Withdraw from Artyomovsk!

This is the advice which social media say the U.S. Government is today giving to the Zelensky regime in Kiev. It follows by a day or two the public release by German intelligence operatives of their own assessment of the latest course of the war, saying that the stubborn resistance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to advancing Russian ground units in Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), just as the defense of Soledar (lost to the Russians a week ago) was and is a death trap set by the Russians for the Ukrainians. As the U.S. overlords understand today, continued losses of Ukrainian forces in these hopeless PR stunts are compromising any chances of their making a spring counteroffensive when the advanced military gear now being shipped to them arrives and is put into the field.

What conclusion can we reach from “withdraw from Artyomovsk”?  Very simply that the notion of 1:1 death and ingured rates that the Anglosaxon news disseminators have been shouting for weeks to slant the news towards some “stalemate” between the opposing sides is pure nonsense.  It would be safer to follow the figures put out by the Russian military, which indicate a 10:1 imbalance in casualties on the Ukrainian side.

Meanwhile, the big news in the past 24 hours was the meeting of the Ukraine Contact Group in the German army base at Ramstein. This was most notable for the failure of the defense ministers of the 50 participating countries to reach any agreement over delivery of tanks to the Ukrainians. Tanks are allegedly needed to support Ukraine’s spring counter offensive, with the objective not merely to push back the Russians to the line of demarcation in Donbas prior to the start of the Special Military Operation, but even to recapture the Crimea.

The central issue at Ramstein was German Chancellor Scholz’s refusal to send in German Leopard heavy tanks or to allow the many NATO countries where Leopards are held in the inventory to send any of their tanks to Kiev.  Scholz is said to insist the Americans first ship their own Abrams tanks to Kiev before Germany will lift a finger.  And why is he being so stubborn in resisting all the jackal states in NATO on this very issue? Western reports say he is fearful of leading the pack on delivery of tanks and incurring special Russian wrath. 

Let us decode this message:  the German chancellor is not some indecisive imbecile, as our newspapers hint.  No, he is a cunning fox who is unwilling to allow Washington to send him and Europe to hell in what could easily become a Russia-NATO hot war if the Russian red lines forbidding heavy armaments deliveries are crossed.

So all the Ukrainians will get by way of new weapon systems as per the decisions announced yesterday in Ramstein are token deliveries of armored personnel carriers and armored machine gun and cannon vehicles that one might just call light tanks.   That and a lot more howitzers of every variety coming from several different NATO countries.

But in terms of the big picture, what difference would tanks make?   The vision of big tank warfare across the Ukrainian steppes that underlies the Washington war scenario is fallacious.  As I have pointed out repeatedly, despite the lies and PR blasts from Washington and London, the war is being fought according to the Russian scheme, not the U.S. scheme.  

We have heard how poorly the Russians coordinate air and ground.  We have heard how they just cannot put together any good shock and awe. But this is beside the point.  The Russians are waging an artillery war for good reasons:  they have the world’s largest manufacturing industry of cannon, multi-rocket field launchers and munitions and they are waging a war of attrition on the ground which can only favor their armies.

If the slaughter of Ukrainians continues at its present rate, if the United States and its allies cannot ramp up munitions production, if the destruction of the Ukrainian energy infrastructure continues, if the logistics for conveying Western military supplies to the front are further impaired, then the Russians will find themselves against a disarmed Ukrainian army some time in the early spring, and they may get the capitulation they seek without shock and awe heroics.

In saying this, I acknowledge my own misreading of the Russian war plans, since I expected them to deliver the death blow to Kiev some time ago.  But then I am joined in this misreading by many others who actually have military expertise guiding their assessments, such as Col. Douglas MacGregor. 

Who laughs last, laughs best.  And that may well explain the sardonic smile we see from time to time in President Putin’s public statements about the course of the war effort.

That is not to say that we can sleep calmly in the belief that the end of the war is nigh.  There are risks arising as the inevitability of a Russian victory sinks into thick skulls at the Pentagon.  The latest risks come from those saying publicly in Washington that the Ukrainians must be given longer range missiles so that they can strike directly at Russian military installations in Crimea if not in Central Russia.   Such extravagant plans for the conquest of Russia can lead only to a nuclear response from Moscow and…the end of civilization as we know it.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

Translations below into French (Youri), German (Andreas Mylaeus), Italian (Roberto Pozzi) and Brazilian Portuguese (Evandro Menezes)

Retirez-vous d’Artyomovsk !

Voici le conseil que, selon les médias sociaux, le gouvernement américain donne aujourd’hui au régime de Zelensky à Kiev. Il suit d’un jour ou deux la publication par les services de renseignement allemands de leurs estimations sur le déroulement actuel de la guerre, selon lesquelles la résistance obstinée des forces armées ukrainiennes à l’avancée des unités terrestres russes à Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), tout comme la défense de Soledar (perdue au profit des Russes il y a une semaine) était et reste un piège mortel tendu par les Russes aux Ukrainiens. Comme les maîtres américains le comprennent aujourd’hui, les pertes continues des forces ukrainiennes dans ces opérations désespérées de PR (Public Relations) compromettent toute chance de contre-offensive de printemps lorsque l’équipement militaire avancé qui leur est maintenant expédié arrivera et sera mis sur le terrain.

Quelle conclusion pouvons-nous tirer du “retrait d’Artyomovsk” ?  Tout simplement que la notion de taux de mortalité et de blessures de 1:1 que les diffuseurs de nouvelles anglosaxons ont crié pendant des semaines pour orienter les nouvelles vers une certaine “impasse” entre les camps opposés est une pure absurdité.  Il serait plus sûr de suivre les chiffres publiés par l’armée russe, qui indiquent un déséquilibre de 10:1 dans les pertes du côté ukrainien.

Entre-temps, la grande nouvelle de ces dernières 24 heures a été la réunion du groupe de contact sur l’Ukraine sur la base militaire allemande de Ramstein. Cette réunion a surtout été marquée par l’incapacité des ministres de la défense des 50 pays participants à trouver un accord sur la livraison de chars aux Ukrainiens. Les chars seraient nécessaires pour soutenir la contre-offensive de printemps de l’Ukraine, dont l’objectif n’est pas seulement de repousser les Russes jusqu’à la ligne de démarcation dans le Donbass avant le début de l’opération militaire spéciale, mais également de reconquérir la Crimée.

La question centrale à Ramstein était le refus du chancelier allemand Scholz d’envoyer des chars lourds Léopard allemands ou d’autoriser les nombreux pays de l’OTAN qui possèdent des Léopard en stock à envoyer l’un de leurs chars à Kiev.  Scholz insisterait pour que les Américains envoient d’abord leurs propres chars Abrams à Kiev avant que l’Allemagne ne lève le petit doigt.  Et pourquoi s’entête-t-il à résister à tous les États chacals de l’OTAN sur ce point précis ? Selon les rapports occidentaux, il craint de prendre la tête du peloton pour la livraison des chars et de s’attirer les foudres de la Russie.

Décodons ce message : le chancelier allemand n’est pas un imbécile sans discernement, comme le laissent entendre nos journaux.  Non, c’est un renard rusé qui ne veut pas permettre à Washington de l’envoyer, lui et l’Europe, en enfer dans ce qui pourrait facilement devenir une guerre chaude Russie-OTAN si les lignes rouges russes interdisant les livraisons d’armements lourds sont franchies.

Ainsi, tout ce que les Ukrainiens obtiendront comme nouveaux systèmes d’armes, conformément aux décisions annoncées hier à Ramstein, ce sont des livraisons symboliques de véhicules blindés de transport de troupes et de véhicules blindés à mitrailleuses et à canons que l’on pourrait appeler des chars légers.  Tout cela, ainsi qu’un grand nombre d’obusiers de toutes sortes provenant de plusieurs pays de l’OTAN.

Mais en termes de vision d’ensemble, quelle différence les chars feraient-ils ?  La vision d’une guerre de grands chars dans les steppes ukrainiennes que sous-tend le scénario de guerre de Washington est fallacieuse.  Comme je l’ai souligné à plusieurs reprises, malgré les mensonges et les campagnes de relations publiques de Washington et de Londres, la guerre se déroule selon le plan russe, et non selon le plan américain. 

Nous avons entendu que les Russes coordonnent mal les opérations aériennes et terrestres.  Nous avons entendu dire qu’ils ne peuvent tout simplement pas mettre en place un bon “shock and awe”. Mais ce n’est pas la question.  Les Russes mènent une guerre d’artillerie pour de bonnes raisons : ils possèdent la plus grande industrie de fabrication de canons, de lance-roquettes et de munitions au monde et ils mènent une guerre d’usure sur le terrain qui ne peut que favoriser leurs armées.

Si le massacre des Ukrainiens se poursuit à son rythme actuel, si les États-Unis et leurs alliés ne parviennent pas à augmenter la production de munitions, si la destruction de l’infrastructure énergétique ukrainienne se poursuit, si la logistique permettant d’acheminer les fournitures militaires occidentales vers le front est encore perturbée, les Russes se retrouveront face à une armée ukrainienne désarmée au début du printemps, et ils obtiendront peut-être la capitulation qu’ils recherchent sans avoir à recourir à des actions héroïques de type “shock and awe”.

En disant cela, je reconnais que j’ai mal interprété les plans de guerre de la Russie, puisque je m’attendais à ce qu’elle porte le coup fatal à Kiev depuis un certain temps déjà.  Mais je suis rejoint dans cette mauvaise interprétation par beaucoup d’autres personnes qui ont une expertise militaire pour guider leurs évaluations, comme le colonel Douglas MacGregor.

Rira bien qui rira le dernier.  Et cela pourrait bien expliquer le sourire sardonique que nous voyons de temps en temps dans les déclarations publiques du président Poutine sur l’évolution de l’effort de guerre.

Cela ne veut pas dire que nous pouvons dormir tranquillement en croyant que la fin de la guerre est proche.  Des risques apparaissent à mesure que l’inévitabilité d’une victoire russe s’enfonce dans les crânes épais du Pentagone.  Les risques les plus récents proviennent de ceux qui disent publiquement à Washington qu’il faut donner aux Ukrainiens des missiles de plus longue portée afin qu’ils puissent frapper directement les installations militaires russes en Crimée, sinon en Russie centrale.   Des plans aussi extravagants pour la conquête de la Russie ne peuvent conduire qu’à une réponse nucléaire de Moscou et… à la fin de la civilisation telle que nous la connaissons.

Rückzug aus Artjomowsk!

Dies ist der Ratschlag, den die US-Regierung laut sozialen Medien heute dem Selenski-Regime in Kiew gibt. Er folgt ein oder zwei Tage nach der Veröffentlichung einer eigenen Einschätzung des jüngsten Kriegsverlaufs durch deutsche Geheimdienstmitarbeiter, die besagt, dass der hartnäckige Widerstand der ukrainischen Streitkräfte gegen die vorrückenden russischen Bodentruppen in Artjomowsk (auch bekannt als Bachmut) ebenso wie die Verteidigung von Soledar (vor einer Woche an die Russen verloren) eine von den Russen für die Ukrainer aufgestellte Todesfalle war. Wie die US-Oberherren heute wissen, gefährden die anhaltenden Verluste der ukrainischen Streitkräfte bei diesen hoffnungslosen PR-Stunts die Chancen auf eine Gegenoffensive im Frühjahr, wenn die moderne Militärausrüstung, die ihnen jetzt geliefert wird, eintrifft und ins Feld gebracht wird.

Welche Schlussfolgerung können wir aus “Rückzug aus Artjomowsk” ziehen?  Ganz einfach, dass die Vorstellung von einem Verhältnis von 1:1 bei den Toten und Verwundeten, die die angelsächsischen Nachrichtensprecher seit Wochen verbreiten, um die Nachrichten in Richtung einer “Pattsituation” zwischen den gegnerischen Seiten zu lenken, reiner Unsinn ist.  Es wäre sicherer, sich an die vom russischen Militär veröffentlichten Zahlen zu halten, die ein Ungleichgewicht von 10:1 bei den Opfern auf ukrainischer Seite ausweisen.

Die wichtigste Nachricht der letzten 24 Stunden war das Treffen der Ukraine-Kontaktgruppe auf dem deutschen Militärstützpunkt Ramstein. Dabei konnten sich die Verteidigungsminister der 50 teilnehmenden Staaten nicht über die Lieferung von Panzern an die Ukraine einigen. Die Panzer werden angeblich zur Unterstützung der ukrainischen Frühjahrs-Gegenoffensive benötigt, deren Ziel es ist, die Russen nicht nur bis zu der Demarkationslinie im Donbass zurückzudrängen, die vor dem Beginn der militärischen Sonderoperation bestand, sondern sogar die Krim zurückzuerobern.

Das zentrale Thema in Ramstein war die Weigerung von Bundeskanzler Scholz, deutsche schwere Leopard-Panzer zu entsenden oder den vielen NATO-Ländern, in denen Leopard-Panzer stationiert sind, zu gestatten, einen ihrer Panzer nach Kiew zu schicken.  Scholz soll darauf bestehen, dass die Amerikaner zuerst ihre eigenen Abrams-Panzer nach Kiew schicken, bevor Deutschland einen Finger rührt.  Und warum widersetzt er sich gerade in dieser Frage so hartnäckig allen Schakal-Staaten in der NATO? Westlichen Berichten zufolge fürchtet er, bei der Lieferung von Panzern die Nase vorn zu haben und sich den besonderen Zorn Russlands zuzuziehen.

Lassen Sie uns diese Botschaft entschlüsseln: Der deutsche Bundeskanzler ist kein unentschlossener Schwachkopf, wie unsere Zeitungen suggerieren.  Nein, er ist ein schlauer Fuchs, der nicht zulassen will, dass Washington ihn und Europa in die Hölle schickt, was leicht zu einem heißen Krieg zwischen Russland und der NATO werden könnte, wenn die russischen roten Linien, die die Lieferung schwerer Waffen verbieten, überschritten werden.

Alles, was die Ukrainer nach den gestern in Ramstein verkündeten Beschlüssen an neuen Waffensystemen erhalten werden, sind also symbolische Lieferungen von gepanzerten Mannschaftstransportwagen und gepanzerten Maschinengewehr- und Kanonenfahrzeugen, die man auch als leichte Panzer bezeichnen könnte.  Das und eine Menge weiterer Haubitzen aller Art aus verschiedenen NATO-Ländern.

Aber welchen Unterschied würden Panzer im Großen und Ganzen machen?  Die Vision eines großen Panzerkriegs in der ukrainischen Steppe, die dem Washingtoner Kriegsszenario zugrunde liegt, ist ein Trugschluss.  Wie ich wiederholt betont habe, wird der Krieg trotz der Lügen und PR-Botschaften aus Washington und London nach dem russischen Schema geführt, nicht nach dem US-amerikanischen.

Wir haben gehört, wie schlecht die Russen Luft- und Bodenangriffe koordinieren.  Wir haben gehört, dass sie einfach keine gute “shock and awe”-Methode anwenden können. Aber das ist nicht der Punkt.  Die Russen führen aus guten Gründen einen Artilleriekrieg: Sie verfügen über die weltweit größte Fertigungsindustrie für Kanonen, Mehrfachraketenwerfer und Munition, und sie führen einen Zermürbungskrieg am Boden, der ihren Armeen nur zugutekommen kann.

Wenn das Abschlachten der ukrainischen Bevölkerung in diesem Tempo weitergeht, wenn die Vereinigten Staaten und ihre Verbündeten die Munitionsproduktion nicht hochfahren können, wenn die Zerstörung der ukrainischen Energieinfrastruktur weitergeht, wenn die Logistik für den Transport westlicher Militärgüter an die Front weiter beeinträchtigt wird, dann werden die Russen irgendwann im Frühjahr auf eine entwaffnete ukrainische Armee treffen, und sie könnten die Kapitulation, die sie anstreben, ohne Schock- und Furcht-Heldentaten erreichen.

Damit gebe ich zu, dass ich die russischen Kriegspläne falsch eingeschätzt habe, denn ich hatte schon vor einiger Zeit erwartet, dass sie Kiew den Todesstoß versetzen würden.  Aber in dieser Fehleinschätzung schließe ich mich vielen anderen an, die sich bei ihren Einschätzungen von militärischem Sachverstand leiten lassen, wie etwa Oberst Douglas MacGregor.

Wer zuletzt lacht, lacht am besten.  Und das mag auch das sardonische Lächeln erklären, das wir von Zeit zu Zeit in den öffentlichen Erklärungen von Präsident Putin über den Verlauf der Kriegsanstrengungen sehen.

Das heißt aber nicht, dass wir ruhig schlafen können in dem Glauben, dass das Ende des Krieges nahe ist.  Es gibt Risiken, die entstehen, wenn sich die Unvermeidlichkeit eines russischen Sieges in den Dickschädeln des Pentagon festsetzt.  Die neuesten Risiken gehen von denjenigen aus, die in Washington öffentlich erklären, dass die Ukrainer mit Raketen mit größerer Reichweite ausgestattet werden müssen, damit sie russische Militäreinrichtungen auf der Krim, wenn nicht sogar in Zentralrussland, direkt angreifen können.  Solche extravaganten Pläne zur Eroberung Russlands können nur zu einer nuklearen Antwort Moskaus führen und … zum Ende der Zivilisation, wie wir sie kennen.

Ritiratevi da Artyomovsk!

Questo è il consiglio che, secondo i social media, il governo degli Stati Uniti starebbe dando oggi al regime di Zelensky. Segue di un giorno o due la pubblicazione da parte dei servizi segreti tedeschi della loro valutazione dell’ultimo corso della guerra, secondo cui l’ostinata resistenza delle forze armate ucraine all’avanzata delle unità di terra russe ad Artyomovsk, così come la difesa di Soledar (persa dai russi una settimana fa) e la difesa di Bakhmut (ancora in bilico) erano e sono trappole mortali tese dai russi agli ucraini. Come anche i padroni americani ormai capiscono, le continue perdite delle forze ucraine in queste spericolate acrobazie di pubbliche relazioni stanno compromettendo ogni possibilità di una loro controffensiva primaverile, quando arriveranno e saranno messi in campo gli avanzati equipaggiamenti militari che ora vengono loro spediti.

Quale conclusione possiamo trarre dal “ritiro da Artyomovsk”? Semplicemente che l’idea che il rapporto di morti e feriti 1:1 che i media anglosassoni diffondono da settimane per sostenere il concetto di “stallo” tra le parti opposte è una pura assurdità. Sembrano invece piu’ attendibili le cifre diffuse dalle forze armate russe, che indicano uno rapporto di 10:1 di perdite da parte ucraina.

Nel frattempo, la notizia delle ultime 24 ore è stata la riunione del Gruppo di contatto sull’Ucraina nella base militare tedesca di Ramstein. L’incontro si è distinto soprattutto per il fallimento da parte dei ministri della Difesa dei 50 paesi partecipanti nel raggiungere un accordo sulla consegna di carri armati agli ucraini. I carri armati sarebbero necessari per sostenere la controffensiva di primavera dell’Ucraina, con l’obiettivo non solo di respingere i russi fino alla linea di demarcazione nel Donbas prima dell’inizio dell’operazione militare speciale, ma anche di riconquistare la Crimea.

La questione centrale a Ramstein è stato il rifiuto del cancelliere tedesco Scholz di inviare i carri armati pesanti Leopard tedeschi o di permettere ai molti paesi della NATO che dispongono dei Leopard di inviare i loro carri armati a Kiev. Si dice che Scholz abbia messo in chiaro che dovranno essere gli americani ad inviare i loro carri armati Abrams a Kiev prima che la Germania muova un dito. E perché si ostina a resistere a tutti gli stati sciacalli della NATO proprio su questo tema? Secondo i rapporti occidentali, teme di fare da apripista alla consegna dei carri armati e di incorrere nell’ira speciale della Russia. 

Decodifichiamo questo messaggio: il cancelliere tedesco non è un imbecille indeciso, come lasciano intendere i nostri giornali. No, è una volpe astuta che non vuole permettere a Washington di mandare lui e l’Europa all’inferno in quella che potrebbe facilmente diventare una guerra calda tra Russia e NATO se si superano le linee rosse russe che vietano la consegna di armamenti pesanti.

Quindi, tutto ciò che gli ucraini otterranno in termini di nuovi sistemi d’armamento, secondo le decisioni annunciate ieri a Ramstein, sono consegne simboliche di veicoli corazzati per il trasporto di personale e di veicoli corazzati con mitragliatrici e cannoni, ovvero semplicemente carri armati “leggeri”. Questo e molti altri obici di ogni tipo provenienti da diversi paesi della NATO.

Ma nel quadro generale della guerra, che differenza farebbero i carri armati? La visione di una guerra tra carri armati nelle steppe ucraine, alla base dello scenario bellico di Washington, è un errore. Come ho sottolineato più volte, nonostante le menzogne e le dichiarazioni di facciata di Washington e Londra, la guerra viene combattuta secondo lo schema russo, non secondo quello americano.  

Abbiamo sentito quanto sia scarso il coordinamento aereo e terrestre dei russi. Abbiamo sentito come non riescano a mettere insieme una strategia di “shock and awe”. Ma questo non è il punto. I russi stanno conducendo una guerra di artiglieria per buone ragioni: hanno la più grande industria manifatturiera al mondo di cannoni, lanciatori multirazzo e munizioni, e stanno conducendo una guerra di logoramento sul terreno che può solo favorire i loro eserciti.

Se il massacro degli ucraini continuerà al ritmo attuale, se gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati non riusciranno a incrementare la produzione di munizioni, se la distruzione delle infrastrutture energetiche ucraine continuerà, e se la logistica per il trasporto dei rifornimenti militari occidentali al fronte sarà ulteriormente compromessa, allora i russi si troveranno contro un esercito ucraino disarmato all’inizio della primavera e potrebbero ottenere la capitolazione che cercano senza azioni plateali da “shock and awe”.

Nel dire questo, riconosco di avere io stesso interpretato male i piani di guerra russi, perché mi aspettavo che avrebbero dato il colpo di grazia a Kiev qualche tempo fa. Ma a me si uniscono in questa errata lettura molti altri che hanno ben altre competenze militari, come il Col. Douglas MacGregor. 

Ride bene chi ride ultimo. E questo potrebbe spiegare il sorriso sardonico che di tanto in tanto vediamo fare a Putin durante le sue dichiarazioni pubbliche sull’andamento del conflitto.

Questo non significa che possiamo dormire tranquilli nella convinzione che la fine della guerra sia vicina. Ci sono rischi che emergono man mano che l’inevitabilità di una vittoria russa entra nelle teste ottuse del Pentagono. I maggiori rischi sono causati da chi dice pubblicamente a Washington che gli ucraini devono essere dotati di missili a più lunga gittata in modo da poter colpire direttamente le installazioni militari russe in Crimea, se non nella Russia centrale. Questi piani stravaganti per la conquista della Russia possono portare solo a una risposta nucleare da parte di Mosca e… alla fine della civiltà come la conosciamo.


Retire-se de Artyomovsk!

Este é o conselho que a mídia social diz que o governo dos EUA está dando hoje ao regime de Zelensky em Kiev. Segue-se um dia ou dois depois da divulgação pública por agentes da inteligência alemã de sua própria avaliação dos últimos eventos da guerra, dizendo que a obstinada resistência das Forças Armadas ucranianas ao avanço das unidades terrestres russas em Artyomovsk, assim como a defesa de Soledar (perdida para os russos há uma semana) e a defesa de Bakhmut (ainda em jogo) foram e são armadilhas mortais armadas pelos russos para os ucranianos. Como os senhores supremos dos EUA entendem hoje, as perdas contínuas de forças ucranianas nessas desesperadas acrobacias de relações públicas estão comprometendo quaisquer chances de se fazer uma contra-ofensiva de primavera, quando o equipamento militar avançado que agora está sendo enviado para eles chegar e for colocado em campo.

A que conclusão podemos chegar de “retire-se de Artyomovsk”? Muito simplesmente, a noção de uma taxa de 1:1 de mortos e de feridos que os disseminadores de notícias anglo-saxões vêm gritando há semanas para distorcer as notícias para algum “impasse” entre os lados opostos é pura bobagem. Seria mais seguro seguir os números divulgados pelos militares russos, que indicam um desequilíbrio de 10:1 nas baixas do lado ucraniano.

Enquanto isto, a manchete das últimas 24 horas foi a reunião do Grupo de Contato da Ucrânia na base Ramstein na Alemanha. Ela foi mais notável pelo fracasso dos ministros da defesa dos 50 países participantes em chegar a qualquer acordo sobre a entrega de tanques aos ucranianos. Os tanques são supostamente necessários para apoiar a contra-ofensiva de primavera da Ucrânia, com o objetivo não apenas de empurrar os russos de volta à linha de demarcação em Donbass antes do início da Operação Militar Especial, mas também de recapturar a Crimeia.

A questão central em Ramstein foi a recusa do chanceler alemão Scholz em enviar os tanques pesados Leopard alemães ou em permitir que os muitos países da OTAN onde os Leopards são mantidos em inventário enviassem qualquer um de seus tanques para Kiev. Diz-se que Scholz insiste que os americanos primeiro enviem seus próprios tanques Abrams para Kiev antes que a Alemanha levante um dedo. E por que ele está sendo tão teimoso em resistir a todos os estados chacais da OTAN nesta exata questão? Rumores ocidentais dizem que ele receia liderar o grupo na entrega de tanques e incorrer uma ira russa particular.

Decodifiquemos esta mensagem: o chanceler alemão não é um imbecil indeciso, como insinuam nossos jornais. Não, ele é uma raposa astuta que não está disposto a permitir que Washington mande ele e a Europa para o inferno no que poderia facilmente se tornar uma guerra quente entre a Rússia e a OTAN, se as linhas vermelhas russas que proíbem entregas de armamento pesado forem cruzadas.

Assim, tudo o que os ucranianos obterão na forma de novos sistemas de armas, de acordo com as decisões anunciadas ontem em Ramstein, são entregas simbólicas de veículos blindados de transporte de pessoal e veículos blindados de metralhadoras e de canhão que podem ser chamados de tanques leves. Isto e muito mais obuses de todas as variedades vindos de vários países diferentes da OTAN.

Mas em termos gerais, que diferença os tanques fariam? A visão de grandes batalhas de tanques nas estepes ucranianas que fundamenta o cenário de guerra de Washington é falaciosa. Como indiquei repetidamente, apesar das mentiras e estrondos de relações públicas de Washington e Londres, a guerra está sendo travada de acordo com o esquema russo, não com o esquema dos EUA.

Ouvimos como os russos coordenam mal o ar e o solo. Ouvimos como eles simplesmente não conseguem montar nenhum bom “shock and awe“. Mas isto não vem ao caso. Os russos estão travando uma guerra de artilharia por boas razões: eles têm a maior indústria de manufatura de canhões, lançadores de foguetes e munições do mundo e estão travando uma guerra de desgaste na área que só pode favorecer seus exércitos.

Se a chacina de ucranianos continuar no ritmo atual, se os Estados Unidos e seus aliados não puderem aumentar a produção de munições, se a destruição da infraestrutura energética ucraniana continuar, se a logística para transportar suprimentos militares ocidentais para o front for ainda mais prejudicada, então os russos se encontrarão com um exército ucraniano desarmado em logo no início da primavera e podem obter a capitulação que buscam sem peripécias de “shock and awe“.

Ao dizer isto, reconheço minha própria leitura errônea dos planos de guerra russos, já que esperava que eles desferissem o golpe mortal em Kiev há algum tempo. Mas estou na companhia de muitos outros que têm uma experiência militar real orientando suas avaliações, como o coronel Douglas MacGregor.

Quem ri por último, ri melhor. E isto pode muito bem explicar o sorriso sardônico que vemos de vez em quando nas declarações públicas do presidente Putin sobre o curso do esforço de guerra.

Isto não quer dizer que podemos dormir tranquilos acreditando que o fim da guerra está próximo. Existem riscos surgindo à medida que a inevitabilidade de uma vitória russa afunda em cabeças duras no Pentágono. Os riscos mais recentes vêm daqueles que dizem publicamente em Washington que os ucranianos devem receber mísseis de longo alcance para que possam atacar diretamente as instalações militares russas na Criméia, se não mesmo o interior da Rússia. Tais planos extravagantes para a conquista da Rússia só podem levar a uma resposta nuclear de Moscou e… ao fim da civilização como a conhecemos.

23 thoughts on “Withdraw from Artyomovsk!

  1. The second sentence of this article reads as follows (as of now):

    “It follows by a day or two the public release by German intelligence operatives of their own assessment of the latest course of the war, saying that the stubborn resistance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to advancing Russian ground units in Artyomovsk, just as the defense of Soledar (lost to the Russians a week ago) and defense of Bakhmut (still hanging in the balance) were and are death traps set by the Russians for the Ukrainians.”

    Two things about this:
    (1) It is not quite a grammatical sentence, although it is close, and I think I get the meaning.

    (2) It appears that Mr. Doctorow does not know that Artyomovsk and Bakhmut are different names for the same place.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your remarks about Artyomovsk / Bakhmut. Indeed the name change by the Ukrainian Rada back in 2016 makes for confusion. I am always appreciative when readers point out factual errors. These essays are not “peer reviewed” since 99% of my peers are regrettably on the other side of the barricades. The text has now been corrected to reflect your point.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I suppose if the advice was really addressed to Ukraine, it ought to be “Withdraw from Bakmut”?

        Like

  2. Dear Sir,

    “[The Russians] may get the capitulation they seek without shock and awe heroics.” – are you implying that the newly mobilised Russian forces will actually stay where they are and we may not witness any invasion?

    Thank you for your hardwork.

    Kind regards from Poland,
    Jędrzej, PhD

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think it more likely that the newly mobilized forces will begin to apply pressure on different fronts (such as appears to have begun now in Zaporizhia), further straining the Ukraine military and attritting their forces in much the same manner. We may see the “big arrow” offensives that the West expects but, as Russia is fighting to keep casualties low and the current “attrition” strategy is working so well, I personally think it unlikely. Just my thoughts.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. “Let us decode this message: the German chancellor is not some indecisive imbecile, as our newspapers hint. No, he is a cunning fox who is unwilling to allow Washington to send him and Europe to hell in what could easily become a Russia-NATO hot war if the Russian red lines forbidding heavy armaments deliveries are crossed.”

    I.e. he is unwilling to let the phrase “down to the last Ukrainian” become “down to the last German”. I have no doubt whatsover that the neocons would be ecstatic to have a non-nuclear Europe-wide war against Russia evolve out of the current conflict. After all, as heirs of Hitler, they see this war as a continuation of WWII. We will see how long the chancellor can hold out against what must be unbelievable blackmail of every sort.

    It won’t make any difference. Russia has already proven she can think more moves ahead than her opponents on this chessboard and she will never accept a draw. That every other species on earth is praying the human species will annihilate itself I do not doubt, nevertheless I strongly believe Russia will not let it happen. I hope Russia proves to be a better steward of the earth than the “West”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is quite true. Remember the works of Antony Sutton: even in 1943 Standard Oil delivered fuel to German Submarines…that then went on to torpedo British and American ships…And in Pearl Harbour, how many American soldiers and sailors were sacrificed in order to “sell” the war to the American public? Whatever one’s political opinion may be, the extreme cynicism and lack of any human conscience in American politics has been irrefutably documented again and again. So now, in order to save their Economy, North Americans may very well be willing not only to sacrifice the Ukraine, but Western Europe as well. And how far may this madness further go? Russia is clearly preparing for “any” possibility and let us not forget President Putin’s words: without Russia, there is no sense for the world to continue existing (I guess China and other “neutral” countries swallowed a bit when they heard this…but NATO will have been stone deaf of course).
      Indeed, if we as “educated” (?) people in the West don’t start to protest against the catastrophic politics of our “leaders”, we may see the doomsday clock reach its final point and see it in a final flash.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Excellent, informative read.

    “(The Russians) have the world’s largest manufacturing industry of cannon, multi-rocket field launchers and munitions and they are waging a war of attrition on the ground which can only favor (them).” Sigh. When will the planet’s “village,” including Russia, the USA, China and all the other manufacturers of planes, ships, tanks, IT-age soft/hardware, etc., conclude that all these accoutrements of war — blown up, discarded, replaced by new MIC-lucrative generations — and misery are demonstrably not advancing the cause of “civilization” but are leading the lemmings to the end of any possibility of Peace as intended by The Prince of Peace, Who can only be weeping in sadness, frustration, impatience, and a growing sense that the end of current follies and a starting over is, finally, the only way-cum-truth-cum life for His children’s redemption? Perhaps, somewhere among the trillions upon trillions of galaxies, stars, planetary systems et al that are “out there,” He has already fashioned a kinder, gentler “model village” that would/will shame us all…if we’re capable of any shame.

    Like

  5. ICYMI – an excellent piece from blogger Big Serge – https://bigserge.substack.com/p/russo-ukrainian-war-the-world-blood

    comparing Bakhmut to Verdun

    Key quote

    ” The return of static positional warfare, however, also reflects the synergistic effect of increasing Ukrainian exhaustion along with a Russian commitment to patiently attriting and denuding Ukraine’s remaining combat capability. They have found an ideal place to achieve this in the Donbass.”
    “It has gradually become apparent that Russia is committed to a positional attritional war, as this maximizes the asymmetry of their advantage in ranged fires. There is an ongoing degradation of Ukraine’s war-making ability which is allowing Russia to patiently maintain the current tempo, while it organizes its newly mobilized forces for offensive action in the coming year, setting the stage for cascading and unsustainable Ukrainian losses”.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.