Wednesday has passed and Thursday has passed without the predicted Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of this writing it’s presently around 4:00pm in Moscow. I see that Matt Taibbi’s take on the present situation resembles mine:
If cluelessness can be art, American journalists unveiled their Sistine Chapel this week, in a remarkable collection of misreports and hack stenography surrounding a predicted invasion of Ukraine.
The mess began last Friday, February 11th, when National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan gave an address warning American citizens to evacuate Ukraine. “If a Russian attack on Ukraine proceeds, it is likely to begin with aerial bombing and missile attacks that could obviously kill civilians without regard to their nationality,†he said. “I will not comment on the details of our intelligence information,†he added, before doing just that: “I do want to be clear: It could begin during the Olympics,†i.e. before the Beijing games end on February 20th.
Around the time of Sullivan’s comments, American reporters began telling audiences a curiously detailed story about upcoming Russian invasion plans. PBS NewsHour’s Nick Schifrin cited “three Western and defense sources†in saying Vladimir Putin had already made up his mind to invade. He then cited six sources — “US and Western officials†— who told him the U.S. expected an invasion of Ukraine the following week. These voices left little to the imagination, saying the invasion would be a “horrific, bloody campaign,†with two days of aerial bombardment, followed by electronic warfare and possible regime change:
and concludes:
It should be clear to any reporter that a national security source who whispers not only the alleged date of a coming invasion, but the number of days of aerial bombardment and the war’s expected level of horror and bloodiness, is either yanking your chain with a fairy tale, or using you, or both. Reporters on this beat nonetheless repeated this tale over and over, as if it were patriotic duty.
Will Russia invade Ukraine? It might. Putin might already be achieving his objectives without war in real Sun Tzu fashion.
Meanwhile the Associated Press reports that Russia will be conducting “nuclear drills”;
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russia announced massive nuclear drills while Western leaders grasped Friday for ways to avert a new war in Europe amid soaring East-West tensions, after unusually dire U.S. warnings that Moscow could order an invasion of Ukraine any day.
Immediate worries focused on the volatile front lines of eastern Ukraine, where an upsurge of recent shelling tore through the walls of a kindergarten and basic communication was disrupted. Western officials, focused on an estimated 150,000 Russian troops posted around Ukraine’s borders, fear the long-simmering conflict could provide the spark for a broader war.
The drumbeat of warnings that a larger conflict could start at any moment continued Friday after U.S. President Joe Biden warned that Washington saw no signs of a promised Russian withdrawal — but instead saw more troops moving toward the border with Ukraine.
Short of hoisting up a Gadsden flag could hardly make his point more clearly.
I don’t believe Russia is planning an invasion, except for the usual military plans for everything, like an American invasion of Canada, but no actual current plans to do so.
However, have we precipitated something else? The US and several allies abandoned their Kiev embassies and moved everything to Lvov, on the Polish border. That incited a fairly large movement of oligarchs and others out of Ukraine. No doubt the move to Lvov was intended to demonstrate the seriousness and imminence of the alleged Russian attack. However, it also signals that we are preparing to abandon almost all of the Ukraine. We have destabilized the Ukrainian government and economy. A collapse of both the government and economy is a real possibility.
Then what? If Ukraine collapses into chaos, who will rescue it? Russia? We won’t. We’re the ones who caused the current crisis.
“If cluelessness can be art, American journalists unveiled their Sistine Chapel this week, in a remarkable collection of misreports and hack stenography surrounding a predicted invasion of Ukraine.”
Oh come on, Trump colluded with Russia, and Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian misinformation, Matt. The press told us so……….
I’ve had it with our legacy media. Much like Canada’s press is state-run, ours is Democrat Party-run. The MSM does little reporting that first does not jive with the narrative spun and approved by the social progressive’s one. Consequently whatever is on Joe Biden’s lips seems to end up being lip-synced by our press. As for Ukraine’s fate, it seems more likely it will simply collapse under the weight of western propaganda, rather than the preordained invasion being broadcast 24/7 by this country and it’s media collaborators.
Birds Aren’t Real
Remember Jan 6, 2022, What spark would send it all up in flames?
“Putin might already be achieving his objectives without war in real Sun Tzu fashion”.
If you take the Russia position as stated in the December “ultimatum” as the objective; it doesn’t appear the objectives are met.
– NATO has not committed to withdrawing forces from Eastern and Central Europe; and in fact has deployed more forces there.
– NATO rule out expansion; including Ukraine, Caucasus or any other ex-Soviet countries. NATO has stuck to its position that expansion is open to any countries that meet membership criteria, and Ukraine has reaffirmed its goal of joining NATO. The most that could be said is some European leaders said along the lines, “Ukraine doesn’t meet membership criteria today; and unlikely to do so in the medium term….” If anything, things have been harder on this point with arm shipments from various NATO countries to the Ukraine.
– Pull back intermediate range missiles. That has generated positive movement with an offer from NATO to negotiate the deployment of intermediate range missiles.
Currently, at best Putin has achieved 0.75 of his three stated objectives.
Ukraine might collapse or blink, or NATO may blink in the next couple of months; but it does not seem the probable outcome; then that is the extent Putin can get from diplomacy.
It could be what Russia has proposed isn’t the short or medium term objective; but its a better bet that Putin means what he says.
That’s what makes it a high chance something could happen — through Putin may envision something short of full scale war to achieve it.
Do you think it more or less likely that Ukraine will be admitted to NATO or the EU now than it was a month ago? I think less likely.
I would add that Ukraine doesn’t come anywhere close to meeting the criteria for EU membership and is unlikely to in the near future.
I think it less likely in the formal sense.
But its gotten worse (for the Russians) in the informal sense. As I have mentioned, the US and other NATO countries has sent arm deliveries (both offensive and defensive); those used to be red lines the US didn’t cross. US and Canada has given Kiev more guaranteed loans.
Is Putin’s objective that while NATO says the Ukraine won’t join NATO in the near term, NATO will increasingly arm and fund Ukraine and extend it the type of support that is similar to a client state?
I’m skeptical of leaked reporting like this.
On the other hand, a properly functioning indications and warning system is specifically intended to provide warning for invasion sufficiently early that policymakers can make moves to prevent or prepare for it. It’s therefore conceivable that the Russians were planning to attack, but advanced warning allowed us and the Ukrainians to force the Russians to, minimally, disrupt the timing.
So the fact that an attack didn’t happen when leaks said it would is not dispositive of anything without more information.
I’m reminded of August 1990 and the preparations for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. The US indications and warning function correctly predicted that Iraq would invade. But policymakers in the Bush administration chose to believe the State Department and the governments of Kuwait, Saudi and others who all said that this was just a bluff. Of course, it wasn’t a bluff. How different the last three decades would be if the Bush administration had heeded the warnings and prevented the invasion.
There is an important lesson there about bluffing. Because of predatory actions that Iraq took, we knew it wasn’t bluffing because they are the kinds of actions that are very costly and that a government would not take for a bluff.
I don’t, obviously, have access to the intel and I&W on this potential conflict. But it seems pretty clear to me that Russia is not playing. They have forward-deployed forces in combat-ready positions at a high state of readiness with everything they need for combat operations. That cannot be maintained for long. They are engaging in information operations that appear intended to provide tactical surprise.
SecDef Austin said today: “All of the indicators continue to indicate that he will maintain the capability to launch an attack at most any time” That is I&W speak for all the indicators being red and that everything the Russians need for an attack is in place and ready. Tactical warning for an actual attack is usually very difficult to determine, are always subject to political factors and other things like the weather and moon phase.
Unless there is some diplomatic breakthrough (either in public or in some secret face-saving way), I think the chances of a major war are currently very high.
I don’t think that Russia is “playing”, Andy. I think they’re destabilizing Ukraine and revealing cracks in NATO by their present actions. They can keep these up practically indefinitely.
And IMO the biggest danger of war is our doing something stupid.
And, of course, bob sykes thinks the reports of Russian military build-ups alone the Ukrainian border are false. I doubt they’re false. They might be exaggerated, though.
Military forces cannot maintain the high state of readiness and positioning to conduct an invasion indefinitely. The time scale here is usually measured in weeks.
Think of it like a drag race – a drag car can’t sit on the start line, with its engine revving, waiting only to pop the clutch indefinitely.
If they were false, we’d be seeing a lot of leaks to that effect, which we are not. And other governments are confirming the buildups as well.
The UK defense intelligence chief: “Russia has the military mass in place to conduct an invasion of Ukraine.”
The Estonian intelligence chief: “The Russian Armed Forces are ready to attack at any moment. We are counting around 150,000 to 170,000 troops…Russia has the full combat support system needed for action in place. And we also see that the Air Force and the Black Sea Fleet are ready to support the attack.”
The NATO Secretary General: “Russia has amassed the biggest force we’ve seen in Europe for decades in and around Ukraine.”
And on and on. It’s simply not credible to claim that the reports of a build-up are false.
That’s what I was commenting yesterday. The intelligence on the buildup could:
(a) be wrong that forces have been amassed
(b) be wrong that the force posture is unsustainable beyond 2 months or so
(c) be wrong that if amassed forces are wound down to normal, it would take a long time (beyond several months) for them to be amassed again
If a, b, or c are wrong; then I could see Putin’s tactic being destabilization without resorting to force.
The distance between Tallinn and Kiev is about 1,300 clicks. Maybe he knows; maybe he doesn’t. He’s certainly an interested party.
“And, of course, bob sykes thinks the reports of Russian military build-ups alone the Ukrainian border are false. I doubt they’re false. They might be exaggerated, though.”
As Andy noted there are lots of secondary ways outside of US intelligence to confirm the numbers. Instead what we see so often now is that people believe they have special knowledge so that they can reject all known evidence. Proof doesnt matter anymore, just opinion. We can debate on the intentions of the troops at the border and maybe even details about the number of troops and their readiness. Certainly can debate their intentions but when you have a group that wants to argue they dont even exist not sure how to deal with that.
Steve
The only thing I know is that they’re not at war yet.
I was looking up the Russian response to the US offer yesterday.
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1799157/ — you can use google translate (surprisingly idiomatic english for translation software).
The key sentences is this in the translation
“In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees to ensure our security from the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures.
There is no “Russian invasion†of Ukraine, which the United States and its allies have been declaring at the official level since last fall, and is not planned”
A quick search found experts interpret “military-technical” as distinct from “military” in Russian. It has certain connotations of coercive actions (like naval blockades, no-fly zones) that aren’t full scale war.
Maybe everybody will be proven right and wrong (on whether Putin is going to use force, and whether he is going to start a war).
There’s an old rule-of-thumb in the intelligence world that:
Threat = Capability + Intent
And a corollary is that capability usually signals intent.
The situation we have now, which is incontrovertible in my view, is that Russia currently has deployed its military forces such that Russia has the capability to launch an invasion of Ukraine with little to no warning.
The question then comes down to the intent to exercise the option to employ that capability. The intent is always more uncertain and this case is no different.
a) In the 21st century with the various techniques we have, it’s simply not credible to suggest that forces are not massed.
b)The amount of time is not completely certain, but historically (going back to at least WWII), forces cannot stay at that heightened state of readiness for long. This is not something peculiar to this conflict, it’s a general principle and truth about the readiness of military forces in the modern era.
Even North Korea, which garrisoned troops in offensive positions near the DMZ, could not maintain the ability to launch an attack without warning. What their forward garrisons enabled was a swifter build-up to that peak capability, which was intended to be able to attack and conquer South Korea before US forces could deploy from the USA and other areas. But it took Korea many years to build those garrisons so they could be maintained indefinitely. That is not the case with Russia and Ukraine.
c) It depends on how and to what extent they are “wound down.” For example, keeping most of the forces near Ukraine but in a lower state of readiness is much different than sending all the personnel and equipment back to their garrisons.
Additionally, Russia currently has about 2/3 of its ground forces deployed around Ukraine including their premier combat units. They do not have the reserve capacity to rotate units in and out.
Curious,
Yes, I read that as well. It depends on what people mean by invasion. Russia will likely not conquer, occupy the country and install a puppet regime. But they don’t need to do that.
And there’s already been an “invasion” in the sense that Russian units have been fighting Ukrainian units in the Donbas and other areas.
I tend to think they will peal the Russian parts of Ukraine away and one of their strategic goals is to have a land connection to Crimea which is critically important to them.
Things that make you go hmmm:
https://www.axios.com/telegram-ukraine-russia-separatists-evacuation-23c418ef-cd60-4ab7-afdf-6f3260102a4a.html
I think that’s highly possible.
Does the phrase “wilderness of mirrors” mean anything to you? That’s where I think we may be. I don’t think the Russians are a reliable source. I don’t think the Ukrainians are a reliable source. I don’t think our own intelligence apparatus is a reliable source.
The reliability of our intelligence apparatus, or any other, isn’t a binary consideration.
When it comes to facts on the ground about the disposition, readiness, logistics, and capabilities of various foreign military units, I have very high confidence in the reliability of our intelligence apparatus. But much of my confidence in that is because I know how the sausage is made. I don’t know how to explain it with any kind of brevity, but I’ll just say that if there is one thing our military intelligence apparatus excels at, it is this.
When it comes to other things the intelligence community does, the confidence is not so high and with yet other things, the confidence is very low.
For example, Biden is saying today that he is really confident that Putin has made the decision to attack and that the war goals intend to go for Kyiv and depose the current government. I don’t share that confidence but I do think it’s remarkable that he would say such a thing. Two possibilities that come to mind are either he is bullshitting to some degree, or he is correct and is publicly risking sources and methods to deter the attack.
My lack of confidence is not regarding their ability to determine “disposition, readiness, logistics, etc.” but in their veracity in what they disclose to us.