May 31, 2022

A blitzkrieg Russian invasion of Ukraine it was not. Marshall Zhukov, the Soviet Union’s famed tank general, must be rolling in his grave. Had Stalin still been in the Kremlin, Russia’s generals and defense minister would have by now been shot. At that time, the Red Army and its 50,000 tanks were believed able to burst through Germany’s Fulda Gap and central Austria and reach the key US supply base at Rotterdam in a week.

After three months of desultory fighting, the Russian army has managed to occupy some border areas in Ukraine and the key communications hub of Mariupol, cutting off Ukraine from its access to the Black Sea. Ukraine’s very important exports of grains have been blocked, undermining its economy but not proving a decisive move to end the war between self-proclaimed independent Ukraine and its western allies on one side and Russia and neighboring Belarus on the other. The proposed joining of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a political backfire for the Kremlin, but means little from a military viewpoint since both nations have long been covert NATO allies. ‘Neutral’ Switzerland has also been another not-so-secret member of the alliance.

But in fact, the US and its NATO allies have been locked in a nasty, covert war against Russia that threatens to erupt at any time into a conventional, then nuclear conflict. This quasi-war is the result of the refusal by the US and NATO to exclude their alliance from formerly Soviet-ruled Eastern Europe and pushing it to Russia’s very borders. The conflict has re-awakened dangerous problems that date back to the end of World War I when the victorious British and French, along with the credulous Americans, sought to alter Europe’s map. Vast swathes of territory were torn away from Germany, Austro-Hungary and Russia leaving dangerous disputes active to this day.

What’s wrong today with Russia’s current army, once the terror of Europe? First, it’s too small. Early on, President Vlad Putin ordered serious reductions in the size of Russia’s then huge armed forces. China did the same. That was fine for peace-time, but not for waging war. Russia sent only 100,000 men to occupy and subjugate Ukraine, a vast territory the size of Western Europe. I suspect that Putin’s goal was to annex key border regions, then leave independence-minded Ukraine isolated and in grave economic distress. The expected western economic war against Russia would be partially mitigated by the economic/financial distress caused to the west and its vassal states like Egypt.

A Russian airborne attack on capital Kiev failed miserably due to Western special forces and a new supply of top-attack anti-tank weapons. Usually reliable Russian military intelligence was ignored. Civilian intelligence was allowed to design the military campaign which as we have seen turned into a stalemate. It is no coincidence that Putin was a civilian KGB intelligence officer and his powerful defense minister Sergei Shoigu was never a military officer. Russia’s forces also suffered from logistical problems. This was surprising since during WWII Soviet forces became masters of fast-moving supply support. This was a fascinating subject that I studied in depth while serving in the US Army – where I also taught military strategy and history. War is too important to be left to civilians.

What about air power, vaunted as the Queen of Battle? It’s not been much in evidence in Ukraine. NATO dares not openly intervene in Ukraine for the very good reason that Russia will likely riposte with tactical missiles against NATO air bases and major arms depots. Welcome WWIII. Convoys of tanks, armored vehicles, supply trucks, fuel and soldiers are legitimate targets for Russia’s tactical missiles, notably the accurate Iskander missiles. Cash-strapped Russia has kept its air strikes to a modest level for fear of losing valuable warplanes that it cannot afford to replace, a problem I also witnessed in Afghanistan where the deadly US Stinger missile held the Red Air Force at bay.

We have so far been very lucky that a full-scale clash has not yet occurred between the US and Russia over Ukraine, a land of no importance at all to the United States but of fundamental importance to Russia. Amid the blizzard of anti-Russian propaganda, it’s easy to forget that in 1990 Ukraine was still an integral part of the Soviet Union. Or that the US staged a coup d’état in Ukraine that brought a pro-US regime to power that shakes its fist today at Moscow. But US intelligence agencies and NATO had moved uncommonly fast to arm Ukraine with state the art anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as well as huge amounts of ammunition. US military and economic aid to Ukraine alone exceeded $40 billion.

There’s no doubt that Russia has lost the information war in Ukraine. The massed western media has been acting as an amen chorus for the Kiev regime. Ukraine has become another ‘brave, little Belgium’ of World War I renown. Biden just ordered $40 billion more US military and economic aid on top of the $25 billion or so spent by Washington to prop up the government in Kiev. Billions more will without doubt be needed.

Meanwhile, US, British and Canadian TV are accusing Russia of massive war crimes in Ukraine. There was little such reporting when the US invaded and destroyed important parts of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen or Somalia. Afghanistan was ravaged for nearly 20 years, with B-52 heavy bombers used to raze villages and towns. All wars are a crime against mankind. There are no ‘good’ wars.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2022

This post is in: Russia, Ukraine

8 Responses to “A FOOLISH WAR, POORLY WAGED”

  1. Normy. Y says:

    An amazing and accurate article Mr. Margolis. Extremely accurate. I really enjoy reading your articles. Always have since I was young back in the 80’s. All the western countries seem to be lined up ready for the Big one. It seems like the U.S. and its vassals can commit any war crime or act of distruction without any real consequences. Mai Lai massacre, or war criminals out of the Bush dynasty like the lovable Madeleine Albright, or the faceless carnifices at Guantanamo, going about their daily chores. We in the West, it appears, can do no wrong. I hope a lasting peace is achieved after all this. I hope we don’t end up like the people in Nevil Shute’s book “On the Beach”. All of man going out with a whimper.

  2. Judging from Vlad’s latest comments on Peter the Great, he won’t be happy until the Russian borders rest on the Atlantic. A very sick cookie and something we have to gird ourselves to fight until he is out of power.

    The Russians I know are very cultured and intelligent but none of them are now in Russia. There must be no one left in Russia now except thugs and supplicants. What a waste of a country with such great potential for its people.

  3. Stephen Spartan says:

    If we know nothing about European history, we should recall Napoleon’s and Hitler’s experience with Russia. Moscow learns quickly from tactical or operational military setbacks. Would that you could say the same about Brussels and Washington. Unlike the Pentagon, the Kremlin will sacrifice or fire as many generals as necessary until it finds Zhukov’s heir.

  4. Eastern Rebellion says:

    This whole disaster has more than a whiff of amateurism about it. It reminds me of the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939. In any event, I think the war will gradually evolve into a battle of attrition over the eastern portions of Ukraine, which Russia already occupies. Most of population there supports Russia as well, so IMHO, it will end up as a stalemate. It is time for cooler heads to prevail, and to negotiate a settlement that both sides can live with.

  5. Joe from Canada says:

    Thank you for your continued balanced insights.
    You continue to think outside of the worn and comfortable channels.

  6. I was surprised at the very poor attempt that Putin undertook. I would have thought that his actions would have been far more decisive. He’s opened the door to a ‘lot more hurt’ for Russia.

    I was unaware of Switzerland’s NATO involvement; I’ve always thought them to be neutral, albeit West leaning. Finland and Sweden have always been ‘pro-NATO’, in my opinion.
    .
    I didn’t realise that his army, and that of China’s, were reduced that much. I suspect the ‘huge’ advances of those protagonists is the result of pro-Western new releases over a period of time. It’s difficult to vilify an enemy if the enemy is actually inferior.
    .
    “I suspect that Putin’s goal was to annex key border regions, then leave independence-minded Ukraine isolated and in grave economic distress.” That’s the route I thought Putin would have taken. Ownership by attrition and having Crimea assert it’s independence. The precidence for the latter has been established by an African nation ‘splitting’ due to oil reserves. Even if this was ‘hung up’ in the UN for decades by veto powers, the outcome would have been far better.
    .
    “Convoys of tanks, armored vehicles, supply trucks, fuel and soldiers are legitimate targets for Russia’s tactical missiles…” The use of relatively small, relatively inexpensive, arms to be used against ‘valuable’ targets has taken a real toll. This can be decisive. I wonder if China’s anti-aircraft carrier’s missile can likely have a similar effect.
    .
    “But US intelligence agencies and NATO had moved uncommonly fast to arm Ukraine…” I’m surprised that Russia has let this pass. It may be because of their reduced armed forces. I’m also surprised that their initial invasion was so poorly executed.
    .
    “…of massive war crimes in Ukraine. There was little such reporting when the US invaded and destroyed important parts of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen or Somalia. Afghanistan was ravaged for nearly 20 years, with B-52 heavy bombers used to raze villages and towns.” Of recent origin, no one recalls the ‘carpet bombing’ of Iraq, use of cluster munitions, and ‘fuel-air’ devices used in Afghanistan. I consider Putin’s actions being no different than Kennedy’s response to the Cuban missile crisis. Putin’s response was a little more proactive and if Khruschev (sp?) hadn’t decided that WWIII wasn’t an option, who knows where that ‘might have led’.

  7. peter mcloughlin says:

    Nations don’t always get the war they want: but they do, eventually, get the one they don’t want. Today, as always, governments ignore history – at their peril.
    https://patternofhistory.wordpress.com/

  8. Perfectly explained – Thank you Eric

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.