The internet is awash with armchair generals (not that there’s anything wrong with being an armchair general – I am one myself) telling us that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not going according to plan. They point out that the frontlines have barely moved in the last week, that a lot of Russian vehicles have been knocked out or broken down, that the Russian air force seems to be absent and various other things (twenty-year old rations is one of my favourites.) Some are even suggesting that the Russians might get kicked out of Ukraine.Â
I, and I am sure most Samizdatistas, would dearly like this to be true. But the facts don’t care about our beliefs. The truth may be very different. So, if you are looking for an antedote to the narrative I would suggest checking out Task & Purpose’s YouTube on the subject. He points out that the Russians have had victories and that during the Iraq War there was a similar narrative about the allies being bogged down when they were nothing of the sort. The thing I really like about it is that he – that would be presenter Chris Cappy, an Iraq War veteran – admits that he doesn’t know what’s going on. And that’s kind of the point.
It’s always been pretty obvious to me that anyone proclaiming the Russians were failing because they didn’t conquer Ukraine in much less time than it took the US to conquer Iraq were either pushing ridiculous propaganda or else were totally convinced that the Russian military is vastly superior to the US military.
I think the key insight is that we know almost nothing. The news media is dishonest at the best of times, and war media is notoriously propaganda rather than fact. There have been numerous examples of things that were later demonstrated to be false. So a combination of a deeply dishonest media, the fog of war, and deliberate spin from both the intelligence services and the Ukrainians means that we know almost nothing.
Cell phone videos let us know that it is really terrible. But real tactical or strategic information? We know nothing. When you hear something about the war you should rather ask — why are they telling me this?
We hear the constant talking point about the dishonest Russian media, and the threat of jail time for dissenting journalists. But here in the US the media is just as dishonest, and we are hearing serious talk from serious high level politicians saying people who dissent from the party line are traitors, and even lawmakers calling on the Department of Justice to investigate such people.
Truth is the first casualty of war. And if the story you are hearing is the one you want to hear you should be especially skeptical.
“Truth is the first casualty of war.” Never been big on that phrase. A bit too trite for my liking.
On the point about the hysteria that is getting whipped up I confess I find it distasteful. If we were at war with Russia, I’d have no problem with it. But we are NOT at war with Russia. It should be possible to watch RT and all the other forms of Putinist propaganda. It’s part of being a free society.
My view is the United Kingdom has been in a state of de facto low level war with Russia for quite some time now, March 2018 to be precise, when they used a radiological weapon on UK soil.
But I agree that we should be able to see their propaganda unhindered. I also dislike people treating every expat Russian as being personally responsible for Putin’s vile behaviour. And Russians taking the enormous risk to criticise Putin from inside Russia are nothing less than heroic.
I do not know the military situation in the Ukraine.
Mark Steyn got so irritated by conflicting claims and counter claims that he went to see for himself. That is what a reporter does – and, as I have not done so, I can not comment on what the military situation is.
Perry is correct – for Mr Putin to murder people in Russia is bad, but not act of war against Britain. For him to order murders in Britain (which he has – repeatedly) is something else again.
It is often forgotten that it was not “just” the sinking of many American ships that led the House and Senate declaring war on Imperial Germany in 1917 – it was attacks ordered by Imperial Germany INSIDE the United States.
Sadly many of our libertarian and conservative brothers and sisters think they “know” about the First World War, and the American Civil War, and the Second World War and the Cold War – but what they “know” is nonsense pushed by the late Murray Rothbard (an excellent economist – but a systematically bad historian) and his followers.
If Rothbard was alive today he would, of course, be carrying water for Mr Putin – just as he carried water for so many other dictators.
The bizarre thing was that a lot of the fake “knowledge” that Rothbard pushed came from far left “historians” such a Gabriel Kolko and Harry Elmer Barnes.
When Jeremy Corbyn wrote an introduction for a new edition for the “classic” anti-Semitic work by Hobson (which, basically, argued that the British Empire was a Jewish Conspiracy) a lot of people were shocked – but I was not, after all Hobson himself was a leftist (very much a “New” Liberal).
“My view is the United Kingdom has been in a state of de facto low level war with Russia for quite some time now, March 2018 to be precise, when they used a radiological weapon on UK soil.”
If you are referring to the Salisbury Skripal poisonings, then it was a chemical nerve agent that was used, not anything of a radiological nature.
Yes, I meant chemical nerve agent Jim. My point stands.
By that standard, since Saudi Arabia murdered someone inside Turkey, and Turkey is a NATO member, all of NATO is at war with Saudi Arabia. Fortunately sane people don’t use that standard.
By that standard, since Saudi Arabia murdered someone inside Turkey, and Turkey is a NATO member, all of NATO is at war with Saudi Arabia. Fortunately sane people don’t use that standard.
A state of de facto low level war. I was not suggesting nuking Moscow in retaliation, but it is delusional to think we have not been in a violence based conflict with Russia for quite some time. Idiot.
Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul.
I’m sure you could find a lawyer to claim he was killed on Saudi territory, therefore nothing to do with either Turkey or NATO.
This will doubtless be one of the issues that the bloviating blond buffoon does not bring up on his visit to Saudi Arabia.
Perry,
Your memory is perhaps better than you think: I read your radiological comment as being in reference to the London murder of Alexander Litvinenko as far back as 2006.
I’d hate to be a pedant, especially to PdH, but in re-examination, wasn’t that the nerve gas attack by the Cathedral Crawlers, and the Polonium Tea Party was as long ago as 2006? And our wonderful government did nothing!
Edit: I see that DW pipped me to it.
It doesn’t speak well of Putin that people have to specify whether they were speaking of his attempts at murder on foreign soil by radioactive poison or his attempts at murder on foreign soil by chemical poison.
😉
@Perry de Havilland (London)
Lots of pedantic comments on this, but two things about this are important:
1. Why did they kill this guy nerve gas guy and the Polonium poisoned guy, that way? I mean a bullet in the head is a lot cheaper. Clearly it is to make it clear to anyone that they did it, but leaving no definite evidence that they did. The message is “we can get you, anywhere, you are not safe, so better to just shut up.”
2. The original point about war was Crozier’s statement that he was OK with whipping up hysteria if we were at war. From that perspective I think we aren’t, but TBH I think it is deeply wrong to do that even if we were at war. It is at the very root of what is wrong with both governments in general and war in particular — as if it is their job to form public opinion, even resorting to dishonesty, rather than following it. Of course this is just standard operating practice for governments, they don’t even blink at this even though it is basically deeply evil and deeply anti democratic.
For sure, and in fact the people in charge shouldn’t even have the ability to hinder it, never mind deciding to. It is an example of giving up who were are to prevent them from changing us.
I think this is a really great point Perry. Russians living in the west won’t have the advantage of having darker colored skin to protect them from systemic racism. But even so, I have a very good friend who is Russian and living in Russia. He is completely horrified by what his government is doing, ashamed in fact. He had nothing to do with invading Ukraine, he opposes it as much as he dares, and yet his life is in a shambles because of Western sanctions.
When the West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq — two countries that had not attacked us — and killed thousands of innocent people, I vehemently objected, I protested, and tried to stop it. But of course nobody in Washington cared, and my protests meant nothing. I live in a reasonably free (though getting less so) and my protests changed nothing. For him, he has even less power, and consequently even less responsibility.
(BTW, I am not at all suggesting the the invasion of the Middle East was as horrific and wrong as the invasion of Ukraine, my point is about how responsible and culpable the citizens are for the actions of their government.)
In the wake of the German sabotage campaign in the United States, two German diplomats were expelled. One was the improbably named Captain Boy-Ed. The other was a certain Captain von Papen. That von Papen.
I was getting the two confused, but yes, just makes my point ever more so 😀
Following Patrick’s post, I am under no illusions on who might win this conflict in Ukraine, at least in cold military terms. The Russian’s sheer weight of numbers could tell in the end. That said, the old notion appears to apply that if you wish to win decisively in attacking an enemy, you need a three-to-one weight of material. In the Normandy landings of 1944, the British, Canadian and US forces had weight of material, not to mention air superiority, on their side. On paper, the Russians outnumber the Ukrainians, but maybe not as much or in certain ways as some thought.
About a fortnight ago I remember seeing those photos of miles and miles of Russian tanks parked on a road. And a friend of mine, who used to fly Jaguars in the 70s and 80s, told me that this is what is truly meant as a “target-rich environment”. There is simply no way that a competently led army puts large collections of armour together where it can be destroyed. Imagine a squadron of US A-10s, with their terrifying .3 gatling guns in the nose, turning this stuff into scrap metal.
Whatever else one can say, the people running the Russian army appear to be not good at co-ordinating tanks and infantry; they appear cockily confident of few serious threats from the air. Whether Ukrainian forces, helped by Western anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft missiles, can hold the Russians off, is open to question.
All I can do is hope that the Ukrainians prevail.
JP,
Absolutely agree. It was my first thought when I saw the traffic-jam. Send in the A-10s. It would be like The Falaise Gap in Spades.
This is why America did so well in Vietnam.
Why both the USSR and America did so well in Afghanistan.
I think it’s going to be interesting if Russia does push right to NATOs borders and tries to hold what they take. We haven’t seen an actual “insurgency” between two modern nations, and I suspect that the Ukrainians don’t care much for Russians.
William O. B’Livion.
The United States military did everything it was told to do in Vietnam – and if it had been told to go into North Vietnam and kill the Marxist rulers there, it would have done that as well.
If you want to know what the United States military was, and was not, allowed to do in Vietnam then read “Strategy for Defeat” by Admiral Sharp – the problem was not a military one in Vietnam, it was a political one in Washington D.C.
As for Afghanistan – before Mr Biden ordered the pull out there had been no American deaths for a year. Again Afghanistan was not a MILITARY problem.
I do not know what is going on in Ukraine – but I do know the military history of Vietnam and Afghanistan, these were most certainly not military defeats. They were political defeats – in each case the key battle space was Washington D.C.
As for not cutting enemy supply lines to Vietnam and Cambodia by putting regular forces into Laos.
Again – not allowed to do that.
The Kennedy Administration (Jack Kennedy and Robert McNamara) preferred to rely on Hill Tribes and a few CIA people, who could not do the job.
Similar to the “Bay of Pigs” in Cuba – President Kennedy personally choose the site of the landing (overruling the military) and refused to have any American forces involved at all – including no Air Support. Jack Kennedy might as well have killed the Cuban Exiles himself – as he was sending them to certain death (but the media said that President Kennedy nobly took the blame for the blunders of others – the blunders were his-own and the media carried his water, as they always did).
Yet this is presented as an “American defeat”.
Politically yes – militarily the American armed forces were not even there.
As for removing the government of South Vietnam – I have no idea why Jack Kennedy did that, he was on so many drugs perhaps even he did not know why he did it.
He also ordered the government (including the Agency) to back the Liberal Party in Canada and hit the Conservative Party of Canada.
Why? Who knows.
Jack Kennedy was on every drug (medical and recreational) and was dying of Addison’s disease.
So who knows why he did anything that he did. Sadly President Johnson was no better (he was actually WORSE) – and without the excuse of drugs or disease.
Anyone who says that the American media would never support a candidate for President they knew to be medially unfit (the senile Joseph Biden) and would never support a rigged Presidential election (2020), does not know the history of 1960 very well.
They knew Jack Kennedy was using every drug he could lay his hands on, and was dying of Addison’s Disease – but they covered it up. Just as they presented Jack Kennedy as a good-clean-Catholic boy, when they knew he was sharing mistresses with Mafia bosses.
And they knew that the 1960 Presidential Election was rigged – and they covered that up as well.
The media have not suddenly become scum – they have always been scum.
The only thing they care about is “is it Progressive?” – nothing else matters to them.
Paul, thanks for the tip about Admiral Sharp’s book. I must read that sometime.
I wouldn’t like it to be true. Putin has spent the last 20 years watching the US rolling around the world trying to force their liberal utopia and killing millions in the process, and seeing the scam roll up to his border has decided to protect his country from being ‘liberated’.
You guys are still under the spell. There’s only one country (ok, and it’s chattels) that has caused widespread destruction and carnage this century.
Look at the people in power in the west. look at our culture. look at what we’ve done. We’re not the good guys you fucking idiots.
Putin has spent the last 20 years watching the US rolling around the world trying to force their liberal utopia and killing millions in the process, and seeing the scam roll up to his border has decided to protect his country from being ‘liberated’.
First, Steve, define your terms. The US “rolled around” Iraq and Afghanistan in order to go after those it thought – rightly or wrongly – had perpetrated 9/11 and associated horrors. (As for the causalties of these military campaigns, the numbers directly killed by Western powers is not in the millions.)
We can and do argue the merits of this, and people of good will can and do disagree. There was the perhaps naive idea of spreading liberal values (individual rights, tolerance, equality under the law, free speech, etc) would be a good thing. (I use the word “liberal” in its correct, British sense.) If is a “scam” to do this, it was a damn sight better than what Mr Putin, who has fermented conquest and trouble in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, etc, is doing. Further, the idea that there is “only one country” that has caused trouble in the 21st is dishonest rubbish, and transparently so. Your remark suggests that Putin was justified in invading a neighbour based on legitimate fears. I call BS on this. As do people whom I know in Ukraine.
I do indeed look and despair at the people running much of the West, and the culture. But as we keep saying, never forget the wonderful word “and”. It is not either/or. Stop thinking tribally. It is possible to dislike much of what goes on in the West and to be appalled by Mr Putin and his attack on a sovereign nation state with such flimsy and absurd pretexts.
Consider yourself responded to. The “idiot”, may I suggest, is you.
Johnathan Pearce.
What is the point of talking to a person who thinks that the United States has killed “millions of people over the last 20 years” – or that George Walker Bush (not a man of great imagination or creativity) wanted to build a “liberal utopia” (there you go – Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to build a “liberal utopia”) . There is no point at all in talking to a person like that – even if their claims were true (rather than the propaganda of Mr Putin’s “RT”) they would not be relevant. It is like saying “do not blame Mr Smith for murdering people – because Mr Jones has also murdered people”.
It is Rothbardianism – and there is no limit to it, none.
It does not stop and siding with Saddam Hussain in Iraq (it was Saddam’s supporters who created Islamic State, ISIS – as he himself was moving that way, for example donating his own blood as ink for a copy of the Koran, the young socialist in the 1960s had changed a bit by the end) or the Taliban in Afghanistan (who are responsible for most of the civilian dead there – and are busy murdering people right now as-I-am-typing-these-words).
The Rothbardians will even defend the Third Reich – and make out that “America” was the Bad Guy on that as well. For example, in Murray Rothbard’s history of American banking he says (in passing – as if it was the most normal claim) that it was envy of German trade deals that led to the British and American “drive to war” against poor-innocent-Mr Hitler.
You think that you can get Rothbardians to see Mr Putin for what he is? Not a chance – it is all the fault of America, because EVERYTHING is the fault of America to them.
By the way I am a nasty old man and did not support “nation building” in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am much too cynical about the population of these places to support that – ask “Central Office” if I am a “liberal utopian”.
But to say that the United States “murdered millions of people” in these places is bovine excrement. And anyone who thinks the other side, in either of these places, were “freedom fighters” (other than in the literal sense of fighting AGAINST freedom) is away with the Elves and Pixies.