Elijah J. Magnier
Harsh Western sanctions against Russia and its economic and financial institutions have continued since the first day of the Ukraine war (on February 24). The 30 member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) continue to send lethal custom weapons to Ukraine to fight the Russian army. NATO’s goal is to cause as many Russian losses as possible and prolong the war, allowing further Russian demonization and isolating it from the West, notwithstanding Europe’s need for Russian energy. Indeed, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has reiterated that Russian energy exports are irreplaceable in the coming years. However, changing Russia’s military plan and tactics provided the army with more modest objectives, possibly assuming that the war in Ukraine would not last long. However, it seems that Joe Biden’s administration is determined to keep the fight going as long as possible and increase the provocation to Russia on the European continent.
Obviously, the war was not only military, but also a media and propaganda war in which the West excelled, dominating its use against Russia. The Western media managed to instigate most of the Western world against Moscow, which became the “Great Satan” for most Europeans, who used a limited vocabulary to express their restricted knowledge about the background of the war in Ukraine. “Putin has gone crazy,” “Ukraine has the right to choose its alliance,” or “one powerful country cannot attack another with weaker capabilities” are the words widely used to accuse Russia’s “transgression” in Ukraine. There is little mention of how the U.S. administration, aware of Russia’s reaction to any plan to provoke Russia and endanger its security, led Moscow into a war in Ukraine, a conflict that President Vladimir Putin was aware of and decided to end militarily.
Consequently, what Russia or China said about the U.S. role as instigator became irrelevant. In fact, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman accused “the United States of defending its unilateralism. NATO expansion has pushed Russia into the crater of the volcano and against the wall. China will not take a position pro or against any country.”
Not surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that his battle in Ukraine is “to end American unilateralism that is ready to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian soldier.” Putin states that he is “determined to achieve his goals in Ukraine and end the war, whatever the cost, calmly and flexibly.” US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken confirmed what Russia and China have said and stated that “the Russian war is an attack on the international system,” a reference to the unilateral US world order, an attempt to dominate the world for the past 30 years.
President Putin showed military flexibility on the battlefield after downplaying the military targets set in the first weeks of the war by his military command and the heavy losses resulting from the first weeks of battle. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that “significant losses have occurred in the ranks of the Russian army.”
The West, led by the United States, was able to defeat Russia in the first phase of the war, thwarting the basic scheme that Kremlin leaders had mistakenly thought. The military leadership may have mistakenly believed that the arrival of Russian forces would be welcomed by the Ukrainians, who would regard the Russians as a force for peace. In contrast to this expectation, the Ukrainian army showed a willingness to fight and defend the cities fiercely, relying on the training, expertise, and appropriate weapons provided by the U.S. and many NATO countries to inflict the heaviest possible losses on the Russian army.
For these reasons, the Russian military command amended the military plan, withdrawing the army and its spearhead from most of the northern front, lifting the siege around several cities and preventing the advance into the capital Kiev. Russian military troops scattered in the north called back most parts of the army to withdraw through Belarus, replaced exhausted men with new forces, and reinforced the Donbass front and in the south (Mariupol). These more modest and achievable objectives limited Russia’s losses and could reasonably allow complete control of the Donbass, which is easily defensible in the future.
The Russian military leadership changed the “soft military approach” and began to use the “scorched earth” policy. All gloves were removed and the continuous bombardment of targets and military infrastructure became harsher, a classic military method known from previous wars.
The number of Russian attacking forces (150,000-200,000) does not fit the objectives (declared by the US on behalf of Russia) of occupying all of Ukraine. Putin may have counted on an internal coup in Kiev to overthrow President Volodymyr Zelensky. Perhaps this was the Russian plan that failed in its embryonic stage. The Russian leadership paid no attention to the difficulty of the supply routes, which stretched for thousands of miles, allowing the Ukrainians to inflict severe damage on the Russian army.
Meanwhile, President Putin stated that “Ukraine has withdrawn from the consensus reached during diplomatic talks between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul.” With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying that “the war will be prolonged and he will not give up any inch of his country,” this means that Russian control of the Donbass cannot end the war and that when Russian control of that region is established, it may mean that Ukraine will not surrender. The US administration is sending more weapons (worth $3 billion) and training the Ukrainian army to restore some of its strength, enough to return to the battlefield and attack the Russian military or the separatists. Russia seems more determined than ever and is certainly not expected to abandon its military campaign. It is expected to destroy the capabilities of the Ukrainian army and empower the Donbass with the necessary military means.
Modifying the military plan of attack to make it more viable is evidence of accepting losses, which is routine for all large armies involved in a war. In fact, US forces occupied Afghanistan and failed to prevent Taliban control over dozens of provinces, despite tens of thousands of NATO troops. After twenty years, the Taliban forced the US forces out and regained power.
In Iraq, US forces came under severe attack, forcing a withdrawal after eight years of occupation due to resistance and “Al-Qaeda” attacks. Despite operating rooms in Jordan, Turkey and Syria, NATO was unable to topple the Syrian regime, even though it sent tons of weapons and allowed foreign fighters to join ISIS.
Moreover, the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1979 was forced to withdraw after ten years. Today, however, the Russian military leadership has learned from the first weeks of the battle, modifying the objectives in Ukraine to control the Donbass, allowing the separatists’ military troops to defend the province, creating an area rich in industry and agriculture, and depriving Ukraine of the Sea of Azov. Russia’s war against Ukraine sends messages to Georgia and NATO that the era of consensus is over.
However, it may not be the end of the battle. Finland and Sweden have decided to join NATO. This is a red line for Moscow and an escalation of the U.S. before Moscow, despite the economic inflation that has begun to exhaust the entire world. Consequently, the battle for NATO expansion started from the Ukrainian doorstep, and may not end at Kiev’s borders. Thus, instead of the Middle East, Europe is a strong candidate for the US to be chosen as its arena for future conflicts.
Elijah J Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and senior political risk analyst with more than three decades of experience.
INTERNATIONALIST 360° 