles about the war. Their articles said that Ukraine is on the road to victory, which is not true.””
As Andrey the Ukrainian journalist warns us, it’s not that there’s a lack of stories emanating out of Ukraine about rampant corruption and theft. Those stories are there and Ukrainians want to share them with the world. But those stories don’t fit into the prescribed narrative and simply aren’t being told by the international press. Beyond that, local journalists who seriously investigate the crime and corruption face government reprisals. The world is getting is a warped sanitized depiction of reality on the ground:
And note how these Grayzone reporters themselves witnessed Azov soldiers staying in the same hotel they were staying at in Kramatorsk. It’s like the worst possible group of neighbors to find, given the situation. That was in July, before Amnesty issued its now-retracted report on the stationing of military units amidst civilians:
And then there’s the firsthand accounts of rampant equipment shortages, coupled with dangerous leadership that is effectively assigning troops to suicide missions. Suicide missions that sound very similar to the kind of abusive leadership recently reported on in the Kyiv Post, where a Polish mobster, Piotr Kapuscinski, was effectively put in charge of a wing of the International Legion and proceeded to steal weapons and issue orders to loot civilian areas. The same stories keep popping up...coverage of which keep getting squashed:
Also note how many of the sources in this report are, themselves, volunteers shocked by the corruption they are experiencing, like the volunteer doctor for Maine. It points towards one of the complications for Ukraine in relying so heavily on international volunteers: a lot of those volunteers are going to be entering into that work with lofty ideal. The kind of lofty ideal that don’t mesh well with endemic gross corruption:
Finally, note the observation that can basically never be reported in the bulk of the Western press’s coverage of this conflict: the vast majority of the residents of the Donbas support the Russians. It’s like the original sin of this conflict that cannot be acknowledged:
Keep in mind that any meaningful coverage of the support in the Donbas for Russia’s presence and protection necessitates a meaningful review of the the events of Ukraine since 2014. Especially events in the period around the Maidan revolt. Events that have been similarly systematically misreported and warped in the Western press virtually that entire period. It’s part of the depressing context of the suppression of real news out of Ukraine: the corruption in Ukraine is so extensive even the international reporting about corruption in Ukraine is corrupted. Which is also a reminder that the endemic corruption in Ukraine isn’t just a Ukraine thing. It’s more of a group effort at this point.
It happened again. We appear to have received another report describing nightmare conditions for Ukrainian troops. Nightmare conditions that the Ukrainian leadership doesn’t want them discussing with international reporters. Recall the report from back in May about Ukrainian soldiers who fled the front lines and retreated to a hotel miles from the front lines where they contact Washington Post reporters and detailed their experiences. Experiences that amounted to suicide-mission orders for barely-trained troops against far better trained and equipped Russian forces. Also recall the report we got a few weeks ago about members of the International Legion describing similar suicide-mission conditions for the international volunteers.
This time, the nightmare reports are coming from troops fighting to recapture Kherson. As the article notes, the Ukrainian government has been eager to show progress on the fight for Kherson to its European allies poised to experience a particularly expensive and cold winter in the face of Russian gas sanctions. In other words, bad news in the fight for Kherson could translate into bad news about the so-far-unyielding support of Ukraine’s European neighbors, including ongoing military support. To put it another way, Ukraine needs to show its new international investors the their investments aren’t being thrown into a blood-soaked money pit.
And yet, based on the reports from these soldiers it does sound like the battle for Kherson is rather hopeless. They describe well-fortified Russian defenses and 5‑to‑1 casualty ratios. One of the soldiers was made platoon commander without any battlefield experience. His replacement after getting injured also had no experience. Another soldier said almost every member of his 120-person unit was injured. None of them talked to reporters using their full names, fearing disciplinary action.
The report also describes how reporters are being kept far from the front lines by Ukraine’s military, so the accounts from the eight anonymous soldiers in this report are close to all of the information the international community has received thus far on Ukrainian military’s progress on the Kherson front. Eight anonymous soldiers all describing a seemingly hopeless battle that amounts to a suicide-mission:
“Kyiv is hoping that the Kherson counteroffensive will boost national morale and demonstrate to Western governments that their billions of dollars in economic and military assistance are paying off, even as sanctions against Russia have raised energy prices and inflation and heightened fears of an even more expensive winter.”
It’s not hard to see why the battle for Kherson would be a highly sensitive topic for Ukraine’s government, especially if the battle is not going well. Europe is experiencing an energy-fueled economic implosion as a result of this conflict. Bad news for Ukraine on the battlefield risks getting translated into the crumbling of that EU solidarity with Ukraine.
So we shouldn’t be surprised to see that these dire interviews of injured Ukrainian soldiers appears to be done without official approval. All of the soldiers describe brutal, almost hopeless battlefield conditions. Minimal training. Equipment that doesn’t work. High casualty rates. Seemingly hopeless conditions. None of them would give their names, fearing disciplinary action. In other words, this was a report that wasn’t supposed to come out. At least not officially:
Similarly, the reporters describe having very limited access to the Kherson area due to military-imposed journalistic blockade. So while the accounts from these soldiers couldn’t be independently verified, the information blockade is at least consistent with what we would expect given these anonymous soldiers’ testimonies. We’d presumably be hear all sorts of official updates if the battle was going well. Instead, it’s silence and anonymous dire updates:
Finally, it wouldn’t be a story about the war in Ukraine without at least one tangential reference to Ukrainian fascism. And while we didn’t see any overt references to a Nazi battalion like Azov in this report, note the soldier who goes by the nickname “Pinochet”. Now, it’s possible “Pinochet” isn’t a fan of Augusto Pinochet’s fascist regime and adopted that nickname for an entirely unrelated reason. Possible, but not very likely:
Is “Pinochet” correct? Can Ukraine still realistically recapture Kherson? It’s not clear how that’s going to happen based on this report. If there’s some sort of Ukrainian secret weapon that can turn the tide of this conflict they’re doing a good job of keeping that secret. It’s the overarching theme of the coverage of this conflict: we either get over-the-top good news reports about Ukraine’s impending victory. Or no news. Except for the unofficial reports from soldiers describing near-suicidal conditions.
Also keep mind one of the other major factors looming over this situation: with Ukraine heavily reliant on ongoing support from Europe at the same time Europe endures growing costs — especially energy costs — as a result of its support for Ukraine, what happens when that support begins to wane in the face of a lack of battlefield progress? Specifically, what happens to the Ukrainian society if it perceives a loss of support from the EU? How will Ukrainian society reshape itself should it face both military losses that appear permanent and a sense of betrayal from its new-ish European allies? “Pinochet” and any other fascist-sympathizing soldiers presumably have some ideas about the direction they’d like Ukrainian society to take at that point.