Weekend Update #102: Bad News and Good News
Also: Interesting Reveals from the latest Bob Woodward Book.
Hi All,
The start of this weekend update will probably be a bit of a downer. Ive not been hearing great things this week of how some Ukrainians at least are viewing their partners commitment to their war effort. Indeed, they are feeling a little abandoned. Its particularly depressing as they believe that the ranged war that they want to fight is clearly showing its benefits. Also, its worth commenting on the excerpts of the Bob Woodward book on the Biden Administration, as it reveals a number of important points which explain how the war has developed to this point.
The Bad News
This is an extremely perilous time for Ukraine when it comes to its partners and the eventual outcome of the war, and the Ukrainians I speak to know it. There has been an area of real worry when they discuss the state of the war recently. In a few weeks Ukraine could be confronted by a United States that has just elected Donald Trump. When you boil all the polling down to its core—the presidential election in the USA is basically a 50-50 proposition, which makes a Trump victory a coin flip away.
The Ukrainians (mostly) understand what that means. Though they can talk publicly about trying to bring Trump around, they understand that this is not likely. Trump has said repeatedly that he will bring “peace” by refusing any new aid to Ukraine and because he can cut a deal with his good friend Putin. And its not just Trump saying this. Vance has repeatedly said that Ukraine deserves no more US support.
However, maybe the most ominous sign was that Speaker Mike Johnson said publicly this week that he wanted no more aid to Ukraine. In a particularly callous turn of phrase, Johnson said he had lost his “appetite” for more aid to Ukraine in an interview. Here is the exact quote.
“I don’t have an appetite for further Ukraine funding, and I hope it’s not necessary. If President Trump wins, I believe that he actually can bring that conflict to a close. I really do. I think he’ll call [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and tell him that this is enough.
Johnson is being disingenuous with the enough is enough comments. He knows that Trump is close to Putin, and any “peace” will be on Trump’s and Putin’s terms. And notice—he said nothing about consulting Ukraine. Basically MAGA Republicans seem to act like Ukraine doesn’t exist as an independent power.
So Ukraine is faced with even odds that in less than 4 weeks, the USA, the single largest and most important supporter it has, will elect an incoming president who will cut off all aid and even that the USA might start cooperating with Putin once Trump is president.
The other depressing thing emanating from the USA for the Ukrainians is that Zelensky’s victory plan, as I said last week, is continuing to be stonewalled in Washington. Its going nowhere—and Biden wont be supporting it (even with the chance of a Trump presidency). You might think that Biden would be willing to provide them this support in case Trump wins—but no. He’s thrown in the towel and not going anywhere.
To compound things, there are more and more talks about Ukraine being forced to give up the land Russia has occupied, and at the same time not being given definite entry into NATO. While there are hopes that Harris might be better than Biden, she undermined at least some of those hopes this week when she gave a less than reassuring answer to the question of whether she supports Ukraine’s membership of NATO. When asked in an interview whether she supported Ukraine joining NATO, she said she would address that question "if and when it arrives at that point".
This is a weak dodge, tbh.
So what is Ukraine seeing—its most important friend might soon elect a President that wants to cut it off. The Present President is basically letting it twist in the wind. And the one future President who gives them some hope, basically ran away when asked about Ukraine joining NATO.
This last point is actually deeply undermining. Without NATO membership, Ukraine will never feel secure—and rightfully so. Not being in NATO now means that Russia can basically attack Ukraine with impunity whenever and wherever it wants. How do you think it seems to a Ukrainian when they hear the head of the Polish armed forces, for instance, boast that if the Russians dare to cross the border of one of the Baltic States, they will be instantly hit by the full power of NATO? As this story summarized it.
In the event of an attack by Russia on Poland or the Baltic states, there will be an "immediate response." Allies will "strike directly at St. Petersburg," said Polish Chief of General Staff Raimund Andrzejczak at the Defending Baltics conference, according to Bild on Oct. 11.
According to Andrzejczak, if Russian forces cross the border into Lithuania, within the "first minute," allies will target all of Russia’s strategic assets within a 300-kilometer radius.
“We will strike directly at St. Petersburg,” Andrzejczak declared.
So NATO is sacrosanct, but Ukraine, which is fighting desperately now, helping make Europe secure, losing more and more of its people, is still being held at arms length? You might see now why some Ukrainians are very worried. The feel they are going to be pressured soon to hand over some of their land for “peace” and yet not be admitted into the one organization that can give them security.
The Good News
What makes this situation particularly frustrating for those with whom I talked is that this week to them gave further confirmation that the ranged campaign that they want to fight against Russian logistics. Its been just over 3 weeks since the Ukrainians attacked the large Russian ammunition storage facility in Toropets. This one attack typified how Ukraine wants to attack Russian military capabilities. It destroyed in one evening the equivalent of 2-3 months of Russian ammunition needs (according to Estonian intelligence). This is a mind-boggling figure and it occurred without the loss of a single Ukrainian life.
The big question of the time was not the effectiveness of that raid (it was undoubtedly effective) it was whether Ukraine could wage a sustained campaign against Russian logistics, production, etc. Well, the evidence from the subsequent weeks, particularly the last week, is that they are trying very hard to do so. There have been regular reports of Ukrainian ranged attacks against Russian facilities—some of which at least seem to be doing significant damage.
This week, for instance there were reports of Ukrainian attacks against Russian airfields and weapons storage facilities (including for Shaheds) in the Caucasus. Maybe even more interesting, there were reports that the Ukrainians had hit a storage facility for North Korean systems in Bryansk—leading to a large explosion that might have killed a number of North Koreans now deployed in Russia. The Estonians estimated that 6 North Korean officers might have been killed.
And these were only some of the ranged attacks that the Ukrainians have done recently. There were some very striking photographs of a Russian oil storage facility that was hit within occupied Ukraine.
In other words, the Ukrainians believe (as do others) that their hopes for a ranged campaign is showing promise and doing real damage. It is now showing that it can destroy some high value targets, and the loss of ammunition in particular should soon be felt on the battlefield.
However, what the Ukrainians also know is that just with their own systems, such a campaign can only guarantee success against targets that are not so well protected. They need western (particularly US and German—think JASSM, Taurus or ATACMs in large numbers) systems in large numbers, and to be able to use them against military targets in Russia. Systems like the US and German ones have the accuracy and payload to give a much higher percentage chance against targets with extensive Anti-Air defence, or in well-protected bunkers. Ukrainian systems have shown their use, but they are still somewhat limited in capabilities.
Thus the Ukrainians believe that they are showing what they are capable of, but that to realize the true potential of the ranged campaign (which is a key part of their strategy) they need support from their partners—which is not forthcoming.
And this turns the good news into something more bitter. Ukraine is still being aided primarily to fight a front-line war against the large Russian army. Its not a way we would fight, but its the war being forced on Ukraine. This is the kind of war where Russian ability to generate large numbers of basically trained soldiers can have effect—with its slow, micro advances.
The Ukrainians are desperate not to get into this blood exchange on the front lines—and believe that they have a plan not to do so—but even when they show that their plan can worked, they are forced to fight this constrained war.
So even the good news is leading to some intense frustration in Ukraine.
The Woodward Excerpts.
This week there were the first releases of information from the upcoming Bob Woodward Book “War” which delves into the world situation looking at both Biden and Trump. As always, he writes his book with excellent access (all anonymized) to the highest levels of policy makers. Of course, that in itself is problematic, as its clear everyone is trying to justify their own decisions—particularly if they have failed.
Some of the revelations are hardly shocking—or at least shouldnt be. Trump, for instance, has remained regularly in touch with Putin since leaving the White House—having regular private calls. It is claimed in the book that there have “as many as seven” calls between the two since Trump left office. Perhaps more revealingly, the book claims that Trump sent Putin the most advanced US testing equipment during the most dangerous (pre-vaccine) part of the COVID pandemic. Even though Trump sources tried to deny this, Kremlin sources this week confirmed the story.
More example of just how close Trump and Putin really are.
However, what I found more illuminating (and not in a good way) was what Woodward has uncovered about Biden. The first thing, which comes out strongly, was that Biden was absolutely convinced by the failed analysis before February 24, 2022—that Russia would conquer Ukraine very swiftly. There was some frankly disturbing self-pity shown by Biden when it became clear that the Russian full-scale invasion was imminent. He exclaimed:
“Jesus Christ!….Now I’ve got to deal with Russia swallowing Ukraine?”
The swallowing metaphor is so revealing. Ukraine was some foodstuff being served up to Russia who would gobble it up whole.
The other depressing thing is how Biden and the administration really did get played by Russian nuclear threats. In the second half of 2022 (when Ukraine could have been helped to win the war and the Russian army was in terrible shape) the Russians started making nuclear threats and this seems to have terrified the administration. Indeed in September 2022, the Biden administration (wildly) seems to have assumed that there was a 50-50 chance of the use of Russian nukes. To quote the article:
Based on the alarming new intelligence reports, the White House believed there was a 50% chance Russia would use a tactical nuclear weapon — a striking assessment that had skyrocketed up from 5% and then 10%, Woodward reports.
Note—there was no indication at the time that any concrete steps had been taken to prepare a single Russian nuclear weapon for use.
So the book reveals a great deal about how the US has helped create the mess and the perilous future. Trump’s affinity for Putin is confirmed. Biden’s extreme over-rating of Russian power and ability to be bullied by Russian nuclear threats is also clear. And this is the case even when Biden knows what Putin is. Another revealing quote from the excerpts is when the President says this about the Russian dictator.
“Putin is evil. We are dealing with the epitome of evil.”
If this is true—the tragic thing is that we are so afraid of this evil, we are shaping policy to protect its rule.
On that less than cheerful note—I do hope some of you can have a good rest of the weekend.
A depressing read Phillips. I’d be curious to know what you make of Elliot Cohen’s “facts are stubborn things” argument that may mean Trump is not as bad on Ukraine as we fear (personally, I think he will be worse)?
Also, there doesn’t seem to have been much analysis of the recent uptick in Russian targeting of commercial shipping entering/exiting Ukrainian ports. For months, there had appeared to be a level of mutual deterrence but the Russian calculus appears to have changed. Presumably, the Ukrainians could start attacking shipping coming out of Novorossiysk, including oil tankers, but aren’t?
Anyway, good to see you being quoted in The Economist. I like their analysis but feel sometimes they have been guilty of fuelling the overly pessimistic narrative. Their most recent piece on the problems Russia is facing is excellent.
Thanks again for your sobering analysis. I guess that's what happens when two old geezers rule the Ukraine debate in the US. They're still stuck in geopolitical Cold War thinking when it comes to the allmight of Russia. They've clearly missed the paradigm shift. Russia is not the USSR. In a way, the modern day Russia is more like its czarist counterpart of the nineteenth century. A new sick man of Europe.