Yves here. It’s remarkable to see how the US, which was home to leading thinkers in game theory and decision theory, has become so abjectly bad at both. The US and NATO actually got what it wanted, a Russia attack on Donbass, and better yet, and underpowered one in terms of threatening the Ukraine government. The Western coalition bet mainly on its shock and awe sanctions, and that providing some more material and intel to the “trained to NATO standards” armed forces would soon bring chaos to Russia, leading to Putin’s ouster and perhaps even a breakup of Russia.
Because the West was so wedded to that plot, which the Ukraine PR apparatus kept showcasing, it could not see the Russian pullbacks in Kharkiv and Kherson as tactical retreats due to having too few forces relative to the length of the front lines, did not take Russia’s partial mobilization and continued armed forced buildup seriously, and ignored ample evidence of Russian superiority in many classes of weapons systems. Believing deeply in Russian weakness and incompetence, they gave Russia the time it needed to train rusty and new forces, build more and better equipment, and construct massive defense lines.
Many of the Ukraine-skeptic commentators correctly called that the great counteroffensive would be a bust, but from what I can tell, no one dared think, let alone opine, it would be the train wreck it turned out to be.
So now, twice having put all its chips on one strategy, and each time having it fail abjectly, the West is unwilling or unable to adapt to bad facts.
My copy of the book is still in storage, but a classic, Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War, has a model for analyzing military failures and isolating where, as in what level of system/organization, accounted for them. This fiasco is set to go down as the worst sort of disaster, a catastrophic failure of the sort suffered by the French army in 1940.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
It’s easier to continue throwing money into a problem than to accept that a new approach is required, but in this case, Ukrainian lives are continuing to be thrown away so long as the Zelensky refuses to recommence peace talks with Russia and the West remains hesitant to replace him so as to bring that about.
The Daily Beast (DB) published a candid report about the conversations that took place last week at the French Military School between “100 military, political, finance, academic, and business leaders with intimate knowledge of the [Ukrainian] war”. According to them, the discussions concerned everything from requesting Taylor Swift’s support in the information war to sending Ukrainian Baptists to the US to pressure MAGA Republicans. Simply put, there was no Plan B if the counteroffensive failed, as it did.
An unnamed Ukrainian government counsellor was even quoted as saying that “America is washing its hands of Ukraine. Their military expenditure priorities are aimed against China, while our country, all of Europe, is being stormed by Russian gangsters and social media propaganda. We are screwed, absolutely fucked.” Ukraine is also upset that the sanctions failed, Russia’s economy didn’t collapse, and the West still refuses to give them that country’s hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of seized assets.
On top of that, the DB reminded everyone that antibiotic-resistant germs are running wild in Ukraine, 11 million of its citizens are food insecure, vast tracts of farmland are unusable, and “Ukraine in two years won’t have enough warm bodies to fill the trenches and freeze the lines against the Russian onslaught.” Few Westerners were aware of this since “a veteran reporter in Kyiv” confirmed that “our credentials are at risk if we write [about these stories]”.
The panic among Western policymakers is palpable when reading the DB’s report about last week’s powwow in Paris, which was published right after Zelensky’s latest trip to the US failed to break the congressional gridlock over aid to his country. Biden pledged $200 million in emergency funding just to make him go away but importantly clarified that he’s “Not making promises” about more aid even though Zelensky scaremongered that “Putin and his sick clique” are “inspired” by this impasse.
“NATO’s Proxy War On Russia Through Ukraine Appears To Be Winding Down” even faster than expected as evidenced by major Mainstream Media outlets like the BBC, The Economist, Politico, the Washington Post, and the Financial Times all becoming very critical of Ukraine and Zelensky since then. This coincided with the exacerbation of preexisting political tensions in Kiev, divisions within its security services, and a Rada member admitting that “There will be no NATO” for Ukraine.
Readers should also be informed that “Ukraine Is Bracing For A Possible Russian Counteroffensive By Fortifying The Entire Front”, but at the same time, “Kiev’s Impending Conscription Propaganda Campaign Proves That Ukrainians Don’t Want To Fight.” If its troops aren’t replenished, which risks provoking a genuine “Maidan 3” due to how unpopular the forced conscription policy is, then Russia might achieve a military breakthrough in the coming months that could worsen Ukraine’s cascading crises.
If the conflict doesn’t soon freeze, which would require Zelensky complying with the West’s reported pressure to recommence peace talks with Russia, then everything that’s been achieved by those two over the past 22 months at the cost of $200 billion and hundreds of thousands of lives could be lost. It’s for this reason why “Naryshkin’s Scenario Forecast About The West Replacing Zelensky Shouldn’t Be Scoffed At” since his ego is recklessly placing all that New Cold War bloc’s investments at risk right now.
“JD Vance Is Right: Russia Won’t Invade NATO If Ukraine Cedes Land As Part Of A Peace Deal”, which is why former NATO Supreme Commander Admiral Stavridis’ Ramaswamy-inspired land-for-peace proposal from early November should be considered by the West in order to freeze the conflict and prevent a Russian breakthrough. That in turn requires Zelensky to either recommence peace talks or be replaced if he doesn’t, but regardless of what happens, the point is that the West didn’t expect this dilemma.
The Washington Post’s two–part series about the counteroffensive’s failure illustrates how naïve planners on both sides were. Not only did serious differences of vision exist between them, but neither had any Plan B if everything failed, hence why the New York Times just reported that they’re scrambling to brainstorm a new strategy. It’s too little, too late, though. A Plan B should have already been in place if the counteroffensive failed, but none was as is now seen, hence the dilemma that they’re both in.
It’s easier to continue throwing money into a problem than to accept that a new approach is required, but in this case, Ukrainian lives are continuing to be thrown away so long as the Zelensky refuses to recommence peace talks with Russia and the West remains hesitant to replace him so as to bring that about. If something doesn’t soon change on the diplomatic front, then Russia might go on the offensive sometime next year, which could raise the chances of a full-blown defeat for the West and its proxies.
