The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Russia and Eastern Europe Page 2 of 18

Великая Отечественная война — The Great Patriotic War

Soviet War Propaganda showing gratitude for the allies. I own about a dozen WWII Soviet posters.

This post is for a Russian friend of mine. Руфина Сергеевна Гашева, Rufina Sergeyevna Gasheva was born 14 October 1921. Ruffik, as she asked me to call her–was proud to have a young American friend. I have a stack of letters to prove it.

I met Ruffik back in 2002. I was in Moscow with my soon to be wife and her best friend, Nastya (diminutive of Anastasia). Nastya dearly wanted to see her babushka, which was the last thing I wanted to do. Hear stories from some old lady? Good grief. But I went to keep my wife-to-be happy. One of the best decisions I ever made. After meeting Cpl. Ed Neidermeir of the 42 Division (aka: Rainbow Division) who saw his first action on 16 June 1918, meeting Ruffik and hearing her stories–I made it a point to visit her the next time I was in Moscow to hear more–was the single most serendipitous event of my life.

95 of the 12,777 recipients were women.

Ruffik was an educator her entire life and appreciated my historical knowledge. That’s probably why we hit it off. An hour or so after we had tea and had listened more eagerly after each anecdote she hobbled out of the room, down the hall and dug into a closet. She brought back a box and asked me to open it.

I gasped. I held in my hands a Герой Советского Союза (Geroi Sovietskovo Sayuza – Hero of the Soviet Union) the literal equivalent of a Congressional Medal of Honor. Speechless, I pulled a very heavy gold star on a red ribbon from the box. The Diameter of the star was 30 mm, and it weighed 33.04 grams.

So what did this affable and garralous octogenarian do to win such an incredible honor. First, she volunteered in September of 1941. She very quickly mastered the Po-2 Kukuruznik (the mule); an all weather, Soviet multi-role biplane. Its first flight was 24 June 1927, a year later the first hundred of an estimated 30,000 Po-2 entered service. In 1941 some wiseacre decided it would make an excellent light night bomber. It was fitted with a machine gun for the navigator and each wing was fitted with either two 50kg bomb carriers or one 100kg bomb carrier.  The renamed U2-vs Войсковая серия – (voyskovaya seriya) was born just in time for Ruffik’s graduation in February 1942.

Her first posting was in Engels, on the Volga River, with the 588th Night Bomber Regiment. Her baptism by fire was in May 1942 in the Battle of the Kavkaz (the Caucasus). She went on to fight in every major battle on the Eastern Front, all with the 588th, which as an all female regiment was soon called the Night Witches by the Nazis.

Wikipedia explains the 588th’s effects on the enemy quite well:

The material effects of these missions may be regarded as minor, but the psychological effect on German troops was noticeable. They typically attacked by surprise in the middle of the night, denying German troops sleep and keeping them on their guard, contributing to the already high stress of combat on the Eastern front. The usual tactic involved flying only a few meters above the ground, climbing for the final approach, throttling back the engine and making a gliding bombing run, leaving the targeted troops with only the eerie whistling of the wind in the wings’ bracing-wires as an indication of the impending attack. Luftwaffe fighters found it extremely hard to shoot down the Kukuruznik because of two main factors: the pilots flew at treetop level where they were hard to see or engage and the stall speed of both the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was similar to the U-2s maximum speed, making it difficult for the fighters to keep a Po-2 in weapons range for an adequate period of time.

An unexpected weapon.

By the end of the war she flew an insane 848 combat missions. It was in December of 1944 after her 823rd sortie that she was nominated for the Hero of the Soviet Union. She recieved it on 23 February, 1945. Ruffik lived a long, happy life, she was 91 years old on May 1, 2012, the day she died.

I bring Ruffik, this remarkable woman, to your attention because of Trump’s most recent utterly disrespectful and ignorant comments about the United States of America’s role in World Wars One and Two. Trump said about both wars: “nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance” in both world wars, and that “we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result in World War II.”

Two rebuttals. First, give this eloquent young woman a listen. She knows of what she speaks.

If I’ve given anyone the idea we were sitting in therapy circles farting  The White Album a few facts are in order: it is indisputable that the United States built and gave away (most to the Soviet Union) an enormous amount of trucks and other non-lethal industrial goods, including food. We also beat the snot out of the Japanese in the Pacific single-handedly. The Chinese and Japanese slugged it out with a level of brutality that was only superceded by our nuking of them. Simultaneously we rebuilt Britain’s Atlantic destroyer fleet–necessary to hunt submarines. We also fed Britain to a large degree and did what we could for France until it fell. Anyone stupid enough laugh at and poke fun at the French for their performance in World War Two doesn’t understand fuck all about the losses France endured in World War One. On a per capita basis they lost more to war and disease than the Soviets did during World War Two. Moreover, we liberated Algeria, Tunis, Libya, Sicily, Italy and France at the cost of 407,316 dead.

But . . .

First, let’s discuss Soviet fighting and German deaths for a moment. In 1942 during El Alamein, Montgomery faced 4 1/2 divisions of the Wehrmacht (76,000 soldiers). At the same time 190 German divisions (3,230,000 soldiers) were slugging it out with the Soviets across the entire Western face of the Soviet Union. From Leningrad to Stalingrad and right up to the Caucasus Mountains Übermensch transcended traditional Western morality and killed untermenschen for sport. (Too bad they shot back!)

Second, when we landed on Normandy on 6 June 1944, 93% of ALL German casualties were on the Eastern Front.

Finally, by the time we got to the Rhine 2/3’s of all German soldiers had been felled by the Red Army. We may have been the arsenal but as John Mearsheimer describes it better than any other commentator I’ve ever heard: The Soviets paid the blood price.

All 27,000,000 of them.

PS–Ask me to explain France and World War One sometime, then you will understand what happened in World War Two.

Aeschylus Was As Right 2,540 Years Ago As He Is Right Today

2,540 year ago Aeschylus said,”in war truth is the first causualty.” Even though this might be true it should not preclude us from making every attempt possible at uncovering and showing others the truth. I believe in the truth as much as I believe it is capable to be objective. Anyone who says that an “objective journalist is a myth,” is a liar with an agenda. Do we all have biases? You bet. It is in the recognition of said biases and overcoming them is how the truth emerges.

That said, the best, most balanced site concerning operational, strategic and tactical reporting on the Russo-Ukrainian Warcan be found at the Austrian Military Academy.

These two are the most recent, here and the Ukrainian Purgatory, here. Both are in flawless, if somewhat accented, English.

Perhaps we can claw back a bit of truth from the great Greek dramatists hell.

Understanding the Russian-American Ukraine Peace Negotiations

Let’s take a look at these negotiations in more detail. First, a summary of Secretary of State Rubio’s:

  • Ending the conflict in Ukraine will require “difficult and intense diplomacy” over a long period of time.
  • Ending the conflict in Ukraine will require concessions from all sides and is only possible with their consent, the conditions must be “acceptable”
  • Trump wants to end the conflict in Ukraine fairly and not allow it to resume “in 2-3 years”
  • The EU must be at the negotiating table at some point, as it imposed sanctions against Russia
  • The future of the negotiation process on Ukraine will be determined by the willingness of the parties to “keep their promises”, this will be shown in the coming weeks
  • Ending the conflict in Ukraine will open the way for Russia and the US to cooperate in economics and geopolitics
  • There have been no significant US-Russia contacts for almost three years, the meeting in Riyadh laid the foundation for future interaction
  • Work to restore the activities of Russian and US diplomatic missions could be quite quick
  • Restoring the normal operation of the US and Russian diplomatic missions is the “next stage” of the negotiation process between the two countries, since the US considers it impossible to negotiate with Russia on Ukraine without the normal operation of diplomatic missions

This is all remarkably sensible, actually, and the idea that the two great powers with the most nuclear weapons did not have regular diplomatic contacts was always dangerous and stupid.

As discussed here before, the American intention is to make Europe provide peacekeepers and pay for reconstruction, and America hopes to force Ukraine to sign over a large amount of mineral rights, though Zelensky has, quite rightly, so far refused to do so.

Meanwhile, there’s this piece of wishful thinking:

The United States is trying to “break up” Russia’s alliances with Iran, China, and North Korea. This was announced by Keith Kellogg, the US President’s special representative for Ukraine, during a conference in Munich, CNN reports.

Some commenters think that this is what America and Russia want — an end to the above alliances and:

What Putin wants: No NATO membership, (non-negotiable), 4 oblasts in Ukraine and Crimea, including territories not currently occupied by Russia

What Trump wants: Break ties with China (non-negotiable), join US sanctions on China

I’m reasonably certain ending the alliance with China and joining US sanctions on China is a non-starter, and if that’s non-negotiable, then there isn’t going to be a deal. China, North Korea, and Iran all helped Russia when Russia desperately needed help. It is no exaggeration to say that if China had not supported Russia’s economy, the anti-Russia sanctions would have worked, and Iran and North Korea provided weapons and munitions the Russians desperately needed while they were ramping up domestic production.

While simultaneously trying to cut this deal, Trump is turning on long-term allies, threatening them with sanctions — and in the case of Greenland/Denmark, even saying he refuses to rule out using military force. America’s record of keeping agreements is abysmal.

Over the decades of observing Putin, I’d say that he values reliability more than almost anything else. The Iranians, North Koreans, and Chinese are reliable. America is not.

In negotiations there’s a concept known as BATNA: your Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement.

Russia’s is simple enough: It’s winning the war. Unless America is literally willing to go to war with Russia, there’s nothing they can do to stop Russia from winning, and then impose a peace after a Ukrainian unconditional surrender.

What’s America going to do, impose more sanctions? The Russia economy has done better under Western sanctions than it did before the sanction regime. Send more military aid? Cupboards are damn near bare. The only viable threat America has is to hit deeper into Russia, and that’s a real threat, but since such weapons are aimed and fired by Western specialists, that risks war with Russia.

What can America offer as an ally that China can’t? Only a removal of sanctions. That would be valuable mostly if it meant repair of NordStream and renewal of gas to Europe, but America wants to keep Europe as a captive customer for U.S. LNG (which is twice as expensive).

It’s hard for me to see why Russia would agree to get rid of reliable allies, and turn on China in exchange for an agreement from America which Putin must regard as unreliable. Sure, he’d like a negotiated peace, and an end to the war, but Ukraine’s army looks close to collapse. When that happens, Russia will suddenly start taking huge swathes of Ukraine. And “No NATO” is entirely achievable in an unconditional surrender.

Plus, Europe’s politics are changing. Parties which oppose hostility to Russia are coming on strong, and Europe is furious at Trump’s actions, and the words of his proxies. Right now, Europe is still full-on in support of Ukraine, and generally supports an anti-Russian stance, but time is likely to break that unity of hatred.

It’s not that Trump is wrong to want to break up the Russia-China axis. Pushing Russia into China’s camp was one of the greatest unforced errors of post-Cold War diplomacy, and an error I’ve written about in the past. With Russia in China’s camp, anti-China sanctions cannot work, because Russia is a land-based supplier of the food, mineral, fuel which cannot be interdicted.

But the ship has sailed. You can’t undo almost 50 years of anti-Russia policy overnight, because the last 50 years have proved to Russia that America can’t be trusted to keep agreements and, overall, China is far more reliable.

Suppose Russia cooperates against China, and America does manage to take out China. Who do you think would be next? Who does Putin think would be next?

So if joining anti-China sanctions really is non-negotiable, then these talks will fail. My guess is that this negotiation point isn’t actually required or non-negotiable, and that Trump really wants this war over one way or the other. But if this requirement is non-negotiable, the war will continue.

Meanwhile, restoring proper diplomacy between Russia and America is a good thing. We’ll see what comes of it.

 

You get what you pay for. This blog is free to read, but not to produce. If you enjoy the content, donate or subscribe.

 

Trump’s Laughable Sanction Threats Against Russia

The US thru a kitchen sink of sanctions at Russia after the start of the Ukraine war, including freezing their foreign assets. The result?

The number is exaggerated, given Russian inflation, but even inflation adjusted, Russia’s doing fine.

It is impossible to choke out Russia with sanctions if China isn’t willing to go a long. (India not cooperating is the cherry on top.) Cannot be done. Impossible.

In fact, sanctions against Russia have been a huge favor to it, forcing a vast surge in import substitution, improving its industry, creating a booming economy whose only real problem is inflation. Russian oligarchs have been forced to spend their money and effort in Russia instead of wasting their money in the West. Meanwhile the sanctions have damaged Europe massively, though somewhat to the benefit of America, since much energy-intensive industry in Europe is shutting down and moving to the US.

If Trump wants peace for Ukraine with Russia he’s going to have to offer a good deal. Threats won’t cut it. Or just wait for the Russians to win and impose a peace.

Since Trump appears to be reducing aid to Ukraine, that will happen sooner than otherwise. Perhaps it’s his real strategy, or more likely, he’s simply incoherent. Russia halting along the current lines would be stupid of them, since they’re advancing inexorably and all reports are of significant Ukrainian manpower shortages.

Trump’s always been a bully, but Russia isn’t one of America’s vassals or satrapies. It’s a junior ally in the Chinese sphere, and Trump doesn’t have the economic or military leverage to make it do anything. The only country in the world which can force Russia is China, and China isn’t going to help America v.s. Russia under any likely Trump policy regime.

This blog runs on donations and subscriptions from readers. It’s free, but not free to produce. If you value it, please give.

About the Syrian War & Those Rebels

Let’s state the obvious bits and get them out of the way:

  • The rebels are basically Al-Qaeda;
  • They are supported by Turkey, Israel and the US;
  • The Syrian army barely fought during the initial attacks and it was very embarrassing;
  • Aleppo fell in a couple days. It may take a couple years to take it back;
  • The timing is intended to take advantage of Hezbollah’s being weakened and tied down by Israel.

Syria was losing the previous war until Hezbollah and Russia intervened. It may well lose this war if Hezbollah and/or Russia don’t send troops, but both of them have other enemies they need to worry about.

If Syria falls, Russia loses its Mediterranean naval and air bases and thus a great deal of its military reach. Hezbollah loses its main supply line to Iran.

The big mistakes that lead to this were playing footsie with Turkey/Erdogan and tolerating a frozen conflict. Syria, with Russia and Hezbollah’s support could have conquered Idlib, but Russia decided not to, leaving enemies with a foothold in Syria. Those enemies waited till the best time, then re0-openned the war.

If you’re winning a war and can win the war, then frozen conflicts are a bad idea. They remain a knife near your throat. Russia made this mistake in 2014 as well, when it could easily have fully defeated Ukraine and imposed a peace.

Hopefully they’ve learned the lesson. They do have enough reserves left to send sufficient troops to Syria. This time, win the war.

SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE TO OUR 2024 FUNDRAISER

 

Explaining Ukraine To Your Uncle: The Causes of the War

Now that even the Council on Foreign Relations is admitting Ukraine can’t and won’t win its war against Russia, there might be some serious cognitive dissonance for people who’ve not been paying much attention and bought into the official narrative on the war.

If you find yourself faced with the proverbial ignorant uncle at Thanksgiving this year and want to appear fact-based rather than conspiratorial, maybe the following round up of links and sources about the beginnings of the war will help.

It’s bad enough that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in a losing and pointless effort, but it’s important to rebut the narrative that Russia was the aggressor and not NATO and the US.

The work of researcher Ivan Katchanovski is definitive and completely debunks the official US narrative on the Maidan Revolution:

His work was vindicated in a Ukrainian court in 2024.

Uncle Ignorance should also familiarize himself with the names Stephan Bandera & Yaroslav Hunka. Bandera has been regarded as the “Father of Ukraine” since 2014. Hunka is a Ukrainian SS veteran who received a standing ovation at a session of the Canadian Parliament last year.

That’s not to even get into the consensus reality that NATO expansion backed Putin into a corner and that US foreign policy legend George Kennan called it “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

The Brookings Institute 1999 history of the post-Cold War efforts to enlarge NATO will read like “Russian propaganda” to anyone whose knowledge of the war came from MSNBC starting from a blank slate in 2022.

Also, your Uncle will want to be beaten about the head and shoulder with this 2008 confidential cable from current head of the CIA and then US ambassador to Russia, William Burns who strongly opposed Bush & Cheney’s offer to invite Ukraine into NATO (revealed by Wikileaks.)

Also the story of the Ukrainian Civil War from 2014 to 2022 has been systematically mistold.

Key graphic which shows how Ukraine dramatically upped their shelling of civilians in the independent republics just prior to Russia’s invasion — forcing Putin’s hand.

Graph of explosions per month in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022.

Source:The Special Monitoring Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE SMM)

Uncle “Ukraine Is Heroically Resisting Aggression” will also want to learn all about the horrific mass murder of anti-Maidan counter-protestors in Odessa in 2014 that is VERY well known in Russia and Ukraine and almost completely unknown in the US.

Norwegian Professor Glenn Dieson has a fine piece explaining “How the Strategy of Fighting to the Last Ukrainian Was Sold to the Public as Morally Righteous..”

Here’s a sample quote from his piece:

For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contacts with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men have died on the battlefield. The decision by diplomats to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant as diplomacy could have reduced the excess of violence, prevented escalation, and even resulted in a path to peace. However, the political-media elites skilfully sold the rejection of diplomacy to the public as evidence of their moral righteousness.

This article will first outline how NATO planned for a long war to exhaust Russia and knock it out from the ranks of great powers. Second, this article will demonstrate how the political-media elites communicated that diplomacy is treasonous and war is virtuous.

This is just scratching the surface but essentially for those who been exclusively following US & UK media, everything they know about Ukraine is wrong.

Enjoy those awkward conversations around the table!

What Does Ukraine Look Like Post War If Russia Imposes The Peace?

If you want to demilitarize a country you can do it by treaty, or you can do it by fact. Germany was demilitarized after WWI, but it retained the ability to build a large military and eventually did so.

The Russian view is that Ukraine needs to be demilitarized, de-Nazified and made neutral, it will otherwise remain a threat to them.

The demilitarization strategy is fairly simple: kill or disable everyone who can and will fight. This has been a grinding war, but at almost every stage Russia has had air, drone and artillery supremacy. It has taken great care to disperse attacking troops and to keep its own casualties down.

Casualty ratios are a matter of great dispute, but I cannot imagine that the side with air, drone and artillery superiority is taking the most casualties. I would guess the exchange rate is between 3:1 and 6:1. Once again, we won’t know until some years after the war.

Ukraine’s population is crashing. Pre war it was 42 million, as of 2023 it was probably 28 million and there’s no way it is not even lower now.

So to a large extent Russian tactics support the goal of demilitarization. Even if Russia could do “big arrow”, why do them before the Ukrainian military is ground to dust and Ukraine is demographically exhausted? Win the war, but fail to end Ukraine’s ability and willingness to fight and there’s just going to be another war.

Which is why anything but a neutral Ukraine, genuinely neutral, or a Russian satrapy is also unacceptable. Ukraine wasn’t and isn’t part of NATO but that didn’t keep NATO from using it as a cat’s paw against Russia. If Russia wants a defanged, safe Ukraine on its border, it’s no longer just about staying out of NATO, true Austrian cold war style neutrality will be required.

And the since the neo-Nazis who are influential in the military and government, despite their small numbers, will never not be hostile to Russia, Ukraine has to be be de-Nazified. Out of the military, out of power, and either dead or in prison for a very long time.

Demographics isn’t the only thing which creates capability to fight, of course. The more of Ukraine that Russia takes, the weaker Ukraine will be in the future. What is particularly important is to take the entire coast and landlock the Ukrainian hump, but farther West Russia takes land, the less of a threat Ukraine is to the Russian heartlands.

Smaller population, worse geography, no Nazis anywhere near power, no allies to feed it weapons and help it fortify, and genuinely neutral: these are Russia’s post war goals for Ukraine.

These are maximal goals, and they require a completely defeated Ukraine, likely one that signs an uncoditional surrender. If they can be accomplished with a negotiated surrender, fine, but if Russia is wise it will fight till it gets the terms necessary to defang Ukraine and make it useless as a Western catspaw.

Close to the end of the annual fundraiser, which has been weaker than normal despite increased traffic. Given how much I write about the economy, I understand, but if you can afford it and value my writing, I’d appreciate it if you subscribe or donate.

What Should Now Be Obvious To Everyone About the Ukraine War

As I said, day one, Russia was going to win this war if it wanted it enough. Russia’s advance is slow, but it is certain and it is NOT going to be reversed unless the US declares war, which is NOT going to happen. The Ukrainian army is finally nearing collapse, which I’d expect some time next year. The war will last another two years at most, I’d guess.

Peace will be made under the terms Russia wants, or the war will continue. Ukraine is still fighting, but everyone with the least lick of sense knows it is going to lose. Ukraine will have to accept the terms imposed on it, because if it doesn’t Russia will just keep going.

Trump’s peace plan (ostensibly) as floated in the WSJ was essentially a frozen conflict with a twenty year guarantee of not joining NATO. That’s not going to fly. Ukraine will be a demilitarized neutral state at best, if it won’t surrender it’ll be defeated and have a government imposed on it. The Russians will not cut any sort of deal with the West which requires the West to “keep” the deal. They believe that the West is “agreement incapable”, that is, that it will not obey any deals it signs if it doesn’t want to (as it didn’t obey the Minsk agreement) so no peace treaty which requires western enforcement or has Western troops in any part of Ukraine will be acceptable.

Russia has done just fine out of all this. Its people are happy and optimistic, its economy is booming and it’s now the 4th largest economy on PPP GDP terms and probably third in realistic terms: it has tons of resources, food, tech and a decent amount of industry, and it will handle climate change better than most nations. It is locked into the Chinese orbit as a junior partner, but China doesn’t spew contempt at Russia 24/7 the way the West does and has for my entire lifetime, nor slam it with repeated sanctions. (The sanctions started way before the war, and were mostly justified on the basis of “Russia shouldn’t run its own internal affairs the way it chooses. And the poor, poor oligarchs.”)

Again, this was always the most likely outcome and everyone who thought otherwise refused to look at the very simple differences in size, population, resources and industry between the two nations.

As for Ukraine, the best deal they could have gotten was offered by the Russians near the start of the war, but they believed NATO and the US and Boris Johnson and thought they could win. The result is going to be a much weaker and poorer Ukraine, probably with half the pre-war population.

Meanwhile sanctions, instead of harming Russia, boomeranged and hurt Europe far more than Russia, and have contributed to Europe’s ongoing de-industrialization.

Nobody in power the West or Ukraine has anything to be proud of in how they handled this. Even the depraved argument of “let’s fight to the last Ukrainian and weaken Russia” hasn’t worked, instead Russia is stronger than it has been since the fall of the USSR.

*Golf clap*

Close to the end of the annual fundraiser, which has been weaker than normal despite increased traffic. Given how much I write about the economy, I understand, but if you can afford it and value my writing, I’d appreciate it if you subscribe or donate.

Page 2 of 18

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén