I guess I never quite believed the stories the Russian military was inept. However, I think they operate very differently than the US. Military so it is difficult to understand their strategy and tactics.
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why
"The officer requested anonymity because he is being privately briefed on the war by the Pentagon and is not authorized to speak to the news media.
He and the other analysts who spoke to Newsweek argue not only that the destruction is only a small fraction of what is possible, but also that they see a glimmer of hope in a fact-based analysis of what Russia has done.
"I was initially puzzled as to why more long-range missiles haven't been sent into Kyiv and other major cities such as Odesa, and also why long-range aviation hasn't been used more in strategic attacks," says the second senior officer. "But then I had to shift to see the war through [Vladimir] Putin's eyes."
"Caught with his pants down, perhaps Putin indeed pivoted after he realized that Ukraine wasn't going to be a cakewalk and that Kyiv wasn't conquerable. Maybe he decided to solely focus on taking territory along the periphery and linking up his consolidations in the south, to be in a position to hold enough territory to extract concessions from Ukraine and the west—security guarantees or some demilitarized zone."
The second senior officer says that Putin obviously continues to apply pressure against Kyiv, but Russia hasn't shifted much of its own forces and has continued to back off bombing in the city proper.
"In that, maybe he is leaving room for a political settlement," the officer says.
"I'm frustrated by the current narrative—that Russia is intentionally targeting civilians, that it is demolishing cities, and that Putin doesn't care. Such a distorted view stands in the way of finding an end before true disaster hits or the war spreads to the rest of Europe," the second U.S. Air Force officer says.
Heartbreaking images make it easy for the news to focus on the war's damage to buildings and lives. But in proportion to the intensity of the fighting (or Russia's capacity), things could indeed be much worse.
"I know that the news keeps repeating that Putin is targeting civilians, but there is no evidence that Russia is intentionally doing so," says the DIA analyst. "In fact, I'd say that Russian could be killing thousands more civilians if it wanted to."
"I'm no com-symp," the analyst says. "Russia is dead wrong, and Putin needs to be punished. But in terms of concluding the war in a way that both sides can accept and where we don't see Armageddon, the air and missile war provides positive signs."
There is a lot of detail to the article that strengthens its case. Everyone seems to agree that Russia overestimated its strength and underestimated the Ukrainians. In particular I think they had fantasies of Zelensky and his government fleeing the country and then the civilians, realizing Russia had won, would welcome them and whatever puppet government emerged. And, of course, in that situation the West would probably have had trouble applying sanctions.
Interesting article (and a good one).
ReplyDeleteIt might also be worth bearing in mind what Putin's expressed aim is. His view, which strikes us as idiosyncratic but apparently makes sense to him, is that Ukraine is not a separate country; for reasons of geography, history and even spirituality, he sees Ukraine as part of Russia. In his view, the purpose of this war isn't to punish Ukraine but to reunify Russia. According to that logic, it wouldn't make much sense to destroy Ukraine and kill all its people; in essence, he'd be destroying Russia and killing people who should be part of the Russian nation. I've read somewhere that he is genuinely surprised that more Ukrainians haven't welcomed the Russian invaders. Part of that expectation may have been set by his previous actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, where many ethnic Russians reside who are pro-Russia and pro-Putin.
I do think that Ukraine and the West should agree to putting NATO membership off limits, and to limit Ukraine's weapons to defensive ones.
DeleteOn the other hand, I think the economic settlement should include Ukraine membership in the EU, and a new economic relationship of everyone with Russia that would both lift sanctions and be a win-win situation for everyone.
That might allow Putin to save face and be an instance where economic sanctions worked.
I am still reeling over the use of "com-symp," A term I haven't heard since the heyday of the John Birch Society. Someone get these sources out of their fallout shelter and tell them that a) there is no more USSR and b) Russia is no longer run by the commies.
ReplyDeleteHard to know whom to believe on the rest of it. Last night's newscast reported that there was hard evidence that Putin *was* targeting civilians.
All's I can make out is that Putin seems determined, for now, to fight a more conventional air/ground war. Applying sanctions on Russia and pressuring other nations not to help Putin with money and materiel seems like the best way to let Putin lose strength, popularity, and resources such that he will be unable to resort to the nukes later on.
All well and good to talk about giving up the majority Russian territories of Ukraine to end things in some faces saving note, but reports are that the once-pro-Putin folks in that area now hate his guts for shooting up their towns.
Meantime, his cyber-goons are busy looking for ways to attack our power grids and stuff.
Jean, I haven't got my reading glasses on, and I read "com symp" as "corn syrup". Sounded rather sticky.
DeleteKatherine - "I'm not corn syrup" - I like that :-). "Hey, I'm not corn syrup - I'm wasn't born yesterday!"
DeleteBtw, I looked up "corn syrup" in the Urban Dictionary. It has a few entries with various degrees of risque-ness.
DeleteThe Urban Dictionary is an essential tool for anyone over 60 still required to understand adults under under 35. I used it when I was teaching and overheard students talking in the cafeteria, often about some female prof's RBF.
DeleteHowever, be aware Urban Dictionary is a wiki, and sometimes kids get on there and make up slang for kicks hoping it will gain currency or to spotlight people they know (see "Neasha").
"Com-symp" is over there and properly designated as a term most frequently heard in the 1950s.
I know nothing about military strategy and tactics. I can’t begin to guess what is in Putin’s mind. But I can speculate, just like everyone else. Why does he want the whole country?
ReplyDeleteControl of Ukraine gives Russia access to, and control of, one of the richest agricultural areas of Europe. Some refer to Ukraine as “ the breadbasket of Europe “
Control of Ukraine gives him control of the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe. Chernobyl was among the very first targets and they won control over it quickly and easily.
Ukraine provides a geographical buffer between the NATO and EU countries and Russia. He absolutely does not want Ukraine in NATO nor in the EU.,
At this point it’s difficult to discern his endgame. I have no idea at all what he will do since the quick victory he seem to have envisioned didn’t happen he could wipe out the country in a day but maybe he’s not totally insane and knows that escalating could bring a response from NATO that would severely damage Russia, and even though Russia could do the same to NATO countries, he might decide the risks to Russia and to his own regime are too high.
He may not even know what he should do to be able to get some of what he wants and cede some points to Ukraine while still saving face.
In the meantime since it’s all speculative mind reading I don’t read the analyses and opinion pieces, nay headline news and the reports on how the humanitarian group’s are working to support the refugees - now between 1 1/2 and 2 million. Those who can afford it might want to donate to Catholic Relief Services or the Jesuit Refugee Service. I give to each of these humanitarian groups automatically each month. But I gave extra donations also this month.,
BTW, I’ve noticed that Katherine hasn’t commented recently. Katherine, hope you and your family are ok and that you’re just busy.,
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking, I'm okay. But have been super busy. I have been reading all the posts though. Sometimes I just can't think of anything worth while to say, Lol.
Delete"I just can't think of anything worth while to say"
DeleteI never let that stop me.
A couple of thoughts about the quoted article. It mentions that Putin hasn't killed nearly as many civilians (via the war) as he could. He's all heart. There's a saying that nothing is as damning as faint praise. I'd say that is pretty faint. As are the attempts to find something humanitarian in his motives.
DeleteIf he really does think that Ukraine was and should be part of the Russian people and culture, he's picking an odd way of communicating that. If you wanted someone to be part of your family, wouldn't you be finding ways to make it attractive and welcoming to them?
About NATO being perceived by Russia as a threat to their boundaries and hostile to them, may they should consider why the break away former soviet countries would want to join NATO. Hint: it isn't because they want to threaten Russia. It's because they feel threatened by it.
They are presently extolling Madeline Albright as the first American woman secretary of state and promoter of democracy. So she is responsible for statecraft in eight of the early years following the evaporation of the Soviet Union. During this period, Russia descended into oligarchy so "not such a great job, Madeline". She also thought the half-million dead children resulting from the sanctions on Iraq were acceptible. But now that it's accepted that better-than-Trump is wonderful, I'm sure the accolades for Ms. Albright will be many.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't that impressed with her statecraft either. But it is worth noting that secretaries of state carry out the policies of their administrations. Hers was that of Bill Clinton. He bears some of the credit or blame.
DeleteYes. It was an entire zeitgeist. We were the "winners". If only the US could have been humbly thankful for a gift of God, an opportunity to build peace. To bang swords into plowshares.
DeleteI dunno. I think the rise of the oligarchy had less to do with Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, and more to do with the established corruption inherent in the old Soviet system, particularly those in the KGB. Half of the richest oligarchs in Russia, including Putin, are ex KGB.
DeleteShould we have "done something" to build a better Russia? What? Yeltsin, that drunk, didn't give the West much to work with.
Somewhere I read that Patriarch Kirill is also former KGB. They did work themselves into the church leadership.
DeleteWhether or not we could influence the rise of oligarchy in Russia, the thing is that nobody cared. The rise of Russian billionaires was the sign of healthy capitalism for the neoliberal extremists here. Of course, it was mostly based on the enclosure of the natural resources of Russia. We call it privatization. As Tarzan or the Frankenstein monster might say, "privatization good".
Delete