The redoubtable Eliot Cohen surveys the evidence that Russia is doing poorly in its war against Ukraine and then laments that too few people are willing to admit that Ukraine is winning:
The West’s biggest obstacle to accepting success [] is that we have become accustomed over the past 20 years to think of our side as being stymied, ineffective, or incompetent. It is time to get beyond that, and consider the facts that we can see.
I don't really buy this on a bunch of different levels:
- Over the last 20 years we have relearned the lesson of Vietnam: the US military is not very good at counterinsurgency. But aside from super-hawks trying to justify huge increases in defense spending, I haven't come across anyone in all that time who doubts our massive global superiority in more conventional forms of warfare.
- There were reasons to think the Russian military had reformed and improved over the past decade. A lot of people are still a little flabbergasted at what's turned out to be something of a Potemkin army.
- Before all of this was making headlines, Ukraine was hardly a poster child for clean living and high efficiency. It was widely viewed as corrupt and ineffectual, both in the military and elsewhere throughout its government.
Put all this together and it's hardly surprising that most analysts are still hedging their bets. But this has nothing to do with Cohen's notional Western inferiority complex. Partly it's because three weeks is not really a long time, but mostly it's thanks to so many analysts being suckered by the oldest gimmick in the American neoconservative playbook: wildly inflated warnings about the threat posed by the Russian military. Cohen ought to be pretty familiar with that.
POSTSCRIPT: Unlike Cohen, I don't think anyone needs to declare Ukraine the winner of this war just yet. Stalemate still seems more likely to me. However, I'm on board for a broader point that Cohen doesn't quite broach: Liberal democracy is in much better shape than many people think. The last few years, featuring first the Great Recession and then Trump and Brexit and Orbán and so forth, have certainly been tough ones for fans of liberal democracy, but I continue to think that they've been blips, not harbingers of the future. The global reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is just another piece of evidence pointing in that direction.
One thing though, is that Republicans have made a cottage industry out of claiming that the military has languished or degraded under Democratic leadership. Romney famously tried to bash Obama for our Navy's perilous and irresponsible decline in number of ships since WW2, and about a third of what Trump said about the military was how much it had collapsed under Obama (the other two thirds were dubious stories about big tough generals calling him "sir" with tears in their eyes, and the importance of steam catapults, respectively). That's even before you get to the Tucker Carlsons of this world bemoaning how weak and effeminate our armed forces are because they have, like, women and gay people and omigod _trans_ people among their ranks.
So I think that there are probably plenty of people who think, counterfactually, that we've gone soft.
I think that faith in the insane might of the U.S. military may actually be more common on the left than on the right in some ways, because us lefties are well aware of our colossal sums of military spending. (Fun fact: the U.S. military budget is a bit more than half the entire GDP of Russia)
Should show some love for the "missile gap" too...
Kevin writes:
"... but mostly it's thanks to so many analysts being suckered by the oldest gimmick in the American neoconservative playbook: wildly inflated warnings about the threat posed by the Russian military."
Spot on. During the First Cold War, I remember lots of wild warnings. Here's one I recall: The Red Army could march to the English Channel in 48 hours!
In those days, Soviet logistics sucked and today's Russian Army isn't any better. On paper, the Soviet Army had a big numerical advantage in the number of tanks, but that's because they never retired their WWII-era tanks and deployed them throughout Eastern Europe in defensive positions behind earthen berms. Those tanks might have been useful in defending against an invasion from the west but they would have been utterly worthless in an invasion of Western Europe. In terms of modern battle tanks, the Soviet Army and NATO were pretty evenly matched.
I lived through one cold war. I'm not looking forward to this one.
Except perhaps those hunkered in basements and cellars wondering where the No-fly zone is. In that context at least the vaunted superiority counts for exactly squat.
there are always limits in the nuclear age when dealing with nuclear powers, which is why truman fired macarthur during korea, why kennedy ignored lemay during the cuban missile crisis and why johnson did the same during vietnam.
But Putin might not feel so constrained. A cornered dictator is different than a US president who can retire and live safely and in peace. If democrats took over Russia, Putin would surely be put on trial for an infinite number for crimes.
You advocate for open war with Russia? Or are you among those in the public calling for a no-fly zone without realising what it means?
I am among those who thinks that claiming/crowing about a superiority is at best unseemly when it is effectively neutered.
You are in sage company.
It is not "effectively neutered"
It is simply not for offensive usage.
Vastly different subjects.
What was Gulf War One? It certainly wasn’t defensive. Nor was the beginning of the invasion or Iraq/overthrow of Hussein.
In that context at least the vaunted superiority counts for exactly squat.
Sure. When NATO isn't at war it's unlikely to demonstrate its military superiority. Very profound observation. Similarly, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor it didn't tell us much either way about the Brazilian Air Force.
It is foolish to believe that Putin would fight to a stalemate and sign a peace deal.
He's already losing a war of attrition (ref: https://bityl.co/BQ6A).
Today, an official Russian news outlet accidentally released Russian casualty data (ref:https://twtr.in/3ILo): 9,861 dead and 16,153 injured. In 3 1/2 weeks Russia's had 13.7% of its committed combatants removed from the war and that's not including deserters and POWs.
If he wanted to cut his losses and settle, he wouldn't be considering expanding the war to include 17 and 18-year old volunteers (ref: https://bityl.co/BQ6P) on the frontlines.
His goal is to seize the entirety of Ukraine. Having already committed to a scorched earth policy, he will end up using tactical nuclear weapons to expand his scorched earth path.
Have George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse, those punks from Covington Catholic, & any of the Parkland horseshoe assholes volunteered for Trump Brigade* in the Russian invasion force?
*Like the Lincoln Brigade during the Guerra Civil Espanola, but with smaller dicks.
and no brains
Much depends on what kind of intelligence reports Putin is getting. I find it hard to believe that anyone is telling him that Russian troops are surrendering their tanks in return for money, that desertion is frequent, and that the air force is unable to take control of the skies. In other words, I agree that Russia will continue its scorched earth policy in Ukraine because it's the only way that they can "win."
The trouble is, that having destroyed most of the infrastructure in Ukraine, dislocating millions of people and watching the West deal hammer blows to the Russian economy, how will Russia "win" in Ukraine? The Russian troops might be able to hold onto part of the country, but what will be left of the rest, and how will they garrison it?
Right. Even if (gasp) Putin were sufficiently mad to use nuclear weapons, (does he realize the wind blows east, back to Mother Russia?), it seems unlikely in the extreme his country possesses the resources to successfully occupy Ukraine indefinitely and deal with the insurgency it'll have on its hands.
Definitely not with the current sanctions in place. The Ukrainians will win -- the question is whether they win militarily or simply by waiting for the Russian economy to collapse. Even beaten-down conscripts aren't going to fight for no money and no food.
Worry when Russian state media personalities start broaching the idea of using tactical nukes to tame the Ukrainian Nazis.
> how will Russia "win" in Ukraine?
The probem is that Putin doesn't care whether Russia wins or not.
He cares about himself. It is not obvious what is the best route for him,
and more importantly what he thinks is the best route for himself,
but whether it is a "win for Russia" isn't part of his considerations.
I actually hope that is the case, because a guy who's just interested in his own personal well-being is manageable. Just make sure he has an escape route--some friendly dictatorship that's willing to take him in--and that nothing obstructs it, then crank up the pressure till he bails.
What I'm afraid of is that Putin has drunk his own Kool-Aid. He's pushing 70, after all; he doesn't have too much longer on earth no matter what he does. If he's got it into his head that he's going to rebuild the Russian Empire, and that's to be his legacy... that makes him far more unpredictable, and unpredictable is dangerous.
I’m afraid he doesn’t fancy spending his golden years in a cottage overlooking some distant sea, he wants to be Tsar of all the Russias (and a bunch of non-Russias). I don’t think there is an off-ramp he’s willing to take.
I hope that, in the military-to-military contacts between the US and Russia, that the general staff of the latter have been apprised of the consequences of following orders to use nuclear weapons at any scale. I think NATO could make such use extremely costly without resorting to nukes on its own part. And I hope that the people Putin would have to have follow those orders are not idiots or lunatics.
Given their willingness to ignore civilian casualties, one would expect that the Russian military is willing to use tactical nuclear weapons on a very limited basis (think Kyiv, Lviv, Mariupol), even if they're unlikely to participate in the launching of strategic nuclear weapons.
Unlike most others, I have adjusted my expectations of Putin following his diatribe against the west and the impassioned expression of his desire to reinstate the USSR. Is this about NATO expansion? Not really. It's about Putin's (and other Russians') feelings of humiliation of the US winning the Cold War against the USSR.
With this in mind, it's pretty clear people keep asking the wrong question -- Will Putin use nuclear weapons? -- when they should be asking what are the conditions in which Putin (and those in charge of tactical nuclear weapons) be willing to flip the switch.
If you look at how cautious the Biden administration has been, it's pretty clear they're reading the situation in this same way -- that this is a proxy war between the US and Russia, that Putin is intent on taking Ukraine no matter how it's done, and that there are conditions at which point he'll absolutely use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainians.
Prove me wrong.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘limited’ use of nuclear weapons in the mind of the public; I think it is categorical (I think a lot of people don’t even make a distinction between bombs and Chornobyl or Fukushima). Any use of a nuclear weapon would provoke a strong reaction worldwide. Europe and the US would have to react in a much stronger way than seizing a few more yachts. China could not possibly provide any military or even financial support. It would be disastrous for Russia even without a response in kind from the West. Not that Putin hasn’t already made poor decisions. And note that over 1300 km^2 of Belarus are still a radiological reserve. A second wave of protests in Belarus would be almost a certainty when the fallout hits it.
This is where all that Russian talk about biological (and to a lesser extent chemical) weapons research comes into play, IMO.
Putin might be laying the groundwork/pretense to use tactical nuclear weapons to wipe out these nonexistent biological weapons factories. The narrative isn't necessarily targeted for the world, but more than likely, for Russians, so I don't see how any global reaction matters to him.
Russia is going to test the limits of MMT. Over a relatively short period of time, the Russian Central Bank will end up becoming the primary buyer of Russian sovereign debt bonds. Can Russia keep financing itself by way of forever quantitative easing? If they can, no amount of sanctions will ever work against a large enough union.
Interesting point in your last paragraph. Of course, the Warsaw Pact was financially isolated during the Cold War, and it survived decades. I see more risk in sanctions on technology. I noted in an earlier thread that, following the Wende, much of East German industry was outdated beyond salvaging, and it was likely in better shape than Russian industry. The pace of technological change has increased; Russia will fall behind even faster if sanctions are sustained. Weapons are about the only manufactured items Russia can export, but the future is ‘smart’, agile, portable and networked weapons. It appears from developments in Ukraine that Russia already has a very limited inventory of precision weapons. I still would argue that any use of a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear state would put a great deal of pressure on China and India to withdraw whatever support they might be providing, cutting off Russia’s last outside sources of technology.
Yes, technology will be the most difficult obstacle. Yet, I think China will look the other way on illicit trades of tech through its borders (stemming from local corruption, that is). Even now, several Maersk cargo ships are flowing from Russia, so I would expect a vibrant illicit trade market with China and India involved.
A couple additional points about underestimating the Russian army, especially in that first week or two.
First, professionals and even a lot of OSINT warbloggers wanted to be cautious about what they were seeing. I don't fault them too much for that, but it's been a factor. So it's taken some time for them to come around to the evidence.
Second, though, professionals-- and especially those who came out of the military themselves-- have a tendency to look over at the Russian officers and war planners and see fellow professionals. Often they've spent time over there and know them. So when results started coming in that showed something very different, our professionals kept on thinking "well, they're professionals over there and we'll see that kick in any time now." But that military is so completely corrupt and denigrated in the Putinist state that those guys either weren't pros at all or didn't have any chance of bringing that expertise to bear. (Kamil Galeev is the must-read on this kind of stuff, imo.)
Today there was briefly posted a semi-official Russian-source report that their total casualties so far are in the range of 26-27,000 (just under 10,000 dead). That's like 13-15% of the total they had in theater. And that was as of a couple of days ago too. We don't have words in the English language to describe this degree of cluster. Just as we don't have words for what they're doing to Ukraine. If they wanted to do it to themselves, fine, but they should have left the Ukrainians the hell out of it.
One other point to add about why this is turning into such a disaster for the Russians: they launched exactly the war the Ukrainians have been preparing for since maybe 2015.
See the amazing short interview segment with a former adviser to the Ukrainian president where the guy says 99.9% chance of a Russian war, they'll invade on four axes, they'll destroy a lot inside Ukraine including cities, and that's the price for NATO admission. He recorded this two or three years ago. (I lost the link and really want to find it again, btw.)
The Ukrainians really know their enemy inside and out, and prepped and planned, and it shows. The Russians, not so much-- just amped up the contempt levels. In that sense it looks a lot like old-style colonial wars.
This makes a lot of sense. When people consider the military capability of the US, they’re talking about our ability to fight an overseas war.
I don’t think that anyone seriously questions the military capability of the US in terms of our ability to repel a foreign invasion.
posted in another thread.
After wading through the headlines, it feels that the Russians are proceeding as planned. Everything is taking much longer than expected, losses are high, they look terrible in the process, and global/internal reaction hasn't been great for them.
A former US army infantry soldier, has been highlighting aspects of their deployment and how they are proceeding regardless of the news reports. Methodically deploying all the infra for the encirclement, bombardment, and push with seasoned troops. To the point of laying pipelines from Belarus to shorten the supply line. For a more military perspective it's very informative and concerning for the next few weeks.
Ukraine War: What the West Doesn't Understand EP 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5BAZ2bBUzM
Just as suspect as when it was posted in another thread. All the cable news networks have their stable of military commentators, and we have their past statements, credentials, accomplishments, etc. by which to judge their analyses. But go ahead and flog the opinion of some random dude on the Internet.
Rod Dreher and other right-wing Christian commentators (non-Christian tough guys too) will tell you it's because American, Canadian, and European armies are full of gays, women, and trans people who are unable to stand up to those big, rough, manly Russians.
"those big, rough, manly Russians"
Notice all the photos they use as examples look like Tom of Finland studies?
I would like to know if Rod Dreher & his ilk laurelized Jessica Lynch, or revealed in Lynndie England being tough enough to torture.
Were women in uniform different under GQP President Bush-43?
*revelled, not revealed
"the US military is not very good at counterinsurgency."
Seriously, who is?
The great success story was said to be the British fighting the Malaysian Insurgency. Then it's pointed out that the British were fighting Chinese Communists--a minority of a minority--in country populated by Malays, who didn't like the Communists or the Chinese.
Short of near genocidal tactics, who has defeated an insurgency?
Lots of space to drive through with "near genocidal" and it certainly wasn't "clean" but where would you place The "Philippine-American War" - aka fighting the insurgencies after the Spanish-American War?
To give one example, the Sri Lankan government and military defeated the Tamil Tigers around 2010.
More often than not, insurgencies fail. Many people are overly romantic about insurgencies.
key words: the sri lankan government. it's a lot different when it's an outsider trying to prop up a government that lacks the commitment to carry on the fight themselves, a la vietnam and afghanistan.
Insurgency and counter-insurgency are both very difficult. The insurgents have a clear target and well-defined victory conditions, but they are almost by definition the weaker side and take much higher casualties. The counter-insurgents generally are stronger (if they're not, the insurgency tends to succeed quickly) but how they "win" is not well defined.
When the insurgents can't actually get at the counter-insurgents' base, as happens when an army is trying to put down an insurgency in another country, the war tends to go on, and on, and on, until one side or the other runs out of motivation and quits.
Columbia: FARC
Peru: Sendero Luminoso (‘Shining Path’)
I think this is an excellent point.
By holding its own, Ukraine has won.
What will Russia do now?
Raise cities for spite? Check
Play with some new toys? Check (stand off weapons only)
Chemical warfare? It was done in Syria, so ...why not?
_________________
Putin can not save face. He was given so many off ramps--but didn't take them. His army may hang on for a couple more weeks, destroy a couple more cities, then...collapse. If Belarus gets dragged in, that may help the Russians last a week longer. Then what???
As for US....
If there is a disaster anywhere in the world, people hope the US military will show up. But no one would want to take them on directly in battle.
We have our own problem with graft, "regulatory capture", weapon systems that will not die, etc., but not outright kleptocracy.
Yeah, there was no corruption in either the Trump or Bush administrations.
Also, as badly as it has gone for them, Russia could stay in it for the long haul if they want. We're all hoping it's just too costly and they give up, but they could win, they could occupy Ukraine. They'll regret it, they probably already do. But they have the resources to keep pounding Ukraine.
at some point, they'll be throwing rocks at the ukrainians.
Not with the Western powers help. Kiev and 75% of the Ukraine is not available. Eventually they will get exhausted like the Germans at the battle of Stalingrad.
But they have the resources to keep pounding Ukraine.
So you claim. But an army needs to be supplied and paid. It's not clear Russia has the economic strength for a protracted war. There are reports of food shortages in Russia and literal fights in supermarkets.
(I'm not saying you're wrong, either. Maybe they do have the resources to "keep pounding Ukraine" indefinitely. Who knows? But that's just my point: nobody really does know).
They can pound Ukraine from the sea and from outside its borders. They pound until the national government surrenders. They don’t have to fully occupy the place. The USSR never occupied the Warsaw Pact countries.
I don't think they can, actually. They don't have an inexhaustible supply of men and materials to keep this up for as long as it takes to raze Ukraine and occupy the whole country. Not with the current sanctions in place and not with the level of resistance they're facing. They're seeing *generals* KIA every couple of days.
I am guessing withdrawal to a fortified eastern position is next. Then comes the "peace". I suspect comes out internal purges in Russia similar to the Stalin era post food stealing con got exposed killing off much of the original Bolshevik party.
> we have relearned the lesson of Vietnam
The lesson of Vietnam is the same as the lesson of Afghanistan in at least the 80s if not at other times as well: A well armed insurgency is hard to put down, and it's easy for your enemies to create a well armed insurgency.
You're half right. Creating a well-armed and sufficiently motivated insurgency is not easy. It requires very high motivation to get people to commit to a long war in which the other side has all the military advantages.
Eliot Cohen, erstwhile of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq? That guy? Let's review a couple of his notable quotables:
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] supports terror. There's very solid evidence that the Iraqis were behind an attempt to assassinate President Bush's father. And we—by the way, we do know that there is a connection with the 9/11 terrorists. We do know that Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."
"..the choice before the United States is a stark one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the regime of Saddam Hussein to restore his economy, acquire weapons of mass destruction and pose a lethal threat to his neighbors and to us, or to take action to overthrow him. In my view, the latter course, with all of its risks, is the correct one. Indeed, the dangers of failing to act in the near future are unacceptable."
Here's his 2001 WSJ piece "Iraq Can't Resist Us. The Gulf War was a cakewalk. The enemy is even weaker now." He literally never even mentions the possibility that the United States might face an insurgency after the fall of Saddam.
There are quite a few adjectives I'd use to describe this guy, but "redoubtable" isn't one of them.
+1,000,000
William Safire: wringer about Hillary's imminent January 1997 indictment or Curveball's Prague Spring?
*wronger
The neoconservatives led us into a 20-year war in Afghanistan which killed 165,000 people, cost $2.3 trillion and ended with the Taliban controlling more of the country than they did when the war started. God as my witness, I cannot understand how people are still listening to these Paul Wolfowitz/Condi Rice acolytes. If Eliot Cohen says the Ukrainians are winning, then, God help them.
"Liberal democracy is in much better shape than many people think."
Yes, I think we all got a better sense of this now, including Russia. Too bad Putin and his FSK groupies didn't figure this out before they invaded Ukraine. I suppose at least China realizes now that the cost of invading Taiwan would be very high.
Yes, yes, we know Eliot Cohen bad because you became a blogger in the run up to Iraq. He's mostly correct.
Putin adviser announces that he will flee,
https://www.rawstory.com/putin-adviser-anatoly-chubais-resigns/
Can't decide if this is sophisticated media savvy or not nearly media savvy enough.
I have called this press conference to announce I will flee. This is my suitcase. Goodbye.
Photo on this page appearing to be an intact, unexplored Kinzhal in Ukrainian-controlled territory. If this is real, it’s a heck of a bargaining chip for Zelenskyy with the West. Maybe he can get those MiGs after all. Me, though, I’d ask for Reapers and about ten thousand Switchblades.
Forgot the link. Here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/21/europe/ukraine-monday-reset-03-21-intl/?hpt=ob_blogfooterold
Oops, unexploded. Didn’t notice the autocorrect.