One of your best yet (which given your customary high standards, really says something). Really outstanding. Succinct and rigourously analytical. Thx v much. Much appreciated.
NYT has been fishwrap for decades now. (For the youngsters, "fishwrap" is an insulting term for bad newspapers because printed newspapers used to be used to hold fried fish from street vendors.) Since before Judith Miller. Since the headline lied about the results of the recount in Bush v Gore.
The Ukrainians continue to excel at deploying weapons surgically and the Russians keeps taking advantage of whatever boundaries that the administration puts on the Ukrainians. This will continue as long as JS & Co gets to pour sand into the gears of war.
The Czech initiative to buy artillery shells is starting to bear fruit. As the EU and the US ramps up shell production in general, better shell parity at the front will be achieved. This is really bad news for the RAF thanks to worn out barrels, lack of counter-battery radars, etc.
The declining stocks in Soviet Era weapons storage depots is likely another reason that Putin is putting out peace feelers. As the the RAF starts fielding more T55's and other scrap, it is pretty apparent that more modern tanks like the T72's, T80's, and T90's are simply no longer abundant. Zerg-like rushes through mine-fields can lead to incremental gains but at a very high cost to RAF materiel and equipment.
On the seas, the RN is running out of ships as the UAF continues to target ferries, transports, and like equipment that could supplement / replace the Kerch bridge. The table is being set to damage the Kerch bridge again and this time, there will be no alternative to resupply Crimea effectively. Allegedly, the Kerch train bridge is sufficiently weak that heavy trains can no longer use it - this is where I look forward to a post-war analysis of the truck bomb attack.
Note also how the Ukrainians chose to destroy the ferries in the harbor late at night to minimize non-military casualties. The targets in Russia were hit with Neptunes, the targets in Crimea were apparently hit with western missiles to maintain diplomatic niceties. Either way, blowing up ferries, oil depots, etc. is a far more effective use of military materiel than intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure during business hours (like big box stores) the way the RAF has.
In the air, the coming arrival of F16's (and potentially the far more interesting Gripens) along with Swedish AWACs is likely going to put an end to the Russian glide bomb party. While this latest JDAM-clone is very effective at pulverizing UAF defensive positions (by actually allowing targeting) once western fighters are in the skies, there will be ample opportunities to start taking out the glide-bomb delivery platforms by combining the radars of F16s, Patriots, and said AWACs. Expect more standoff operation from inside the 'safe zones' designated arbitrarily by the Biden administration.
One area of concern is the sheer competence the Russians are showing re: the construction of new rail lines inside Ukraine to help bring stuff down from Rostov-on-Don, etc. to the Crimean peninsula. Whereas the extant lines were in HIMARS range, the new lines run deeper inland and hence will be harder to intercept. Precision strikes targeting the engineering crews and their specialized equipment would have been super helpful re: Ukrainian war efforts.
Anyhow, I maintain optimism despite all the issues on the Ukrainian side - whether it's the half-hearted Western help, issues with mobilization, etc. the problems are surmountable while the endemic issues on the Russian side will take decades to fix, even if the will is found to try and address them. Russia is bleeding out and 0.5 million casualties with at least 1/3 of them KIA and 100k amputees will have a generational impact on the regions where most of the men came from.
I do think we also need not to swing too far towards optimism. Yes there are some positive developments--but the basic problem of the Ukrainians being outgunned will be a reality for a while and the need to generate more troops. Still, the reporting never seemed to engage with reality
The impact will likely depend on a multitude of factors. The Swedish AWACS likely is a game changer re: tracking more jets at a longer standoff distance but they’re also big targets that are very hard to replace and need protection.
So I don’t see a major change until Ukraine either gets a lot more Patriot missiles to protect towns and AWACs with and/or a lot more western jets that can fly combat air patrol to protect AWACS *AND* opportunistically take down Russian aircraft dumb enough to come too close to the artificial borders set up by the USA/EU/etc.
I don’t see that quantity of aircraft and pilots entering service until the latter part of summer / fall at the earliest. Never mind the logistics of maintaining such aircraft unless the west allows / recruits mercenaries to do same.
Yes that Czech artillery hunt is bearing fruit - unfortunately 50% of that fruit is rotten and all of it massively expensive. What did they expect grubbing around the globe with unlimited suitcases full of cash on offer to some of the worst people on Earth (arms dealers)? It was all so utterly predictable, but don't let the facts get in the way of your optimism eh? Details of the FT report here:
Hey nice to see you back, thought you had unsubscribed.
A shell doesn’t consist of many components but in order to work well, said components have to be made well, meeting many tight tolerances. The fuzes at the tip also make a big difference, as air bursts are far more effective against advancing infantry formations than traditional impact triggers, etc.
I have no doubt that some shells sourced from abroad will have quality control issues, depending on the quality of the shell when it was delivered, how it was stored, how long it was stored, etc. Some OEMs like South Korea are very well respected, other OEMs likely struggle to meet high standards.
The telegram reports from the Russian side were pretty dramatic at first re: burst barrels and like issues when Russians started using North Korean ammunition. I haven’t heard much about all that since, suggesting that the Russians have either adapted (ie Quality control inspections, rejecting bad materiel on receipt) or barrels bursting these days is pretty normal due to overuse and hence is no longer news?
The FT article is customarily scant on details re: the issues that the Czech-sourced shells are bedeviled with. The writing suggests it could be related to the fuzes, which thanks to interoperability standards should be replaceable. But is it a lot of work to do that? Of course! At the same time, I’d much rather have to set up a Fuze Assembly line than a shell body line. There are far more components that go into the fuze, etc. but the equipment needed to make and fill shell casings has a far longer lead time.
Yet, buying shells from abroad, inspecting them, replacing bad components as needed, etc is still better than waiting for the EU and US artillery resupply chain to reconstitute itself from pre-war quasi-irrelevancy. Since 2/2022, the EU has had the cash but only wanted to spend it inside the EU on new shells.
So, I say inspect away and reject bad lots of ammunition as shady suppliers try to get rid of junk. These inspection systems are well established since WWII when Deming and his cohort led to the type of quality control that helped win the war, then led to the birth of the Toyota Production System, etc.
(a) the Czech initiative was competing with a Russian initiative to do the same. So why save your scorn exclusively for EU activity. Please, share the love.
(b) despite the poor quality, 50-100k 155mm shells are on the way within a month.
(c) Ukraine is already no longer in a position of shell hunger
(d) US production will get close to 1m / year next year and is already a few multiples of pre-full scale invasion levels
(e) Germany is also ramping production similarly, I roughly think also 1m / year
(f) Ukraine only needs 2m shells / year to fire a more-than-adequate 5k shells / day
That new rail line will have to be destroyed too. It has several bridges. But I suspect Ukraine will finish the comprehensive plan to eliminate the Russian Navy in the Black Sea first, since that's going well and is essential to interdicting Russian supply. Destroying rail lines is more work, and will be easier when Ukraine has unconstested control of the Black Sea (wait for it, it'll happen!)
What people need to be analyzing now is the collapse of Russia. I have seen *no* serious analyses of what's coming. It's coming, but who are the players? What are the resources? When, not if, the next Russian coup or civil war starts, what will we be looking at?
I suspect most Western governments will be as blindsided as they were when the USSR collapsed and they didn't know who Nursultan Nazerbayev was. It's astounding to me that they're repeating the same mistake 30 years later.
Please when you first use RAF put (Russian Air Force) after it I kept on wondering what was happening to the Royal Air Force. Similarly for RN. Otherwise, great comment.
Apologies and you are so right. Every time I use a shorthand term I should first precede it with a full name so its meaning Is clear.
Here, I was referring to Russian armed forces (RAF), the Russian Navy (RN), Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWAC), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF), and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).
The news business is always looking for something NEW. In 1991, my journalism professor called it "nuveaumania." We see it all the time. A new Russian offensive ithat advances a few kilometers into Ukraine is exciting, therefore newsworthy. The same Russian offensive bogged down weeks later is not "new" enough to be news. That's why the best analysis of Kharkiv *today* doesn't come from professional reporters at all.
Same issue with the US election. All sorts of clowns are given the megaphone to blather nonsense because it sparks outrage.
The press is doing a terrible job reporting how well the US economy is doing in general, how the migrant crisis isn't one, etc. Granted, some "news" outlets are basically captured and between Sinclair and Fox, a lot of news is only reported if it benefits the Republicans.
Given the likely change in expected average life expectancy of honest reporters once Trump is re-elected, I deduce that this bias re: coverage is likely due to management directives, not the front line reporters.
The sad thing about the reliably pro-Russian line in the military reporting in the Western Press is that Russians who are intelligent enough to know they can't trust their own reporting and rely on Western sources will get a quite unrealistic view of how the war is going in Ukraine. Hopefully they mainly get the BBC which as far as I can tell (from Australia) tends to merely report rather than let their own views dominate and so gives a closer to accurate picture than many of the newspapers.
Quite so, but that cuts both ways. The AFU and British Intelligence (cited by the Professor here) are equally untrustworthy (see the UK's intel reports of Afghanistan & Iraq for reasons to doubt their public statements nowadays). What a reasonable observer might do is consider them both, but also what we know by experience from previous conflicts. In particular here, what were the relative losses of attackers to defenders in conflicts where one side had a massive artillery advantage.
Where in history do we have examples of instances where the losses suffered by one side were in direct proportion to their own artillery advantage? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'd be very interested in your answer to this. I've asked a lot of people and so far drawn a blank, but in Ukraine we're expected to believe that this has been happening for over two years now.
Re: objective figure of losses, you talk as if we have only two possible sources. There are multiple third party analyses, on which I have posted regularly, some of which I guess you’ll have read. We seem to have multiple sources triangulating on 100-200k Russian dead, a staggering figure. The Mediazona methodology is admittedly conservative and is around 90k (they say casualty incorrectly to mean killed) and additionally undercounts foreign nationals (DPR/LNR, mercenaries), so I guess you can add 20k, war crimes against Ukrainians from occupied territories who have been (tragically) forcibly conscripted, and I believe anybody over 50. In my estimation, it likely further undercounts the very poor, what we would call MIA presumed KIA, and prisoners.
In the context of this data, UK MoD (and Ukrainian) estimates of 500k casualties seem very reasonable.
For additional context, this compares to 15k officially registered deaths across 9 years when Russia had to pull out of Afghanistan and 58k for the US in 8+ years when it had to pull out of Vietnam.
Yes, drones have no impact on today’s battlefield, and it makes no difference whether one fires unguided instead of precision artillery. One repeatedly wonders whether you seriously believe what you type.
Of course I believe what I type. I'll take your Mediazona figures - but it's the AFUs that are missing here. This is a costly war, but what we're expected to believe is that the AFU's are a factor less than the RFs and why should we do that given the weight of munitions available to either side? Even if it wasn't the artillery mismatch there'd be the glide bombs. Those RF losses are horrendous, but they (probably correctly) see this as existential - I'd rather it didn't become so for my kids.
Russia invading Ukraine is existential for Ukraine, not for Russia.
Re: losses, if you don’t believe the side that uses its people as literal cannon fodder has higher losses than the other, look for third party analyses like Mediazona’s on the Russian side. I saw one a few months ago which was ~50k dead vs Ukrainian gov tally of I believe 31k. Vs 100k+ on the Russian side. Not to in any way diminish the impact of ~50k dead :(
This morning I was just saying that it would be useful if someone could compare the reporting from a month ago with the reality, as I haven’t seen it, and as always, you didn’t disappoint and presented it very analytically and sharply, thanks, it’s really incredibly useful to see these things from perspective.
I’ll repeat another point, in addition to the ones mentioned above, in that the Kharkiv offensive will hopefully be yet another step towards releasing US/Germany/etc from the Russian escalation/nuclear blackmail. If strikes on Crimea and now into Russia itself are turning out to be just a normal part of a normal conventional war, surely no one can fall for Putin’s bluff anymore, and they’re losing their by far most effective weapon.
I know how odious it is to suggest a book subject to an author. But assuming we're all around in 5 years, an analysis of how the Russophilic viewpoint permeated US policy and media would be very interesting. Was it Russian information warfare or the preponderance of Russian Academia or what?
The persistent "UKRAINE cannot win" news is because the Russian propaganda machine and the Trumplicans framed it that way from the start. Had the narrative of the early Russian failures been highlighted along with a massive early infusion of assistance any minor Russian gains would be correctly reported.
Let's hope any NATO troops and French forces are out of the closet to push a narrative of a united West against a war of aggression.
Another case of democracies eventually doing the right thing? Refreshing....
From the central/eastern European point of view, the consolation in democracies eventually doing the right thing is really quite limited and bitter as it can take hundreds of thousands (like now) or millions of deaths of our people (like in WW2) and destroyed cities and entire ways of life… before the right thing is done. And it’s not automatically the case that democracies doing the right thing actually makes the outcome good for us: sometimes democracies do the right thing and we (a democracy, the first victim of the aggressor, the first country to call for help from other democracies, initially willing to fight) end up occupied for 40 years and from a rich and cultured western country we turn into a backwater where you wait in lines for toilet paper. And the lessons don’t seem to be universally learned and quickly forgotten in the west, and when we try to bring the lessons up, we are called biased and holding a grudge, or warmongers (as recently as 2023). Trust me, we are the first who would love to quickly forget all of this and move on - like we did with Germany (but there’s a reason why we didn’t with Russia). I guess that the consolation is that we are slowly moving the bloodlands zone further east: it’s no longer Poland, Baltics and the whole of Ukraine, “just” the southern and eastern Ukraine. That’s a progress I guess, but I really wish it didn’t have to be this slow… But who am I telling this, all the readers of this substack know this of course…!
You might reflect on the fact that it may take democracies a long time to do the right thing, but autocracies will always do the wrong thing.
As frustrating as it may be to watch democracies argue about the way things are done, the alternative is much, much worse.
So it is really rather pointless to criticize democracies. Rather, we should work to improve how they function. It was not democracy that slowed the entry of the US into World War II. It was the fact that there were quite a few Nazi sympathizers among the very wealthy and elected officials. It was not democracy that blocked aid to Ukraine, but Russian influence on the party of wealth and its politicians.
Oh I certainly didn’t mean it as a critique of democracies (but I see why it could sound like that). For me, this entire fight is of course a fight to keep our democracies. And I try my best in my home country so that we retain it, working with young people and being active in various civil society projects. My text was just meant to say that the often repeated “eventually we’ll do the right the thing” doesn’t sound quite as comforting everywhere. The word “eventually” has a very different meaning to people in Ireland/Norway/Spain/America vs people in Ukraine, Poland or Estonia. As pres Zelensky recently said, time in Ukraine is measured not in days, but in the number of people killed. And it really sometimes feels that not everyone in the west quite understands this. As in, there is a difference between being aware and really feeling it. Which I understand but I sometimes feel this creates a chasm between us and makes it hard to understand each other. For example, when the US passed the aid *eventually*, this was celebrated in the west, but in Ukraine the celebrations were mixed with many other feelings. That is a reality of course and I accept it, but it’s a different reality for different people.
Does anybody remember by the fall of 2022 when the running joke was, “It is good the Russians are so f$@!ing stupid.” ? This seems to be just another example of this in operation yet again.
Yet, it seems western media (US and UK in particular) who want to paint doom and gloom and seems to relish Russian victories. Why? They want to sell clicks and papers and frankly are trying to appease the far right in both countries. It is also, to your point Phillips, laziness and thus buying into the dominant propaganda narrative of Russian inevitability…
Oh by the way, the only Russian inevitability is the collapse of what remains of the Russian empire within the Federation today and the rightful return of Muscovy to being the only home for ethnic Russians.
First Hitler took back the Rhineland. It was Germany’s backyard, after all. Then he attacked in Spain…best to sign up to the Non-intervention Committee in such times. Then Hitler annexed Austria. It was practically already German. Then Czechoslovakia border areas - just some border regions! Then all of Czechoslovakia. He had to protect the persecuted German people there.
Then Poland. Can’t believe we had WWII over one dumb country.
(Georgia, Crimea, Syria, full scale invasion. Next Moldova, Estonia border…don’t forget hybrid attacks already experienced in the UK, Germany, Poland…)
Georgia attacked Russia (as confirmed by an extensive EU report), I'll give you Crimea, but they were there anyway and there had just been a violent coup in the country. In Syria the RF were invited by a desperate, mostly secular, state fighting an appalling Western backed jihadi armed insurgency (see the reports of James Foley, the US journalist before he was murdered by said jihadi scum).
What are your UK hybrid attacks? You're not talking about the Novichok fairy tale are you?
Trying to get everyone to freak out about WWIII is how autocracies get democracies to roll over and give them what they want (territory + more population to terrorise usually), cf Hitler and the threat of another war in the trenches. If you want to continue to enjoy all the freedoms of Western liberal democracy (free speech, travel, - basically a free choice in everything you do) then you may have to take the risk of WWIII. Giving in to bullies never works - you have to face them down or spend the rest of your life in subjugation.
That would certainly be an impediment, but the more dire threat to Ukraine long term are NATO countries sliding toward to the radical far right as we have seen in Netherlands, and the ever present Marine Le Pen in France, and Vox in Spain.
Can majorities of public opinion really remain blind to Putin's predations?
Western Europeans seem to have a habit of seeing Eastern Europe as an expendable Russian buffer zone. When the threat starts to feel closer, minds focus.
I agree that the right parties are the vulnerability. Both Poland & Italy seemed to have escaped the worst of Putinism. Guess I'm wondering if countries might muddle through the right wing menace in their own ways. Mike Johnson saw the light, for instance. Sharing some illiberal values with Putin does not mean that the right wants to see Russia dominate.
Phillips is great on content but failure to proof-read and to use SpellCheck is, I’m afraid, really distracting and irritating. Doing so takes only minutes; deadlines can’t be THAT tight!
Most people have an Achilles heel. Spelling just doesn't register in Philips’ brain. Strangely enough, I was a pathetic speller through college but eventually became a professional proofreader, so I've lived on both sides of this issue.
I presume the open deployment of French (and then other) troops to Ukraine will be most significant for the political benefit it will bring, rather than doing very much to change 'facts on the ground', although it must be better to train troops closer to where they'll be fighting than having to bring them out of the country.
Do you think it may open the way for other kinds of foreign support? I can't imagine NATO forces joining Ukrainians in the trenches (except perhaps a small number of special forces), but could NATO deploy anti-aircraft / anti-missile troops? This could be a way to overcome European fears about emptying their own stocks of such equipment by retaining control of it rather than handing it over to the Ukrainians, but still get it to where it needs to be. Or would NATO-operated equipment such as this firing at Russian planes (I guess missiles / drones would be much less 'provocative') be too much of a 'red line'?
Yes--but its also a commitment that will make Russia worry. What if they attack facilities and kill European troops--does that lead to more commitment for Ukraine
With the performance of the russisn militsry and political lesdership, would they really worry about this?
If anything, I could see the periodoc targetting of foreign troops, followed up with a claim of .techanical failure of gudance systems, to really test the committement of the nations that may come to sulport Ukraine.
In a very dark humor / black-adder way, it is hilarious how much western politicians twist themselves into pretzels. EU nations and NATO in general have basically decided to put an end to Russian expansionism for fear that a EU nation or NATO member could be next, triggering a article 5 emergency.
If that is the position, the gloves have to come off. Instead of just drip-drip pledging aid, promise that these parties will stand by Ukraine until the war is over and the 1992 borders are re-established. Tell the russians that the easiest way to end their losses is to withdraw. Etc. Stop putting handcuffs on the Ukrainians that have been brilliantly husbanding what little they have been given.
Thanks. But it does include some typos. 'Overall. The. In partical.' And 'war in confusing.' Besides that, what a welcome analysis among all the doom mongers. A question I've been pondering about is the current state of logistics on both sides. It most certainly is your expertise. What are your thoughts about the Russian logistics. Will they ground to a halt as well?
I wish people stopped pointing out the typos, I know you probably mean well but it’s really not important. Phillips writes all this free of charge in his very busy schedule, none of the typos obstruct the key message, and we all would much rather see professor focusing on the substance than obsessing over a few typos. Typos will happen but surely given the gravity of the issue he’s writing about, his time is much better spent doing other things than triple checking his texts.
Honestly, given a choice, I'd rather your efforts churned out more content than spend anytime on typos. Your articles are superb. Yours is the only one I pay for on substack, and I consider it money well spent, and s great cause.
From reading mostly from the MSM about how the red line of not allowing US weapons firing into Russia evolved into the beginnings of a more reasonable (and humane) policy, it seems Blinken was The Man. I had been thinking for a while that he, Biden, and the admin in general were being distracted by the blazing situation in Gaza, including all the seemingly endless shuttle diplomacy. But things seemed to have begun to turn around with Blinken's recent greater presence in Ukraine, perhaps especially after the barbaric attack on the hardware superstore in Kharkiv. I wonder if he hasn't been expediting the evolution of policy by simply making public statements announcing changes that in fact had not yet been authorized by the Security Council/Sullivan or Biden himself. This is of course pure speculation, but if Blinken has indeed been a prime mover of this positive evolution of the admin's policy re Ukraine, he should get the credit he deserves.
Are corporate media making decisions on coverage driven by corporate motivations (novelty, excitement, business interests in Russia, business interests in the military-industrial complex)?
Coverage of Ukraine has been fairly good until recently, but that of the OTHER genocide-Palestine, has been consistently inaccurate and biased. Perhaps corporate concerns, or, more likely, ideological bias, provides the explanation for the Palestinian issue coverage.
My favorite kind of “good” news to read is that which is incrementally, strategically better. Western backers have come a long way from 2022 in giving Ukraine what it really needs to win. And we’ve all come a long way from “The End of History”— shocked out of complacency and perhaps hubris. I’ve learned in reading your analysis and comparing it to mainstream reporting to distrust sensational headlines.
Next I would love to see better waterproofing on the sanctions front, especially against the proxy states (Azerbaijan, etc) that have flooded the order books of western firms. It would be a positive development indeed if we could stop working against ourselves in this respect.
When the NYT was reporting the distressing stories about Russian successes I kept thinking that the Ukrainians were feeding them that line to get more aid and to lift U.S. restrictions. If so, it worked.
One of your best yet (which given your customary high standards, really says something). Really outstanding. Succinct and rigourously analytical. Thx v much. Much appreciated.
Very kind of you to say Andy!
What you said, Andy!
thanks Paul
Absolutely! I look forward to reading Phillips' posts
The NYT should hire him to do analyses
Boggles my mind that some professor at a UK university can provide so much better info and perspective than the NYTimes. Thank you.
I will take that compliment!
Intended as such. Absolutely.
NYT has been fishwrap for decades now. (For the youngsters, "fishwrap" is an insulting term for bad newspapers because printed newspapers used to be used to hold fried fish from street vendors.) Since before Judith Miller. Since the headline lied about the results of the recount in Bush v Gore.
Multiple factors are coming together.
The Ukrainians continue to excel at deploying weapons surgically and the Russians keeps taking advantage of whatever boundaries that the administration puts on the Ukrainians. This will continue as long as JS & Co gets to pour sand into the gears of war.
The Czech initiative to buy artillery shells is starting to bear fruit. As the EU and the US ramps up shell production in general, better shell parity at the front will be achieved. This is really bad news for the RAF thanks to worn out barrels, lack of counter-battery radars, etc.
The declining stocks in Soviet Era weapons storage depots is likely another reason that Putin is putting out peace feelers. As the the RAF starts fielding more T55's and other scrap, it is pretty apparent that more modern tanks like the T72's, T80's, and T90's are simply no longer abundant. Zerg-like rushes through mine-fields can lead to incremental gains but at a very high cost to RAF materiel and equipment.
On the seas, the RN is running out of ships as the UAF continues to target ferries, transports, and like equipment that could supplement / replace the Kerch bridge. The table is being set to damage the Kerch bridge again and this time, there will be no alternative to resupply Crimea effectively. Allegedly, the Kerch train bridge is sufficiently weak that heavy trains can no longer use it - this is where I look forward to a post-war analysis of the truck bomb attack.
Note also how the Ukrainians chose to destroy the ferries in the harbor late at night to minimize non-military casualties. The targets in Russia were hit with Neptunes, the targets in Crimea were apparently hit with western missiles to maintain diplomatic niceties. Either way, blowing up ferries, oil depots, etc. is a far more effective use of military materiel than intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure during business hours (like big box stores) the way the RAF has.
In the air, the coming arrival of F16's (and potentially the far more interesting Gripens) along with Swedish AWACs is likely going to put an end to the Russian glide bomb party. While this latest JDAM-clone is very effective at pulverizing UAF defensive positions (by actually allowing targeting) once western fighters are in the skies, there will be ample opportunities to start taking out the glide-bomb delivery platforms by combining the radars of F16s, Patriots, and said AWACs. Expect more standoff operation from inside the 'safe zones' designated arbitrarily by the Biden administration.
One area of concern is the sheer competence the Russians are showing re: the construction of new rail lines inside Ukraine to help bring stuff down from Rostov-on-Don, etc. to the Crimean peninsula. Whereas the extant lines were in HIMARS range, the new lines run deeper inland and hence will be harder to intercept. Precision strikes targeting the engineering crews and their specialized equipment would have been super helpful re: Ukrainian war efforts.
Anyhow, I maintain optimism despite all the issues on the Ukrainian side - whether it's the half-hearted Western help, issues with mobilization, etc. the problems are surmountable while the endemic issues on the Russian side will take decades to fix, even if the will is found to try and address them. Russia is bleeding out and 0.5 million casualties with at least 1/3 of them KIA and 100k amputees will have a generational impact on the regions where most of the men came from.
I do think we also need not to swing too far towards optimism. Yes there are some positive developments--but the basic problem of the Ukrainians being outgunned will be a reality for a while and the need to generate more troops. Still, the reporting never seemed to engage with reality
The impact of AWACS when paired with western jets seems orders of magnitude higher than the scant coverage I’ve seen. Any thoughts?
The impact will likely depend on a multitude of factors. The Swedish AWACS likely is a game changer re: tracking more jets at a longer standoff distance but they’re also big targets that are very hard to replace and need protection.
So I don’t see a major change until Ukraine either gets a lot more Patriot missiles to protect towns and AWACs with and/or a lot more western jets that can fly combat air patrol to protect AWACS *AND* opportunistically take down Russian aircraft dumb enough to come too close to the artificial borders set up by the USA/EU/etc.
I don’t see that quantity of aircraft and pilots entering service until the latter part of summer / fall at the earliest. Never mind the logistics of maintaining such aircraft unless the west allows / recruits mercenaries to do same.
Yes that Czech artillery hunt is bearing fruit - unfortunately 50% of that fruit is rotten and all of it massively expensive. What did they expect grubbing around the globe with unlimited suitcases full of cash on offer to some of the worst people on Earth (arms dealers)? It was all so utterly predictable, but don't let the facts get in the way of your optimism eh? Details of the FT report here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/half-parts-needed-for-ukraine-ammo-are-faulty-manufacturer-says-2024-5?op=1l
Hey nice to see you back, thought you had unsubscribed.
A shell doesn’t consist of many components but in order to work well, said components have to be made well, meeting many tight tolerances. The fuzes at the tip also make a big difference, as air bursts are far more effective against advancing infantry formations than traditional impact triggers, etc.
I have no doubt that some shells sourced from abroad will have quality control issues, depending on the quality of the shell when it was delivered, how it was stored, how long it was stored, etc. Some OEMs like South Korea are very well respected, other OEMs likely struggle to meet high standards.
The telegram reports from the Russian side were pretty dramatic at first re: burst barrels and like issues when Russians started using North Korean ammunition. I haven’t heard much about all that since, suggesting that the Russians have either adapted (ie Quality control inspections, rejecting bad materiel on receipt) or barrels bursting these days is pretty normal due to overuse and hence is no longer news?
The FT article is customarily scant on details re: the issues that the Czech-sourced shells are bedeviled with. The writing suggests it could be related to the fuzes, which thanks to interoperability standards should be replaceable. But is it a lot of work to do that? Of course! At the same time, I’d much rather have to set up a Fuze Assembly line than a shell body line. There are far more components that go into the fuze, etc. but the equipment needed to make and fill shell casings has a far longer lead time.
Yet, buying shells from abroad, inspecting them, replacing bad components as needed, etc is still better than waiting for the EU and US artillery resupply chain to reconstitute itself from pre-war quasi-irrelevancy. Since 2/2022, the EU has had the cash but only wanted to spend it inside the EU on new shells.
So, I say inspect away and reject bad lots of ammunition as shady suppliers try to get rid of junk. These inspection systems are well established since WWII when Deming and his cohort led to the type of quality control that helped win the war, then led to the birth of the Toyota Production System, etc.
I’ll add that:
(a) the Czech initiative was competing with a Russian initiative to do the same. So why save your scorn exclusively for EU activity. Please, share the love.
(b) despite the poor quality, 50-100k 155mm shells are on the way within a month.
(c) Ukraine is already no longer in a position of shell hunger
(d) US production will get close to 1m / year next year and is already a few multiples of pre-full scale invasion levels
(e) Germany is also ramping production similarly, I roughly think also 1m / year
(f) Ukraine only needs 2m shells / year to fire a more-than-adequate 5k shells / day
That new rail line will have to be destroyed too. It has several bridges. But I suspect Ukraine will finish the comprehensive plan to eliminate the Russian Navy in the Black Sea first, since that's going well and is essential to interdicting Russian supply. Destroying rail lines is more work, and will be easier when Ukraine has unconstested control of the Black Sea (wait for it, it'll happen!)
What people need to be analyzing now is the collapse of Russia. I have seen *no* serious analyses of what's coming. It's coming, but who are the players? What are the resources? When, not if, the next Russian coup or civil war starts, what will we be looking at?
I suspect most Western governments will be as blindsided as they were when the USSR collapsed and they didn't know who Nursultan Nazerbayev was. It's astounding to me that they're repeating the same mistake 30 years later.
Please when you first use RAF put (Russian Air Force) after it I kept on wondering what was happening to the Royal Air Force. Similarly for RN. Otherwise, great comment.
Apologies and you are so right. Every time I use a shorthand term I should first precede it with a full name so its meaning Is clear.
Here, I was referring to Russian armed forces (RAF), the Russian Navy (RN), Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWAC), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF), and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).
The news business is always looking for something NEW. In 1991, my journalism professor called it "nuveaumania." We see it all the time. A new Russian offensive ithat advances a few kilometers into Ukraine is exciting, therefore newsworthy. The same Russian offensive bogged down weeks later is not "new" enough to be news. That's why the best analysis of Kharkiv *today* doesn't come from professional reporters at all.
All true Matt--they certainly love the dramatic. However that is really been against Ukraine since early 2022
You and I are thinking the same thing about how the press operates and what is or is not newsworthy.
Same issue with the US election. All sorts of clowns are given the megaphone to blather nonsense because it sparks outrage.
The press is doing a terrible job reporting how well the US economy is doing in general, how the migrant crisis isn't one, etc. Granted, some "news" outlets are basically captured and between Sinclair and Fox, a lot of news is only reported if it benefits the Republicans.
Given the likely change in expected average life expectancy of honest reporters once Trump is re-elected, I deduce that this bias re: coverage is likely due to management directives, not the front line reporters.
dont depress me!
You mean "convicted felon trump"!!!
The sad thing about the reliably pro-Russian line in the military reporting in the Western Press is that Russians who are intelligent enough to know they can't trust their own reporting and rely on Western sources will get a quite unrealistic view of how the war is going in Ukraine. Hopefully they mainly get the BBC which as far as I can tell (from Australia) tends to merely report rather than let their own views dominate and so gives a closer to accurate picture than many of the newspapers.
Think that might be right. BBC reporting doesnt seem to go overboard
Quite so, but that cuts both ways. The AFU and British Intelligence (cited by the Professor here) are equally untrustworthy (see the UK's intel reports of Afghanistan & Iraq for reasons to doubt their public statements nowadays). What a reasonable observer might do is consider them both, but also what we know by experience from previous conflicts. In particular here, what were the relative losses of attackers to defenders in conflicts where one side had a massive artillery advantage.
Where in history do we have examples of instances where the losses suffered by one side were in direct proportion to their own artillery advantage? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'd be very interested in your answer to this. I've asked a lot of people and so far drawn a blank, but in Ukraine we're expected to believe that this has been happening for over two years now.
Re: objective figure of losses, you talk as if we have only two possible sources. There are multiple third party analyses, on which I have posted regularly, some of which I guess you’ll have read. We seem to have multiple sources triangulating on 100-200k Russian dead, a staggering figure. The Mediazona methodology is admittedly conservative and is around 90k (they say casualty incorrectly to mean killed) and additionally undercounts foreign nationals (DPR/LNR, mercenaries), so I guess you can add 20k, war crimes against Ukrainians from occupied territories who have been (tragically) forcibly conscripted, and I believe anybody over 50. In my estimation, it likely further undercounts the very poor, what we would call MIA presumed KIA, and prisoners.
https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng
In the context of this data, UK MoD (and Ukrainian) estimates of 500k casualties seem very reasonable.
For additional context, this compares to 15k officially registered deaths across 9 years when Russia had to pull out of Afghanistan and 58k for the US in 8+ years when it had to pull out of Vietnam.
Yes, drones have no impact on today’s battlefield, and it makes no difference whether one fires unguided instead of precision artillery. One repeatedly wonders whether you seriously believe what you type.
Of course I believe what I type. I'll take your Mediazona figures - but it's the AFUs that are missing here. This is a costly war, but what we're expected to believe is that the AFU's are a factor less than the RFs and why should we do that given the weight of munitions available to either side? Even if it wasn't the artillery mismatch there'd be the glide bombs. Those RF losses are horrendous, but they (probably correctly) see this as existential - I'd rather it didn't become so for my kids.
Russia invading Ukraine is existential for Ukraine, not for Russia.
Re: losses, if you don’t believe the side that uses its people as literal cannon fodder has higher losses than the other, look for third party analyses like Mediazona’s on the Russian side. I saw one a few months ago which was ~50k dead vs Ukrainian gov tally of I believe 31k. Vs 100k+ on the Russian side. Not to in any way diminish the impact of ~50k dead :(
This morning I was just saying that it would be useful if someone could compare the reporting from a month ago with the reality, as I haven’t seen it, and as always, you didn’t disappoint and presented it very analytically and sharply, thanks, it’s really incredibly useful to see these things from perspective.
I’ll repeat another point, in addition to the ones mentioned above, in that the Kharkiv offensive will hopefully be yet another step towards releasing US/Germany/etc from the Russian escalation/nuclear blackmail. If strikes on Crimea and now into Russia itself are turning out to be just a normal part of a normal conventional war, surely no one can fall for Putin’s bluff anymore, and they’re losing their by far most effective weapon.
we were thinking alike
I know how odious it is to suggest a book subject to an author. But assuming we're all around in 5 years, an analysis of how the Russophilic viewpoint permeated US policy and media would be very interesting. Was it Russian information warfare or the preponderance of Russian Academia or what?
The WaPo has an article today "Russia co-opts far-right politicians in Europe with cash, officials say" Paywall free link https://wapo.st/459zkTv
Kamil Galeev has a lot to say on that topic!
The persistent "UKRAINE cannot win" news is because the Russian propaganda machine and the Trumplicans framed it that way from the start. Had the narrative of the early Russian failures been highlighted along with a massive early infusion of assistance any minor Russian gains would be correctly reported.
Let's hope any NATO troops and French forces are out of the closet to push a narrative of a united West against a war of aggression.
Another case of democracies eventually doing the right thing? Refreshing....
eventually---but lord it takes time (and they dont always)
Wasn’t it Churchill who said something like “…after trying everything else”?
I thought he said that about the Americans.
I think that’s right.
From the central/eastern European point of view, the consolation in democracies eventually doing the right thing is really quite limited and bitter as it can take hundreds of thousands (like now) or millions of deaths of our people (like in WW2) and destroyed cities and entire ways of life… before the right thing is done. And it’s not automatically the case that democracies doing the right thing actually makes the outcome good for us: sometimes democracies do the right thing and we (a democracy, the first victim of the aggressor, the first country to call for help from other democracies, initially willing to fight) end up occupied for 40 years and from a rich and cultured western country we turn into a backwater where you wait in lines for toilet paper. And the lessons don’t seem to be universally learned and quickly forgotten in the west, and when we try to bring the lessons up, we are called biased and holding a grudge, or warmongers (as recently as 2023). Trust me, we are the first who would love to quickly forget all of this and move on - like we did with Germany (but there’s a reason why we didn’t with Russia). I guess that the consolation is that we are slowly moving the bloodlands zone further east: it’s no longer Poland, Baltics and the whole of Ukraine, “just” the southern and eastern Ukraine. That’s a progress I guess, but I really wish it didn’t have to be this slow… But who am I telling this, all the readers of this substack know this of course…!
Many Westerners recognize how our slow response has caused much unnecessary suffering and regret it.
You might reflect on the fact that it may take democracies a long time to do the right thing, but autocracies will always do the wrong thing.
As frustrating as it may be to watch democracies argue about the way things are done, the alternative is much, much worse.
So it is really rather pointless to criticize democracies. Rather, we should work to improve how they function. It was not democracy that slowed the entry of the US into World War II. It was the fact that there were quite a few Nazi sympathizers among the very wealthy and elected officials. It was not democracy that blocked aid to Ukraine, but Russian influence on the party of wealth and its politicians.
Oh I certainly didn’t mean it as a critique of democracies (but I see why it could sound like that). For me, this entire fight is of course a fight to keep our democracies. And I try my best in my home country so that we retain it, working with young people and being active in various civil society projects. My text was just meant to say that the often repeated “eventually we’ll do the right the thing” doesn’t sound quite as comforting everywhere. The word “eventually” has a very different meaning to people in Ireland/Norway/Spain/America vs people in Ukraine, Poland or Estonia. As pres Zelensky recently said, time in Ukraine is measured not in days, but in the number of people killed. And it really sometimes feels that not everyone in the west quite understands this. As in, there is a difference between being aware and really feeling it. Which I understand but I sometimes feel this creates a chasm between us and makes it hard to understand each other. For example, when the US passed the aid *eventually*, this was celebrated in the west, but in Ukraine the celebrations were mixed with many other feelings. That is a reality of course and I accept it, but it’s a different reality for different people.
Does anybody remember by the fall of 2022 when the running joke was, “It is good the Russians are so f$@!ing stupid.” ? This seems to be just another example of this in operation yet again.
Yet, it seems western media (US and UK in particular) who want to paint doom and gloom and seems to relish Russian victories. Why? They want to sell clicks and papers and frankly are trying to appease the far right in both countries. It is also, to your point Phillips, laziness and thus buying into the dominant propaganda narrative of Russian inevitability…
Oh by the way, the only Russian inevitability is the collapse of what remains of the Russian empire within the Federation today and the rightful return of Muscovy to being the only home for ethnic Russians.
Oh, I don't know, Paul. There's always a chance of World War III, mass extinction through global warming, or the Apocalypse getting there first. </s>
World War III doesn't seem to bother many people in this comment section. They're willing to risk it over the fate of some disputed Oblasts.
First Hitler took back the Rhineland. It was Germany’s backyard, after all. Then he attacked in Spain…best to sign up to the Non-intervention Committee in such times. Then Hitler annexed Austria. It was practically already German. Then Czechoslovakia border areas - just some border regions! Then all of Czechoslovakia. He had to protect the persecuted German people there.
Then Poland. Can’t believe we had WWII over one dumb country.
(Georgia, Crimea, Syria, full scale invasion. Next Moldova, Estonia border…don’t forget hybrid attacks already experienced in the UK, Germany, Poland…)
Georgia attacked Russia (as confirmed by an extensive EU report), I'll give you Crimea, but they were there anyway and there had just been a violent coup in the country. In Syria the RF were invited by a desperate, mostly secular, state fighting an appalling Western backed jihadi armed insurgency (see the reports of James Foley, the US journalist before he was murdered by said jihadi scum).
What are your UK hybrid attacks? You're not talking about the Novichok fairy tale are you?
Trying to get everyone to freak out about WWIII is how autocracies get democracies to roll over and give them what they want (territory + more population to terrorise usually), cf Hitler and the threat of another war in the trenches. If you want to continue to enjoy all the freedoms of Western liberal democracy (free speech, travel, - basically a free choice in everything you do) then you may have to take the risk of WWIII. Giving in to bullies never works - you have to face them down or spend the rest of your life in subjugation.
Every enemy is Hitler to the neocons. I want to enjoy Western democracy, which is why I don't support proxy wars thousands of miles away.
🫰
The only thing that can defeat Ukraine now would be trump's election in November.
Not the only thing--but the most worrying thing. Europe could split, etc.
That would certainly be an impediment, but the more dire threat to Ukraine long term are NATO countries sliding toward to the radical far right as we have seen in Netherlands, and the ever present Marine Le Pen in France, and Vox in Spain.
yep
Can majorities of public opinion really remain blind to Putin's predations?
Western Europeans seem to have a habit of seeing Eastern Europe as an expendable Russian buffer zone. When the threat starts to feel closer, minds focus.
I agree that the right parties are the vulnerability. Both Poland & Italy seemed to have escaped the worst of Putinism. Guess I'm wondering if countries might muddle through the right wing menace in their own ways. Mike Johnson saw the light, for instance. Sharing some illiberal values with Putin does not mean that the right wants to see Russia dominate.
Three important TYPO's:
. . .the Kharkiv Offensive, which Russia launched more than 3 weeks ago (started March 10).
Should be May 10.
War in confusing, . . . should be "IS confusing."
Here is the run of New York Times stories on Ukraine between March 12-14.
Should be May 12-14.
Phillips is great on content but failure to proof-read and to use SpellCheck is, I’m afraid, really distracting and irritating. Doing so takes only minutes; deadlines can’t be THAT tight!
was running to catch a plane--otherwise wouldnt be out for hours (now). Ive tried to fix things
I appreciate your efforts Professor. Nitpicking can be draining. Looking forward to all your future articles.
Thank you.
I agree!
Most people have an Achilles heel. Spelling just doesn't register in Philips’ brain. Strangely enough, I was a pathetic speller through college but eventually became a professional proofreader, so I've lived on both sides of this issue.
It’s very difficult to proofread and copy edit one’s own material. It really does take a professional
It's easier if you let it sit overnight.
I read a lot of article on the Internet. The number of typos is much higher than in the NYTimes. On the other hand, the content is superior.
I am sympathetic because I cannot spell or proof read my writing
Thanks, a good update!
I presume the open deployment of French (and then other) troops to Ukraine will be most significant for the political benefit it will bring, rather than doing very much to change 'facts on the ground', although it must be better to train troops closer to where they'll be fighting than having to bring them out of the country.
Do you think it may open the way for other kinds of foreign support? I can't imagine NATO forces joining Ukrainians in the trenches (except perhaps a small number of special forces), but could NATO deploy anti-aircraft / anti-missile troops? This could be a way to overcome European fears about emptying their own stocks of such equipment by retaining control of it rather than handing it over to the Ukrainians, but still get it to where it needs to be. Or would NATO-operated equipment such as this firing at Russian planes (I guess missiles / drones would be much less 'provocative') be too much of a 'red line'?
Yes--but its also a commitment that will make Russia worry. What if they attack facilities and kill European troops--does that lead to more commitment for Ukraine
With the performance of the russisn militsry and political lesdership, would they really worry about this?
If anything, I could see the periodoc targetting of foreign troops, followed up with a claim of .techanical failure of gudance systems, to really test the committement of the nations that may come to sulport Ukraine.
In a very dark humor / black-adder way, it is hilarious how much western politicians twist themselves into pretzels. EU nations and NATO in general have basically decided to put an end to Russian expansionism for fear that a EU nation or NATO member could be next, triggering a article 5 emergency.
If that is the position, the gloves have to come off. Instead of just drip-drip pledging aid, promise that these parties will stand by Ukraine until the war is over and the 1992 borders are re-established. Tell the russians that the easiest way to end their losses is to withdraw. Etc. Stop putting handcuffs on the Ukrainians that have been brilliantly husbanding what little they have been given.
Thanks. But it does include some typos. 'Overall. The. In partical.' And 'war in confusing.' Besides that, what a welcome analysis among all the doom mongers. A question I've been pondering about is the current state of logistics on both sides. It most certainly is your expertise. What are your thoughts about the Russian logistics. Will they ground to a halt as well?
I wish people stopped pointing out the typos, I know you probably mean well but it’s really not important. Phillips writes all this free of charge in his very busy schedule, none of the typos obstruct the key message, and we all would much rather see professor focusing on the substance than obsessing over a few typos. Typos will happen but surely given the gravity of the issue he’s writing about, his time is much better spent doing other things than triple checking his texts.
I dont mind it--I go back and fix what I can. Just doing it for free--and wanting some free time on the weekends--I can be a little rushed
Honestly, given a choice, I'd rather your efforts churned out more content than spend anytime on typos. Your articles are superb. Yours is the only one I pay for on substack, and I consider it money well spent, and s great cause.
Pointing out the typos is useful.
Long live the typos and the typo correctors!
I agree wholeheartedly
Well said!!!
fixing--was running for a plane
From reading mostly from the MSM about how the red line of not allowing US weapons firing into Russia evolved into the beginnings of a more reasonable (and humane) policy, it seems Blinken was The Man. I had been thinking for a while that he, Biden, and the admin in general were being distracted by the blazing situation in Gaza, including all the seemingly endless shuttle diplomacy. But things seemed to have begun to turn around with Blinken's recent greater presence in Ukraine, perhaps especially after the barbaric attack on the hardware superstore in Kharkiv. I wonder if he hasn't been expediting the evolution of policy by simply making public statements announcing changes that in fact had not yet been authorized by the Security Council/Sullivan or Biden himself. This is of course pure speculation, but if Blinken has indeed been a prime mover of this positive evolution of the admin's policy re Ukraine, he should get the credit he deserves.
Are corporate media making decisions on coverage driven by corporate motivations (novelty, excitement, business interests in Russia, business interests in the military-industrial complex)?
Coverage of Ukraine has been fairly good until recently, but that of the OTHER genocide-Palestine, has been consistently inaccurate and biased. Perhaps corporate concerns, or, more likely, ideological bias, provides the explanation for the Palestinian issue coverage.
My favorite kind of “good” news to read is that which is incrementally, strategically better. Western backers have come a long way from 2022 in giving Ukraine what it really needs to win. And we’ve all come a long way from “The End of History”— shocked out of complacency and perhaps hubris. I’ve learned in reading your analysis and comparing it to mainstream reporting to distrust sensational headlines.
Next I would love to see better waterproofing on the sanctions front, especially against the proxy states (Azerbaijan, etc) that have flooded the order books of western firms. It would be a positive development indeed if we could stop working against ourselves in this respect.
When the NYT was reporting the distressing stories about Russian successes I kept thinking that the Ukrainians were feeding them that line to get more aid and to lift U.S. restrictions. If so, it worked.