I think there's a small glimmer of hope in the near shutdown of the US government yesterday. Musk got Trump into serious trouble and made him look bad with no upside whatsoever (unless you count cutting funding for pediatric cancer research as huge political victory). It was obvious even to Trump that Musk's demand for the Congress not to pass anything before January 20 was asinine. And now the talk has turned from Trump winning a "mandate" and being in full control of the GOP to large numbers of Republicans in Congress defying Trump twice. Trump can't be happy. He has thought that Musk is very smart because he's very rich. But now he may become more cautious about doing what Musk wants. And it will be a good thing if perhaps the strongest anti-Ukrainian voice around Trump will become less influential.
I wish I could share your optimism. A test Im looking for is the confirmation of Gabbard, who seems to be a national security threat. If the GOP backs her--thats important. That being said, it was heartening to see some independence in the House.
That's not really optimism. But if Musk's influence is in any way diminished in any area of US governance, that's an unquestionably good thing because he's wrong about everything.
Musk is recreationally taking ketamine. This is known to create "black spots" on brain MRIs -- basically it's burning holes in his head. He's getting crazier and stupider over time as a result. He really should be removed from everything, and it's bizarre that he hasn't had his security clearances revoked yet.
Andrew, may I suggest reading Brian Klass’ essay on “The Myth of the Secret Genius” which provides a nice take down of people like Musk and Trump. Musk is a charlatan that claims he can hit home runs when he was simply inserted as a pinch runner on 3rd base and was lucky enough to score on a wild pitch. He is not an innovator on his own and was lucky to buy companies who did all the hard work already. I expect more of this behavior and mistakes from Musk and his tech bros showing their total ignorance of the art of governance.
I knew he was a charlatan a decade ago when so many people were admiring him. E.g. I vaguely remember Musk promising travel from NYC to London in whatever number of minutes. I instantly calculated the g-forces and thought that as one can already travel there in 6 hours cheaply and comfortably, nobody's going to ride a rollercoaster to get there faster (for crying out loud, too few people were willing to pay for fuel needed to fly Concord at 2M just to get to London 3 hours faster). And I knew that Musk knew that too, as physics major. It was always his modus operandi to get free publicity for his existing businesses by announcing sensational future projects. In a few year nobody would remember his promises, plus he'd just make some new ones. BTW his actual profit making businesses like Tesla are not all that great.
You and I are both there. I have lost friends who thought I was wrong and strident about Musk. The whole tunneling business was a scam and never practical. He is simply a carnival barker at this point who got lucky. He is constantly in trouble with the SEC.
Musk was talked into investing in Tesla by Jeffrey Straubel, who I still respect. Straubel quietly left Tesla sometime after Musk *completely* lost his mind.
Is Trump better for us alone than with Musk? Hard for me to judge. But if we want the bromance to shrivel, we should start addressing the new Administration as Trump-Musk. Trump is not one to share the glory, and this time Musk exposed the fictional mandate.
Another good one Phillips, thanks. Kellogg should stick to munching his breakfast cereal rather than uttering rubbish on Fox News. That he will lead the negotiations (for the US, only) does not bode well, as you have frequently opined.
Possibly the bumping off of the chemical general generated interest because of the manifest evil of the man, plus the audacity / ease with which the killing was executed.
Whatever Putin may say, surely things are not going his way now.
Even from outside the EU the UK can still have influence and I sense is genuine in trying to do that. Imho the appointment of that ‘ moron’ Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the US is a brilliant move.
It definitely does not bode well that he does not even understand that he can't negotiate away existence of another country and then come to that country and announce to the people that they must now assimilate into another nation. It is still hard for me to imaging Ukraine agreeing to a ceasefire since most Ukrainians understand that the moment they cease firing their nationhood is over and they become Russians (unless of course they cease firing after liberating Kerch).
They know if they stop now, there will be another war, and they will be in a worse position (Russia will rebuild the army, while many Ukrainian men will flee the country). So I suspect they will just continue fighting, whatever Trump says, and present Europe with fait accompli. Then the Europeans will now that they may end up with 1) another 10 million refugees and 2) Russian army on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania (and probably Moldova under Russian control). While I don't have any hopes, I'm not sure that even Trump in that situation will help Putin by pressuring Europe not to help Ukraine (he may not even cut off aid, if somebody more hawkish gets to him and explain that the fall of Ukraine will embolden China).
Oh, they won't stop fighting. There was a poll which said that >70% of Ukrainians would continue fighting *if Kyiv was nuked*. They won't stop. Doesn't matter what Trump or the EU does. They won't stop.
I don't believe it is possible for Russia to occupy and colonize Ukraine at this point, even if Hungary and Slovakia actually sent their armies in to assist Russia.
What we are discussing is really how long the war is going to take. Russia prolonged the Syrian revolution against Assad by 13 years. Ukraine fighting on its own might take quite a long time to defeat Russia. Many wars go on for a very long time. European and American aid could defeat Russia *faster*. The defeat is not in question, however.
Thanks Jonathan. The Kellogg intervention in this case was truly bizarre. Things are not good for Russia (or for Ukraine), but the difference is that Ukraine's supporters are divided and scared
But facts on the ground mean nothing to a US press that desperately seems to want Russia to win or an administration that is paid by the Russian oligarchy and fails to understand history.
Great update and perspective as always, Phillips. The pearl clutching of members of the incoming administration are laughable as it shows they are fully bought and paid for by Putin and his oligarchs. Targeting the opposing leadership and officers is as old as the republic. Yes, it was seen as “dishonorable” by the English in the revolution, but it makes perfect sense and was a regular occurrence.
It is good that some outlets are picking up on Russia’s collapsing war economy finally. It is not just the inability to regenerate men under arms and basic kit, but with interest rates and inflation “ordinary” Russians are really feeling the pinch.
Now if Europe (I am looking at you, Germany) can dispense if old ways of economic thinking and expand their defense industries to help Ukraine, it is a win-win for everyone in defense of Europe as its collective economic power dwarfs that of Russia and is a necessary condition for sustained military power as we are seeing in real time.
We agree Germany is the main impediment. Their economic thinking brought us the Euro crisis, and their mindset is that of 1920s Weimar when it comes to spending and inflation. Then as the largest economy in Europe, they force feed this rot across the EU.
Phillips, thanks for sharing your observations and thoughts regularly. It does seem that Russia is fighting an unsustainable war, from the standpoint of both manpower and material. The most directly threatened European countries may well keep up support even if others dither. Your thoughts on how much they can accomplish would be worth hearing. Perhaps that would be an article not a comment reply.
Thanks Paul, Europe as a whole could accomplish a great deal. It has the resources. However so far it is disorganized and divided. Its hard to see the front line states fully committing if Germany, France and the UK are pushing Ukraine to take a settlement along Trump's lines (which they very well might).
Phillips, what do you think drives the inaccuracy in the reporting of the war?
Publications I read and respect, The Economist, the BBC etc have been guilty of it at times as have many others.
It’s generally not a case of them reporting things that aren’t true i.e. Russia has made gains around Pokrovsk, but failing to put that in a wider context.
Most of these publications are not what I would describe as pro-Russian so I’m genuinely perplexed. The only thing I can think of is that bad news sells more than nuanced news?
I'd say both punditry and reporting is biased towards wanting to reach a negotiated end to the war as quickly as possible. The theory that UKR can't or shouldn't defeat RU is instrumental to accomplishing the overall goal.
I don't know how that backdrop of bias influences any particular bit of reporting or analysis, but you can imagine the push.
It's really astonishing how well UKR has persevered for 3 years with such feckless moral & material support.
It's amazing that even though Russian imperialism has been a very malevolent force for centuries, so many people in governments, academia and media still don't understand that it can't be negotiated with - only defeated.
And they haven’t understood for decades! An interesting show on French TV last night clearly showed how successive French presidents since de Gaulle, but especially Chirac, the first of four to deal with Putin, have constantly reached out to Russia to try and fold it into some kind of European security area and, with the possible exception of Hollande, have wilfully ignored the warning signs along the way.
Even Macron,in his first term, thought he could deal successfuly with Putin and the footage of the two together, in Versailles, in Saint Petersburg and Sotchi now looks excruciatingly embarrassing. At long last, Macron has seen the light and hopefully, will bring about a fundamental reappraisal by the French political and diplomatic establishment that will last long after he has left power.
As for Germany, the case is even more damning, but we have been into that many times before!
Neither of these two European powers are apparently able to countenance a different, dare one say, broadly democratic Russsia, and as long as the current mindset prevails, they will continue to hope that the status quo can be upheld some way or another. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t!
When I was in France I heard a few people discuss the idea that working with Russia (or trying to) is engrained in the French political/diplomatic mindset. In some ways its been stronger during the period of US dominance.
Indeed, and even more so in Germany. After all, the Romanov Tsars are all descendants of Catherine the Great, a German princess.
The big question henceforth is whether Putin’s unprovoked war will finally bring these two major European powers to forge a different vision of Russia and act accordingly.
The decline of American dominance and the realisation that they must do more to ensure their own security will hopefully help them along the road !
A broadly democratic Russia is not in the card. More importantly, Putin's foreign policy has been exactly what the people wanted. The imperial mindset is very pervasive in Russia.
Interesting! As you have written here on more than one occasion, Russia only changes when it is defeated on the battlefield. The abolition of serfdom after the defeat in the Crimean War is a case in point.
The revolution of 1917 after defeat in WW1 another.
What kind of regime would you see emerging in Russia if Putin’s imperial war ends in defeat ? A Putin bis bent on revenge ? Or a benign despot firmly holding the reigns of power but more concerned with the welfare
If his people ? As you were brought up in Russia and have given the matter a lot of thought, I would be interested in your thoughts.
They had two revolutions in 1917! And the first Russian revolution was in 1905 which started as Russia was losing the war against Japan.
I have no idea what may emerge in Russia if the Russian army is actually destroyed in Ukraine (which is still possible on current equipment loss trends). The country may even break up.
So, question, when you say "what the people wanted", what do you mean by "the people"? Do you mean "Russky" (ethnic Russian) or "Rossiyanin" (citizen of RF)?
Because I see all the signs that the existing Russian empire is ready to collapse. Many of the "Rossiyane" are tired of Moscow domination and ready to overthrow them. The Tatars have been ready for decades.
Even among many groups of people who are descended from ethnic Russians, people tire of the Moscow domination. The Siberiaks and Far Easterners show no attachment to Moscow. Even provinces closer to Moscow and ethnically Russian complain that Moscow is stealing from them.
I'm no expert, but if I were to summarize what I've gathered: support for Putin's war comes from the cores around Moscow and St Petersburg, the colonized military post in Kaliningrad, and the colonized areas in the Kuban and Circassia (which are popular destinations for selfish and lazy people who like warm weather and don't mind stepping over corpses to get it -- same sort of people who move to Crimea after it was occupied in 2014).
Other parts of the empire... well, they're not gonna answer polls honestly (that might get you a visit from the secret police), but they're not happy. If they see a chance they'll kick Moscow out entirely. They're just waiting for Putin to be weak enough.
See the behavior of numerous parts of Syria, biding their time until the HTS offensive was succeeding, and then rising up and ousting Assad's forces from their regions instantly.
If that’s the case I think it demonstrates a fundamental lack of strategic intelligence.
I see no evidence Putin has abandoned his maximalist war aims. Forcing an unjust peace agreement on Ukraine will simply lead to a continuation war down the line.
It’s something those on the far left who call for peace at all costs fail to grasp (the far right arguably grasp it but don’t care).
I think his maximalism now dwarfs his maximalism on 2/24/22 when he probably would have been content with a puppet government in Kyiv and the territory he had already annexed, maybe expanded to the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhanksk Oblasts. But now he's really mad and wants much more.
Everybody knows there will be a continuation war. That's why there will be no mass return of refugees and no serious reconstruction or investment. Plus many of those likely to be drafted in a continuation war will just leave the country during the shaky "peace" (while Putin rebuilds his army). So the correlation of forces will be much worse for Ukraine in the next war.
And that's why I really doubt that even under strong Trump pressure Ukraine will agree to end the war. They may just announce that they will continue fighting no matter of what, in a guerrilla war if their conventional army is destroyed. And then the Europeans will have some tough choices to make.
I mean... Ukraine already announced this! They had the guerrilla war plans ready to go when Putin attacked Kyiv. They had a whole plan for turning the army into individual partisan cells. They were handing out instructions for making Molotov cocktails.
Now, except in Donbass and Crimea, they haven't had to use that plan yet. But the plan's still there. I don't think there's any question: they'll keep fighting no matter what.
That’s where I land. Seems a dereliction of responsibility as the reporting fuels a narrative of the war which in turn shapes the context in which political leaders make decisions.
I think that in part it's complete ignorance of military matters. There has not been draft in any of the Five Eyes country for half a century, so very few English language media reporters have had any military experience.
There's also the preconception of mighty Russia, in a large part because of Soviet/Russian propaganda (about both history, especially WWII, and current affairs.
Then there's an ingrained distrust of anything that Western governments and their allies say, meaning that all Ukrainian claims are automatically suspect. But the same scrutiny is not applied to the enemies of the West like Russia. That's true not only in this war: e.g. anything the Israeli government says is viewed very suspiciously, while civilian casualty claims by Hamas are reported as verified facts.
This is staggering, even for you Andrew. The idea that the Western media is poor because it doesn't include sufficient representation of military types is light years beyond ludicrous. Any old double-barrelled Rupert is treated with the utmost respect and credulity here in the UK - despite our recent track record in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan.
Likewise the idea that the Israeli's aren't treated favourably by the MSM is nutty - all they had to do was make some unsubstantiated claims about UNRWA and everyone was calling for them to be defunded.Then there's the beheaded babies and the complete censorship of the Hannibal Directive in the west (as exposed by Haaretz & Ynet).
Of course, they aren't. Just check the headlines right after a PALESTINIAN rocket hit a parking lot outside a Gaza hospital and killed a couple dozen people.
It's not just the lack of a draft. The US military has been spectacularly incompetent for my entire life, so you wouldn't have learned a damn thing about military matters from being involved with the US military.
Has your analysis of military advances ever taken into account such patently obvious factors as the ground and climatic conditions Professor? Would you expect any side to be making significant advances during the transformations either side of winter?
As for the attack on the Russian General, there was one aspect of his role that saw brief, but strangely muted coverage in the UK – that of his responsibility for all things chemical weapons. It may have escaped some of your readers, but only in the last couple of weeks did the public sessions of the UK’s ‘inquiry’ into the Salisbury Poisonings close.
Given the nature of the story, it was surprising how little coverage this received here – a few stories at the opening, but then very little. Of course there’s been plenty going on elsewhere, but remember this is a story that dominated the news for months, saw dozens of diplomats expelled and did a great deal to demonise Putin and sour relations with the Russians. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that one of the reasons Ukraine has been destroyed is the narrative accepted about that story. Putin should not be trusted, Putin should not be negotiated with because Putin is evil – he murders opponents – he did it to Navalny using the same thing he used on the Skripals – that kind of logic.
Well I can understand why the media didn’t want to cover the UK Establishment’s response – because it showed just how ludicrous the story was and just how bent their response has been. Nothing was allowed to detract from the patently silly UK government story. Here are just a few of the revelations that were just nodded through by the (well remunerated) clowns there:
We heard that, by complete fluke Sergie was ‘accidentally’ given atropine by a paramedic rather than the drug usually given to those suffering a drugs overdose which everyone suspected he and Yulia were suffering from. Atropine just happens to be the treatment for nerve agent exposure, which, so the story goes, no one had expected for at least 48 hours after they’d been found. He was very lucky that the paramedic gave him an injection of something from a different coloured bottle whilst ignoring the usual need to check & double check it’s use with his colleague. Sergei was a very lucky man.
The Skripals were doubly lucky as all of this took place whilst Colonel Alison MacCourt, the most senior nurse in the entire British army was there ‘helping out’ as she was, by astonishing good luck, just passing by the bench with her daughter having travelled to Salisbury to go to Nandos (seriously that’s the story).
We saw images of the contamination of the alleged nerve agent that was found on the, very much alive, Charlie Rowley who got a lot of it on his hands, wiped it there, but allegedly survived because he washed his hands quickly after that. The distribution of contamination in the image strongly suggests he would have got some of the lethal nerve agent on his nob as he wore those jeans for the rest of the day.
There was an entire after noon spent discussing the properties & characteristics of portable heat sealers because part of the UK gov’s story is that the perfume bottle found at Dawn Sturgess’s house, that allegedly held the novichok had been sealed in two different kinds of heat-shrunk plastic. It therefore meant that the two dastardly Russian agents, who were only in Salisbury for a few hours on the day of the poisoning, must have gone to a public toilet (yes that is the story) to disassemble the bottle (insanely dangerous one would have thought) so they could wrap it up. So we heard about how two different kinds of sealing device could have been carried in the bags they were seen on CCTV with, but nothing at all about why on earth they’d do anything so utterly mental with it. Why didn’t they just chuck it in a bin, a hedge or flush it down the toilets they were crouching over? If they really needed to seal it, why bother with two different devices – why not use one and wrap it twice – or keep wrapping it until the plastic or batteries ran out if it was so dangerous?
We heard that Yulia Skripal regained consciousness 4 days after the alleged poisoning and was interviewed by a police officer using eye blinks – during this interview she confirmed that she had been sprayed with a chemical agent in Zizi’s restaurant. The judge in charge closed this testimony down straight away.
Such a revelation might have been the kind of thing the lawyers appointed to represent the Skripals in this charade might have challenged, but the only statements they made throughout this entire portion of the inquiry was to thank the UK government and judge at it’s beginning and at its close.
You see we’ve not heard from the Skripals at all. The UK announced it would be too dangerous for them to appear here – not even remotely, with disguised voices – just too dangerous for them.
So in general I don’t believe the UK’s story about anything much these days - I certainly wouldn’t trust their figures on RF losses as you do Professor.
Hi Adrian, The seasonal thing is fascinating. Actually, the weather should make far less difference than people think because of the ways that Russia is fighting. Without relying on lots of vehicles, and with the advances being infantry based, their advances require hard ground as much as anything else. Its worth noting that the period of their greatest advance was the muddy season (October-November) which is normally when advances would be the hardest. Moreover, December has been excellent weather wise--just around freezing, so the soil shoud be hard but not so cold that things would have trouble working. So all in all--I dont think the weather is working in the way people often assume.
I "calculated" how long it'll take the Russians to reach Kiev based on their spectacular rate of progress towards Pokrovsk: 70+ years. Just wanted to put that out there.
The mantra in western capitals should be "Stay the course". The weakening of the Russian economy, the inabilty of the manufacturing centres to replace the loss of mar materials coupled with the manpower shortages of the Russian war machine all point to a catastrophic (for Russia) collapse as early (possibly) as 2025. For all the talk, by Putin, of the Ukrainian war being an "existential"one for Russia, it has increasingly become an existential one for Europe. Regardless of Trump's actions, the West has the wherewithal to maintain the pressure on Russia to effect a Russian defeat. They must not fail to do it.
Professor does a good job drawing attention to the civilian collateral damage involved with the Russian assassination attempts.
Shall we also juxtapose the Ukrainian assassination of a military general perpetrating war crimes alongside Russian assassinations of civilians on foreign soil?
Question regarding these "daily Russian losses" (2200 on Dec 20): what % is dead - wounded? I assume "wounded" in this context means so seriously wounded that return to the battlefield is unlikely?
That's... unexpected. I can't say too much about it other than that it indicates Russian weakness on this end of the line. It may be yet another move designed to force Russia to shift troops laterally along the line -- every time Russia does this, Ukraine hits the convoys.
I believe the Trump Administration also signaled aid to Ukraine would continue. It may be General Kellogg who made the statement. The fall of Syria has opened up possibilities for an even bigger deal.
I think there's a small glimmer of hope in the near shutdown of the US government yesterday. Musk got Trump into serious trouble and made him look bad with no upside whatsoever (unless you count cutting funding for pediatric cancer research as huge political victory). It was obvious even to Trump that Musk's demand for the Congress not to pass anything before January 20 was asinine. And now the talk has turned from Trump winning a "mandate" and being in full control of the GOP to large numbers of Republicans in Congress defying Trump twice. Trump can't be happy. He has thought that Musk is very smart because he's very rich. But now he may become more cautious about doing what Musk wants. And it will be a good thing if perhaps the strongest anti-Ukrainian voice around Trump will become less influential.
I wish I could share your optimism. A test Im looking for is the confirmation of Gabbard, who seems to be a national security threat. If the GOP backs her--thats important. That being said, it was heartening to see some independence in the House.
That's not really optimism. But if Musk's influence is in any way diminished in any area of US governance, that's an unquestionably good thing because he's wrong about everything.
Musk is recreationally taking ketamine. This is known to create "black spots" on brain MRIs -- basically it's burning holes in his head. He's getting crazier and stupider over time as a result. He really should be removed from everything, and it's bizarre that he hasn't had his security clearances revoked yet.
Andrew, may I suggest reading Brian Klass’ essay on “The Myth of the Secret Genius” which provides a nice take down of people like Musk and Trump. Musk is a charlatan that claims he can hit home runs when he was simply inserted as a pinch runner on 3rd base and was lucky enough to score on a wild pitch. He is not an innovator on his own and was lucky to buy companies who did all the hard work already. I expect more of this behavior and mistakes from Musk and his tech bros showing their total ignorance of the art of governance.
nice analogy
I knew he was a charlatan a decade ago when so many people were admiring him. E.g. I vaguely remember Musk promising travel from NYC to London in whatever number of minutes. I instantly calculated the g-forces and thought that as one can already travel there in 6 hours cheaply and comfortably, nobody's going to ride a rollercoaster to get there faster (for crying out loud, too few people were willing to pay for fuel needed to fly Concord at 2M just to get to London 3 hours faster). And I knew that Musk knew that too, as physics major. It was always his modus operandi to get free publicity for his existing businesses by announcing sensational future projects. In a few year nobody would remember his promises, plus he'd just make some new ones. BTW his actual profit making businesses like Tesla are not all that great.
You and I are both there. I have lost friends who thought I was wrong and strident about Musk. The whole tunneling business was a scam and never practical. He is simply a carnival barker at this point who got lucky. He is constantly in trouble with the SEC.
Not anymore. Now he owns the SEC.
Musk was talked into investing in Tesla by Jeffrey Straubel, who I still respect. Straubel quietly left Tesla sometime after Musk *completely* lost his mind.
Is Trump better for us alone than with Musk? Hard for me to judge. But if we want the bromance to shrivel, we should start addressing the new Administration as Trump-Musk. Trump is not one to share the glory, and this time Musk exposed the fictional mandate.
I'd say less bad. I don't see any upsides from Musk.
Another good one Phillips, thanks. Kellogg should stick to munching his breakfast cereal rather than uttering rubbish on Fox News. That he will lead the negotiations (for the US, only) does not bode well, as you have frequently opined.
Possibly the bumping off of the chemical general generated interest because of the manifest evil of the man, plus the audacity / ease with which the killing was executed.
Whatever Putin may say, surely things are not going his way now.
Even from outside the EU the UK can still have influence and I sense is genuine in trying to do that. Imho the appointment of that ‘ moron’ Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the US is a brilliant move.
Hold on to Kursk Ukraine!
It definitely does not bode well that he does not even understand that he can't negotiate away existence of another country and then come to that country and announce to the people that they must now assimilate into another nation. It is still hard for me to imaging Ukraine agreeing to a ceasefire since most Ukrainians understand that the moment they cease firing their nationhood is over and they become Russians (unless of course they cease firing after liberating Kerch).
I wonder what Ukraine will do. If Ukrainians could count on Europe, they might defy Trump, but as of now Europe has failed.
They know if they stop now, there will be another war, and they will be in a worse position (Russia will rebuild the army, while many Ukrainian men will flee the country). So I suspect they will just continue fighting, whatever Trump says, and present Europe with fait accompli. Then the Europeans will now that they may end up with 1) another 10 million refugees and 2) Russian army on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania (and probably Moldova under Russian control). While I don't have any hopes, I'm not sure that even Trump in that situation will help Putin by pressuring Europe not to help Ukraine (he may not even cut off aid, if somebody more hawkish gets to him and explain that the fall of Ukraine will embolden China).
Oh, they won't stop fighting. There was a poll which said that >70% of Ukrainians would continue fighting *if Kyiv was nuked*. They won't stop. Doesn't matter what Trump or the EU does. They won't stop.
I don't believe it is possible for Russia to occupy and colonize Ukraine at this point, even if Hungary and Slovakia actually sent their armies in to assist Russia.
What we are discussing is really how long the war is going to take. Russia prolonged the Syrian revolution against Assad by 13 years. Ukraine fighting on its own might take quite a long time to defeat Russia. Many wars go on for a very long time. European and American aid could defeat Russia *faster*. The defeat is not in question, however.
Thanks Jonathan. The Kellogg intervention in this case was truly bizarre. Things are not good for Russia (or for Ukraine), but the difference is that Ukraine's supporters are divided and scared
But facts on the ground mean nothing to a US press that desperately seems to want Russia to win or an administration that is paid by the Russian oligarchy and fails to understand history.
I wonder if they desperately want Russia to win, or are just so invested in the strong Russia argument that they cant get out of it.
Great update and perspective as always, Phillips. The pearl clutching of members of the incoming administration are laughable as it shows they are fully bought and paid for by Putin and his oligarchs. Targeting the opposing leadership and officers is as old as the republic. Yes, it was seen as “dishonorable” by the English in the revolution, but it makes perfect sense and was a regular occurrence.
It is good that some outlets are picking up on Russia’s collapsing war economy finally. It is not just the inability to regenerate men under arms and basic kit, but with interest rates and inflation “ordinary” Russians are really feeling the pinch.
Now if Europe (I am looking at you, Germany) can dispense if old ways of economic thinking and expand their defense industries to help Ukraine, it is a win-win for everyone in defense of Europe as its collective economic power dwarfs that of Russia and is a necessary condition for sustained military power as we are seeing in real time.
Paul--Europe is such a disappointment (except for some front line states). Germany in particular has been disastrous.
We agree Germany is the main impediment. Their economic thinking brought us the Euro crisis, and their mindset is that of 1920s Weimar when it comes to spending and inflation. Then as the largest economy in Europe, they force feed this rot across the EU.
Phillips, thanks for sharing your observations and thoughts regularly. It does seem that Russia is fighting an unsustainable war, from the standpoint of both manpower and material. The most directly threatened European countries may well keep up support even if others dither. Your thoughts on how much they can accomplish would be worth hearing. Perhaps that would be an article not a comment reply.
Thanks Paul, Europe as a whole could accomplish a great deal. It has the resources. However so far it is disorganized and divided. Its hard to see the front line states fully committing if Germany, France and the UK are pushing Ukraine to take a settlement along Trump's lines (which they very well might).
O god help us all.
Phillips, what do you think drives the inaccuracy in the reporting of the war?
Publications I read and respect, The Economist, the BBC etc have been guilty of it at times as have many others.
It’s generally not a case of them reporting things that aren’t true i.e. Russia has made gains around Pokrovsk, but failing to put that in a wider context.
Most of these publications are not what I would describe as pro-Russian so I’m genuinely perplexed. The only thing I can think of is that bad news sells more than nuanced news?
I think alot of people simply have bought the big, strong Russia narrative, have pushed it, and dont know what else to do. Sadly.
How The War Was Won should be mandatory reading in elite colleges.
I'd say both punditry and reporting is biased towards wanting to reach a negotiated end to the war as quickly as possible. The theory that UKR can't or shouldn't defeat RU is instrumental to accomplishing the overall goal.
I don't know how that backdrop of bias influences any particular bit of reporting or analysis, but you can imagine the push.
It's really astonishing how well UKR has persevered for 3 years with such feckless moral & material support.
It's amazing that even though Russian imperialism has been a very malevolent force for centuries, so many people in governments, academia and media still don't understand that it can't be negotiated with - only defeated.
And they haven’t understood for decades! An interesting show on French TV last night clearly showed how successive French presidents since de Gaulle, but especially Chirac, the first of four to deal with Putin, have constantly reached out to Russia to try and fold it into some kind of European security area and, with the possible exception of Hollande, have wilfully ignored the warning signs along the way.
Even Macron,in his first term, thought he could deal successfuly with Putin and the footage of the two together, in Versailles, in Saint Petersburg and Sotchi now looks excruciatingly embarrassing. At long last, Macron has seen the light and hopefully, will bring about a fundamental reappraisal by the French political and diplomatic establishment that will last long after he has left power.
As for Germany, the case is even more damning, but we have been into that many times before!
Neither of these two European powers are apparently able to countenance a different, dare one say, broadly democratic Russsia, and as long as the current mindset prevails, they will continue to hope that the status quo can be upheld some way or another. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t!
When I was in France I heard a few people discuss the idea that working with Russia (or trying to) is engrained in the French political/diplomatic mindset. In some ways its been stronger during the period of US dominance.
Indeed, and even more so in Germany. After all, the Romanov Tsars are all descendants of Catherine the Great, a German princess.
The big question henceforth is whether Putin’s unprovoked war will finally bring these two major European powers to forge a different vision of Russia and act accordingly.
The decline of American dominance and the realisation that they must do more to ensure their own security will hopefully help them along the road !
A broadly democratic Russia is not in the card. More importantly, Putin's foreign policy has been exactly what the people wanted. The imperial mindset is very pervasive in Russia.
Interesting! As you have written here on more than one occasion, Russia only changes when it is defeated on the battlefield. The abolition of serfdom after the defeat in the Crimean War is a case in point.
The revolution of 1917 after defeat in WW1 another.
What kind of regime would you see emerging in Russia if Putin’s imperial war ends in defeat ? A Putin bis bent on revenge ? Or a benign despot firmly holding the reigns of power but more concerned with the welfare
If his people ? As you were brought up in Russia and have given the matter a lot of thought, I would be interested in your thoughts.
Perhaps in another Substack ?
They had two revolutions in 1917! And the first Russian revolution was in 1905 which started as Russia was losing the war against Japan.
I have no idea what may emerge in Russia if the Russian army is actually destroyed in Ukraine (which is still possible on current equipment loss trends). The country may even break up.
So, question, when you say "what the people wanted", what do you mean by "the people"? Do you mean "Russky" (ethnic Russian) or "Rossiyanin" (citizen of RF)?
Because I see all the signs that the existing Russian empire is ready to collapse. Many of the "Rossiyane" are tired of Moscow domination and ready to overthrow them. The Tatars have been ready for decades.
Even among many groups of people who are descended from ethnic Russians, people tire of the Moscow domination. The Siberiaks and Far Easterners show no attachment to Moscow. Even provinces closer to Moscow and ethnically Russian complain that Moscow is stealing from them.
I'm no expert, but if I were to summarize what I've gathered: support for Putin's war comes from the cores around Moscow and St Petersburg, the colonized military post in Kaliningrad, and the colonized areas in the Kuban and Circassia (which are popular destinations for selfish and lazy people who like warm weather and don't mind stepping over corpses to get it -- same sort of people who move to Crimea after it was occupied in 2014).
Other parts of the empire... well, they're not gonna answer polls honestly (that might get you a visit from the secret police), but they're not happy. If they see a chance they'll kick Moscow out entirely. They're just waiting for Putin to be weak enough.
See the behavior of numerous parts of Syria, biding their time until the HTS offensive was succeeding, and then rising up and ousting Assad's forces from their regions instantly.
If that’s the case I think it demonstrates a fundamental lack of strategic intelligence.
I see no evidence Putin has abandoned his maximalist war aims. Forcing an unjust peace agreement on Ukraine will simply lead to a continuation war down the line.
It’s something those on the far left who call for peace at all costs fail to grasp (the far right arguably grasp it but don’t care).
He hasn't abandoned maximalism, at times he has pretended to do so because of the fierceness of Ukrainian resistance.
I think his maximalism now dwarfs his maximalism on 2/24/22 when he probably would have been content with a puppet government in Kyiv and the territory he had already annexed, maybe expanded to the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhanksk Oblasts. But now he's really mad and wants much more.
Everybody knows there will be a continuation war. That's why there will be no mass return of refugees and no serious reconstruction or investment. Plus many of those likely to be drafted in a continuation war will just leave the country during the shaky "peace" (while Putin rebuilds his army). So the correlation of forces will be much worse for Ukraine in the next war.
And that's why I really doubt that even under strong Trump pressure Ukraine will agree to end the war. They may just announce that they will continue fighting no matter of what, in a guerrilla war if their conventional army is destroyed. And then the Europeans will have some tough choices to make.
I mean... Ukraine already announced this! They had the guerrilla war plans ready to go when Putin attacked Kyiv. They had a whole plan for turning the army into individual partisan cells. They were handing out instructions for making Molotov cocktails.
Now, except in Donbass and Crimea, they haven't had to use that plan yet. But the plan's still there. I don't think there's any question: they'll keep fighting no matter what.
Agree 100%. And I live miles away in England. The Ukrainians don’t do throwing in the towel. And nor should we.
Thats all true RIchard
Sensationalist headlines, doom and fear sells and leads to clicks.
Sad but true
That’s where I land. Seems a dereliction of responsibility as the reporting fuels a narrative of the war which in turn shapes the context in which political leaders make decisions.
I think that in part it's complete ignorance of military matters. There has not been draft in any of the Five Eyes country for half a century, so very few English language media reporters have had any military experience.
There's also the preconception of mighty Russia, in a large part because of Soviet/Russian propaganda (about both history, especially WWII, and current affairs.
Then there's an ingrained distrust of anything that Western governments and their allies say, meaning that all Ukrainian claims are automatically suspect. But the same scrutiny is not applied to the enemies of the West like Russia. That's true not only in this war: e.g. anything the Israeli government says is viewed very suspiciously, while civilian casualty claims by Hamas are reported as verified facts.
This is staggering, even for you Andrew. The idea that the Western media is poor because it doesn't include sufficient representation of military types is light years beyond ludicrous. Any old double-barrelled Rupert is treated with the utmost respect and credulity here in the UK - despite our recent track record in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan.
Likewise the idea that the Israeli's aren't treated favourably by the MSM is nutty - all they had to do was make some unsubstantiated claims about UNRWA and everyone was calling for them to be defunded.Then there's the beheaded babies and the complete censorship of the Hannibal Directive in the west (as exposed by Haaretz & Ynet).
Of course, they aren't. Just check the headlines right after a PALESTINIAN rocket hit a parking lot outside a Gaza hospital and killed a couple dozen people.
It's not just the lack of a draft. The US military has been spectacularly incompetent for my entire life, so you wouldn't have learned a damn thing about military matters from being involved with the US military.
Has your analysis of military advances ever taken into account such patently obvious factors as the ground and climatic conditions Professor? Would you expect any side to be making significant advances during the transformations either side of winter?
As for the attack on the Russian General, there was one aspect of his role that saw brief, but strangely muted coverage in the UK – that of his responsibility for all things chemical weapons. It may have escaped some of your readers, but only in the last couple of weeks did the public sessions of the UK’s ‘inquiry’ into the Salisbury Poisonings close.
Given the nature of the story, it was surprising how little coverage this received here – a few stories at the opening, but then very little. Of course there’s been plenty going on elsewhere, but remember this is a story that dominated the news for months, saw dozens of diplomats expelled and did a great deal to demonise Putin and sour relations with the Russians. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that one of the reasons Ukraine has been destroyed is the narrative accepted about that story. Putin should not be trusted, Putin should not be negotiated with because Putin is evil – he murders opponents – he did it to Navalny using the same thing he used on the Skripals – that kind of logic.
Well I can understand why the media didn’t want to cover the UK Establishment’s response – because it showed just how ludicrous the story was and just how bent their response has been. Nothing was allowed to detract from the patently silly UK government story. Here are just a few of the revelations that were just nodded through by the (well remunerated) clowns there:
We heard that, by complete fluke Sergie was ‘accidentally’ given atropine by a paramedic rather than the drug usually given to those suffering a drugs overdose which everyone suspected he and Yulia were suffering from. Atropine just happens to be the treatment for nerve agent exposure, which, so the story goes, no one had expected for at least 48 hours after they’d been found. He was very lucky that the paramedic gave him an injection of something from a different coloured bottle whilst ignoring the usual need to check & double check it’s use with his colleague. Sergei was a very lucky man.
The Skripals were doubly lucky as all of this took place whilst Colonel Alison MacCourt, the most senior nurse in the entire British army was there ‘helping out’ as she was, by astonishing good luck, just passing by the bench with her daughter having travelled to Salisbury to go to Nandos (seriously that’s the story).
We saw images of the contamination of the alleged nerve agent that was found on the, very much alive, Charlie Rowley who got a lot of it on his hands, wiped it there, but allegedly survived because he washed his hands quickly after that. The distribution of contamination in the image strongly suggests he would have got some of the lethal nerve agent on his nob as he wore those jeans for the rest of the day.
There was an entire after noon spent discussing the properties & characteristics of portable heat sealers because part of the UK gov’s story is that the perfume bottle found at Dawn Sturgess’s house, that allegedly held the novichok had been sealed in two different kinds of heat-shrunk plastic. It therefore meant that the two dastardly Russian agents, who were only in Salisbury for a few hours on the day of the poisoning, must have gone to a public toilet (yes that is the story) to disassemble the bottle (insanely dangerous one would have thought) so they could wrap it up. So we heard about how two different kinds of sealing device could have been carried in the bags they were seen on CCTV with, but nothing at all about why on earth they’d do anything so utterly mental with it. Why didn’t they just chuck it in a bin, a hedge or flush it down the toilets they were crouching over? If they really needed to seal it, why bother with two different devices – why not use one and wrap it twice – or keep wrapping it until the plastic or batteries ran out if it was so dangerous?
We heard that Yulia Skripal regained consciousness 4 days after the alleged poisoning and was interviewed by a police officer using eye blinks – during this interview she confirmed that she had been sprayed with a chemical agent in Zizi’s restaurant. The judge in charge closed this testimony down straight away.
Such a revelation might have been the kind of thing the lawyers appointed to represent the Skripals in this charade might have challenged, but the only statements they made throughout this entire portion of the inquiry was to thank the UK government and judge at it’s beginning and at its close.
You see we’ve not heard from the Skripals at all. The UK announced it would be too dangerous for them to appear here – not even remotely, with disguised voices – just too dangerous for them.
So in general I don’t believe the UK’s story about anything much these days - I certainly wouldn’t trust their figures on RF losses as you do Professor.
Hi Adrian, The seasonal thing is fascinating. Actually, the weather should make far less difference than people think because of the ways that Russia is fighting. Without relying on lots of vehicles, and with the advances being infantry based, their advances require hard ground as much as anything else. Its worth noting that the period of their greatest advance was the muddy season (October-November) which is normally when advances would be the hardest. Moreover, December has been excellent weather wise--just around freezing, so the soil shoud be hard but not so cold that things would have trouble working. So all in all--I dont think the weather is working in the way people often assume.
I "calculated" how long it'll take the Russians to reach Kiev based on their spectacular rate of progress towards Pokrovsk: 70+ years. Just wanted to put that out there.
Kellogg is a Trump guy and Trump is a Putin guy. Says it all.
The mantra in western capitals should be "Stay the course". The weakening of the Russian economy, the inabilty of the manufacturing centres to replace the loss of mar materials coupled with the manpower shortages of the Russian war machine all point to a catastrophic (for Russia) collapse as early (possibly) as 2025. For all the talk, by Putin, of the Ukrainian war being an "existential"one for Russia, it has increasingly become an existential one for Europe. Regardless of Trump's actions, the West has the wherewithal to maintain the pressure on Russia to effect a Russian defeat. They must not fail to do it.
Professor does a good job drawing attention to the civilian collateral damage involved with the Russian assassination attempts.
Shall we also juxtapose the Ukrainian assassination of a military general perpetrating war crimes alongside Russian assassinations of civilians on foreign soil?
https://spyscape.com/article/the-13th-directorate-the-kgbs-top-secret-1960s-assassination-unit
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68337794.amp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko
https://apnews.com/article/russia-kgb-killings-spies-assassinations-87ca5d9c1ebfbdcf517f4b4da2270794
https://www.bushcenter.org/freedom-collection/viktor-yushchenko_the-attempted-murder-of-viktor-yushchenko
https://www.csce.gov/press-releases/helsinki-commission-condemns-poisoning-attempt/
First link is maybe too old to be relevant, my mistake.
philllips, whats your take on nato supplying ukraine from now on
Question regarding these "daily Russian losses" (2200 on Dec 20): what % is dead - wounded? I assume "wounded" in this context means so seriously wounded that return to the battlefield is unlikely?
In addition to the usual Ukrainian strikes against Russian ammo dumps and fuel depots (which seem to be humming along), this is the most interesting frontline news: https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.com/post/3ldv2nbi7ac2y
That's... unexpected. I can't say too much about it other than that it indicates Russian weakness on this end of the line. It may be yet another move designed to force Russia to shift troops laterally along the line -- every time Russia does this, Ukraine hits the convoys.
I believe the Trump Administration also signaled aid to Ukraine would continue. It may be General Kellogg who made the statement. The fall of Syria has opened up possibilities for an even bigger deal.