I found this piece by Alastair Crooke at Strategic Culture Foundation concerning:
The inflection has begun. It has been messaged by the Financial Times (FT) and The Economist – the two media that so faithfully transmit any ‘replacement narrative’ to the globalist sherpas (those who carry the baggage up the mountain, on behalf of the mounted nabobs).
The Economist leads with interviews with Zelensky, General Zaluzhny and Ukraine’s military field commander, General Syrsky. All three are interviewed – interviewed in The Economist, no less. Such a thing does not occur by happenstance. It is messaging intended to convey the Ruling Class’ new narrative to the ‘golden billion’ (who will all read and absorb it).
On the surface, it is possible to read The Economist piece as a plea for more money and many more weapons. But the underlying messaging is clear: “Anyone who underestimates Russia is heading for defeatâ€. The Russian force mobilisation was a success; there is no problem with Russian morale; and Russia is preparing a huge winter offensive that will start soon. Russia has huge reserve forces (of up to 1.2 million men); whereas Ukraine now has 200,000 who are militarily trained for conflict. The ‘writing is on the wall’, in other words. Ukraine cannot win.
It is appended with a huge shopping list of sought-after weapons. But the shopping list is ‘pie in the sky’; the West simply does not have them in inventory. Period.
The FT’s ‘Big Read’, by contrast, is a venting of deep western anger at those Russian ‘reformist’ siloviki technocrats who, instead of breaking with Putin over the SMO, instead shamefully enabled the Russian economy to survive western sanctions. The message uttered – through clenched teeth – is that Russia’s economy has successfully survived western sanctions.
It continues.
I have further questions. What was the objective of the those interviewed? In negotiating theory there are several prices: the asking price and the selling price are two that come to mind. But there is also something called the “insult price”—terms so outrageous they are intended to end negotiations. The Ukrainians must surely know the West does and does not have and that there are limits to what it can offer. Was the “shopping list” an insult price?
I also can’t help but wonder if they’re looking around for someone to blame for an emerging defeat and we’re nominated.
I also wonder what The Economist’s and Financial Times’s objectives were. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But sometimes it’s a phallic symbol.
Nice to see Putins speechwriter has an outlet.
Steve
This is all to put the Russians at ease.
if the Chinese can be persuaded to attack Taiwan and be repulsed and Japan rebuild it’s military we may be able to sell weapons to the Russians as well.
No. I think all the signals (including the economist and FT articles) are pointing to continued escalation.
The interviews are here. Here’s the “shopping list”:
300 tanks
600-700 ifvs [infantry fighting vehicles]
500 Howitzers
We have them but I’m in no position to tell you if they’re available.
From the budgetary request for FY 2023 that Congress is approving; Ukraine is going to get that and more.
$45 billion for next year. (so far). That compares to $48 billion appropriated previously, which some still left to spend.
The other thing is the US is planning to give Ukrainians combined arms training.
https://www.army.mil/article/262854/us_plans_combined_arms_training_for_ukrainian_soldiers
It’s logical that if one trains an army on combined arms combat; they are then given the equipment (tanks, ifvs, artillery and aircraft) to do so.
What can one say. Events are in the saddle. Like WW I, the principals are not in control. Anything, including all out nuclear war, is possible now. No one is capable of negotiating a settlement.
The image I have is the Somme in 1916. British troops march in formation against German machine guns. 20,000 die and 40,000 are wounded. One day. Tolkien among them, but by disease.
In 1918, my grandfather fought through the Ardennes. A quarter century later, my father follwed the same route. Neither were injured, but dear sweet Jesus, what awaste.
Sustainment and attrition will be critical factors in this war.
For example, estimates for artillery shell use by Ukraine are in the ballpark of 100k shells a month. Current US production capacity for all types of artillery shells is around 14k/month. We are currently in the process of expanding that to roughly 20k/month. Adding additional capacity is going to require more factories with the requisite lead-time.
Now consider that higher-tech weapons (HIMARS rounds, for example), have much smaller production throughputs.
Then there is attrition. The rough rule-of-thumb for wartime attrition of combat forces and material is 1% per day.
The reason Ukraine changed from Russian artillery systems to NATO standard systems several months ago is because of these factors. All the ammunition stocks were used up. Ukraine had no real option to replace barrels (which wear out). Now they are burning through NATO stockpiles. And most NATO countries did not have large stockpiles – only enough for about a week of sustained combat operations.
This same dynamic is playing out with other critical pieces of military equipment including tanks and air defense. Several months ago, the idea of sending Patriot batteries to Ukraine was scoffed at by Biden himself, now it’s probably going to happen because Ukrainian air defense systems – while quite good – are running out of missiles and suffering normal attrition, and there are no sources for resupply and spares.
The same thing is happening with tanks, aircraft, etc.
So the key questions revolve around sustainment and the willingness and ability of NATO countries to supply the necessary ammunition and gear. Europe has, for decades now, under-invested in defense and defense production. Germany, for example, can make about 100 tanks per year. And Germany has already reneged on it’s earlier promises to spend more on defense, so their production abilities won’t improve.
This is the strategy that Russia is now focused on. Russia has many, many problems of its own, but they think they can win the war of attrition and outlast Ukraine and, especially, Western governments.