Here are some of my interpretations of the military side of the Russian invasion and by extension, some commentary on Putin’s political goals of this mad war.
To begin, it is nearly impossible to understand what is happening by believing what is reported. Propaganda on all sides is rampant, but here in the West, the propaganda we get is very one-sided. The current political climate in Canada regarding Ukraine is one of extreme internal and external censorship. The idea that we are subjected to Russian misinformation is laughable nonsense. The misinformation we get is from "our side". That's just the way it is. So, as usual, everything needs to be read very critically and against the grain.
The Air War
Going back to the initial invasion, there was no "shock and awe" like the Americans had carried out in Iraq in 2003. There is already a small body of literature in the mainstream Western media discussing Russia's "missing" air force. The Russians have a huge air force but they are not trying to establish air supremacy. We can make three reasonable inter-related guesses why:
- Heavy losses would be incurred by a Ukrainian resistance armed with advanced, hand-held anti-aircraft weapons. The Russians already learned this hard lesson in Afghanistan.
- Shock and awe would be an even greater global propaganda defeat for Russia given what telephoto lenses can capture from safe distances. We have simply not seen anything like we saw over Baghdad beginning on March 19 2003.
- Related to point 2, establishing Russian air supremacy would be extremely costly, and the carnage on the ground would create unprecedented pressure for NATO to intervene, which would escalate and widen the war, and put us on a path to a nuclear exchange.
Most people in the West have become accustomed to the Americans and their (NATO) allies blowing the shit out of everything from the air with minimal or zero losses . Recall the bombing of Iraq in 1990 lasted 5 weeks before ground forces were even sent in. This was when Iraq's military and weaponry was at its most formidable. Casualties were negligible. Since this televised spectacle, we’ve watched the Americans and their allies (including Canada) pummel vastly weaker, smaller and outdated conventional armies (Iraq in 1990-91, Serbia in 1999, Taliban in 2001, Iraq in 2003). The Russians are taking on a far more superior force in terms of anti-aircraft capabilities.
The unwillingness of the Russians to establish air supremacy should mean that we can dispense with the notion that the Russians are intent on taking over all of Ukraine. This isn’t the only reason to dismiss this notion of a full-scale Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine, but I think it is a very significant one.
The Ground War
The other major reason to dismiss this as a full-scale invasion and occupation (like the Americans invading Iraq in 2003), is the deployment of an estimated 150,000 Russian troops - without air supremacy. Recall how the Bush regime, and Rumsfeld in particular, was widely criticized by the American “defence” establishment for invading Iraq with total air supremacy and only 160,000 troops! Iraq’s defences and willingness to fight in 2003 was almost nil compared to the resistance in Ukraine right now. Ukraine is 1.4 times larger than Iraq with 5 million more people.
We should dismiss entirely the notion the Russians are trying to take over Ukraine, and of course there are plenty of morons who think Putin will be retracing Hitler’s footsteps through Paris in a few weeks.
Now let’s actually look at the ground invasion and its three major fronts: the north (with the sieges of Kyiv and Kharkiv), the east (occupying and holding the breakaway republics), and the south (the broad front advance northward from Crimea).
The Northern Front
In the north, there is a very broad front stretching from Kyiv in the west to the breakaway republics in the east. More specifically, there are three separate advances on Kyiv, two directly north from Belarus, and another that has come over the Russian border from the east. Kyiv is almost surrounded with only its southern flank clear for resupply or retreat. The Russians have tried to flank Kyiv from the east and that is where some of the fiercest fighting is happening. It is imperative the Ukrainians beat back this flanking manoeuvre. Meanwhile, the eastern end of the northern front is focused on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second biggest city. Kharkiv is almost surrounded and coming under siege, too.
It is widely reported in the West that the Russians have stalled on this broad northern front. There are two consistent reasons offered: fierce resistance, and logistical fuck-ups. Both are probably true to varying degrees but we have no way to gauge these factors. What we do know is that the Russians have essentially been parked outside Kyiv and Kharkiv since the first week of the war, with various flanking maneouvres coming under intense attack.
But there is also no sign of either city being “softened up” for a ground assault. Despite the fact both cities are being bombed, there are no major air or artillery strikes. The cities have not been levelled like Grozny or Fallujah or Ramadi. They’re not suffering like Mariupol is right now (I will get to this further below).
Kyiv and Kharkiv
Some of my closer friends can confirm I have been speculating since the first week of the war that the Russians have no intention of taking Kyiv, and I have been wondering if this is also the case with Kharkiv. There are three reasons I am thinking this:
First, taking these cities would require the Russian destroy them in a bloody urban battle with massive casualties against a determined resistance well-stocked with advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Consider the Marines in the two battles for Fallujah in 2004. The Marines lost about 100 soldiers and suffered 600+ wounded despite overwhelming firepower and total unchallenged air supremacy. Over 3000 resistance fighters died, and at least a thousand civilians died. The city was completely levelled. Fallujah is 1/10 the size of Kyiv in population.
Second, any direct assault to capture these cities would radically escalate tensions with NATO and risk widening the war and putting it on the path to a nuclear exchange. The symbolic power of Kyiv cannot be overstated.
Third, the northern front cannot be understood in isolation from the vital southern front. Fronts are not independent wars.
The Southern Front
While there is much talk of logistical failures and fierce resistance on the northern front, the Russians have made rapid and large advances out of Crimea, capturing the port of Kherson within a week, and quickly linking up with the forces from the eastern breakaway republics to put Mariupol under siege.
The advances on the southern front also threatens to roll up Ukrainian forces on the eastern front and threaten Kharkiv. Such an effort would be a considerable gamble and I'd wager the Russians don't have the numbers necessary to achieve this. Still, there is ample evidence that the Russians are trying to envelope sections of the eastern front on a smaller scale.
Mariupol
The siege of Mariupol appears to be the only place where the Russians are prepared to turn a city into rubble. Capturing Mariupol serves three Russian goals:
First, capturing Mariupol means the Russians secure a land link between Crimea and the breakaway republics.
Second, capturing Mariupol denies Ukraine access to the Azov Sea, leaving Ukraine with only Odessa as its major Black Sea port (assuming Kherson remains in Russian hands).
Third, and I believe this is a part of Putin’s “denazification” claims, capturing Mariupol means destroying the fascists of the infamous Azov Battalion which was a major force in the 8-year civil war and has been responsible for terrorizing civilians (Putin's hypocrisy on this is obvious given his support for similar pro-Russian fascist paramilitary groups).
I would also make the point that when it comes to civilian deaths in Mariupol, it is not at all clear the Russians are wantonly killing civilians, although that is what will happen because the surrounded Azov Nazis have no interest in losing their human shields. A massacre seems inevitable.
The Big Picture
Zooming out to the big picture, the moves on Kyiv and Kharkiv are not to take the cities but to tie up Ukrainian forces in the north and prevent them from reinforcing the southern and eastern fronts and, as is certainly the case now, launching a counter-offensive to relieve Mariupol.
This is all to serve what I think is Putin’s goal: to negotiate a new settlement from a new position of power and advantage by holding on to new territories. Annexation of new territories and total control of the Azov Sea may very well be part of his imperial design.
The prospect for a negotiated settlement seem possible. Unlike the American method of bombing and invading and occupying until there is complete capitulation, the Russians have entertained numerous overtures at negotiations, from micro-scale efforts at humanitarian corridors - including in Mariupol - to macro-level discussions with Ukrainian officials to establish a ceasefire. These efforts may be dishonest, but the lines of communication are open. The Russians have actually spoken with Zelensky who, as far as we know, is not publicly identified as the Ace of Spades in a US-style murder list.
The evidence is overwhelming, in my opinion, that Putin’s war on Ukraine is a power play - an expensive, dangerous, and mad bid to reassert regional power and control against the dominant faction of the Ukrainian ruling class which has also been playing a mad game of geopolitical power politics by cozying up to the world's only military superpower.
The lack of air supremacy, the small commitment of forces, the month-long parking job outside Kyiv and Kharkiv, the unwillingness to level these cities, the rapid advances from Crimea and the linking up with forces in the breakaway republics to capture Mariupol and deny Ukraine the Azov Sea…none of this suggests a takeover and occupation of Ukraine.
Conclusions
This all suggests a limited war with fairly specific objectives. None of this makes it acceptable. And in the end, what the fuck do I know? This is all informed guessing. There are many unresolved questions. Putin spoke of regime change. That could mean a whole lot. Clinton wants this to be Putin’s Afghanistan. Biden is warning of chemical attacks. Western elites talk of “false flags”. There are now bands of paramilitaries roaming Ukraine. Where will they go with their new weapons? The problem with all this madness is that it can still escalate towards a global nuclear war.
But, if the case can be made that Putin’s war objectives are limited, and not some grand design to seize all of Ukraine and move on Europe, then there ought to be room to negotiate a ceasefire and bring this madness to a halt.
In the meantime, here in Canada, we have to start laying the foundations for a new politics of peace: ending arms shipments, withdrawing from NATO, reducing military spending, and ending military missions abroad. There is no speculation around what the Canadian elite are up to with their foreign policy goals: murder and blood for profits.