The Zelensky ‘Victory Plan’ didn’t get the traction it needed to give Ukraine hope. Even the public parts, immediate entry into NATO, imposing a NATO-guaranteed ‘No Fly Zone’, and massive support NATO is unable to provide, because it cannot ramp up production to the levels required, and NATO-military getting involved even beyond the levels they are involved in already, were wishful thinking. And there were secret annexes which reportedly made all of it something closer to asking NATO and the EU to destroy themselves imminently.
So now what?
Several Western politicians, Mark Rutte as the new talking-head of NATO among them, have been *very* outspoken. Only one outcome was acceptable: A total defeat of the Russians. Here on my blog I always felt that was unrealistic, and I've put it that way only because using even stronger language made it impossible to talk to people cheering for Ukraine, branding yourself as a ‘Puppet of Putin’ and bombing all bridges between myself and remaining realists in the NATO-Cloud. I’m willing to listen to people in that crowd who claim that ‘we’ were too careful, and if we would have done ‘this’ or ‘that’ right from the start, things would have been different today. But I don’t think so.
Reconstructing wars, evaluating decisions made, is an interesting pastime for strategists, and pundits, but futile. Though identifying your own bad decisions can be enlightening, it is hard to know for a fact what a different decision would have brought. Moreover, we may not even be aware of the original objective. Like in the case of that ‘Kursk-offensive’. With multiple other ‘realists’ I feel strongly that the objective was the capture of the Kursk NPP. Period. That never happened, so we were told there were other reasons, which *did* materialize, in one way or another, although even that is debatable. It was ‘Bad PR’ for Putin, but no noteworthy consequences for him, or his government. If anything it created more support for the hardliners in Russia. And using military units needed elsewhere to achieve that effect sounds ridiculous. Even more so today, as the units employed are suffering huge losses, apparently. While the Russians didn’t need to redeploy units they were using elsewhere along the frontline which were cashing in on the War of Attrition which they’d already won. But……..
That is my ‘reading’, supported by everything we see right before our very eyes, though nobody knows the real losses on either side. In other words, if the Russian strategy of withdrawing behind the ‘Surovikin-line’, after the ‘Special Military Operation’ flopped with the ‘Istanbul Treaty’ shoved aside, paid out handsomely, attriting the Ukrainians and NATO as they launched that ill-advised ‘Spring/Summer-offensive’, because an offensive force has higher losses than the force defending, that storyline in the New York Times, saying that the Ukrainians are deliberately retreating causing the Russians to suffer huge losses, could be true, in theory. But Ukraine did not withdraw behind some kind of ‘Surovikin-line’, standing their ground. Quite the opposite. All the fortified positions they held, built since NATO took control of the government in ‘Kiev’ in 2014, were overrun and destroyed. To my untrained eye, the Ukrainians are not retreating, but fleeing, improvising without a plan. And if they are busy training fresh units to be used after the Russians are attrited in turn, I’m afraid that the stories emerging from Ukraine itself, with scores of people refusing to serve their country as soldiers on the frontlines, and lots of video to support those claims, are telling a different story altogether. Moreover, Zelensky’s ‘Victory Plan’ revealed that he has lost all hope of defeating Russia without ‘Uncle Sam’ holding his hand. And ‘Uncle Sam’ is losing interest.
Even with ‘Uncle Sam’ stepping up to the plate I sincerely doubt that it would be enough to stop the Russians. That is like cursing in the ‘Church of Exceptionalism’ we in the West are devoted to, but take a step back, and take a good hard look at our track-record these past twenty-five years. Eighty percent of all military spending is done by NATO-countries and their proxies, but you cannot buy your way to victory in a military conflict. And all these ‘smart hybrid’ strategies fall short of expectations, to say it mildly. In fact, most of them appear to backfire spectacularly and destroy us. I do not discount the ability of certain ‘elements’ within the military to operate in a hostile environment and emerge victorious, on account of breathtaking skills and unique ‘tools-of-the-trade’, but that is not what is needed in this war. It may even be a handicap. Such units are terribly expensive, requiring specialized equipment, and support-structures which divorce them from far more brutal ways to waste them in battle, like ‘FAB’s’, dirt-cheap glide bombs ‘securing’ large areas in one throw.
Stories swirling around about North-Korean forces joining the Russians are spoon-fed to us now, and Alex Christoforou suggested it may have something to do with creating an excuse for those who wanted this war, to regime change Russia, but ‘miscalculated’, because they had not anticipated on the participation of the North Koreans. It would have been an astounding victory, without the North Koreans. You really think so? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Some treat the story of the North Koreans joining as some sort of ‘Ghost-of-Kiev’ story, 100 % fake, total propaganda. But I think they may. If they show up, it is my assumption that the Russians didn’t ask for help, but that it was offered to them by Kim, that rather unsavory character leading the most brutal communist dictatorship still in existence. I do accept that Russia came knocking because they wanted some ammo and productive power to avoid the need to engage a large percentage of the population in weapons production, overheating their economy, and playing into the hands of the West, which is looking to overextend and unbalance Russia. But I’ve got this feeling that Kim would have insisted that ‘his’ soldiers would receive the opportunity to obtain ‘combat experience’, rather than the Russians asking him to send his men. But the effect will be the same.
NATO-countries up in arms about that development, even as they’ve paid for armies of mercenary soldiers, is unlikely to impress anyone. Zelensky stating that his country is fighting multiple enemies is, so far, less accurate than saying that Russia is fighting all of NATO on the territory of Ukraine. And I honestly think it wouldn’t make much difference if NATO formally declared this war, because there wouldn’t be anything else they might do to change the tide. And that’s the whole point. Short of ‘going nuclear’, NATO has no options. Any formal engagement using dedicated NATO equipment operated by NATO military, no longer being able to hide behind their proxy, would be equal to ‘going nuclear’. Zelensky telling a German reporter that he expects NATO to come to the rescue, or to give Ukraine nuclear weapons, sent shockwaves through NATO. The bulk of the NATO-countries don’t mind ‘tough talk’ and ‘play’, but they definitely don’t look for a chance to destroy the planet. The hapless gnomes cheering for nuclear Armageddon are driven by hatred and need ‘special care’ from a capable shrink and a loving partner. Ignore them.