Current situation: Notes on the world crisis (7. Two years of the war of aggression of Russian imperialism to Ukraine .- Update of attached annexes and more underlined comments)
1. In Ukraine, Russia progresses little by little after death, The San Juan Daily Star.
2. Center for Strategic and International Studies TRANSCRIPT, Event: “Ukraine in the balance: an update of the battlefield on the war In Ukraine "
We publish these two news as annexes, which are very vinvulated to be able to make a closer idea in the war front between the Russian imperialist invader and the forces of the Ukrainian national resistance.
We have underlined the 1 and 2, and we will comment more widely later.
The importance of the document is that contains the discussion between these experts that represent the interests of one of the factions of Yankee imperialism, that of current Biden government and PD, on how the development of the War from its beginning to date, the stages that according to them carry Tour, until you reach the current moment of the War of positions, With the different terrestrial, aerial and naval bells, where they show the successes and failures, the strengths and weak, etc. From both part, the symbolic importance of the taking of Avdiivka For political development in Russia, linked to the death of Levany, and its limited military value. Make an interesting comparison between 1914 and 2023, where They see great potential for instability and innovation on both sides In this war, his appreciation of the Naval Campana of the Ukraine It is important.
See how Imperialists focus on their "help" military to impose dependence on the Ukrainian nation, that is get through the back door, while the Ukrainian nation combat the invasion of the aggressive forces of Russian imperialism. I know there reveals his cynicism, when he recognizes that with this "help" They win are their own companies, they say:
„(…) The money we spend on Ukraine does not leave the United States to the defense industry of the USA .. You go to US companies that send help to Ukraine. The Vast majority of this stay here. ”
That is double gain.
The interests of the government Imperialist Yankee of Biden are expressed in the opinions of these experiences, among many others, when they talk about the meaning of this War, etc. The statements of the representatives of all imperialist countries regarding war, in terms of "help", sending of armament and threat of being used has or seeks to have an effect on the opinion of the countries involved, in the elections and internal political development , because as reads the second annex and the news about the conversations of German ocial Mass destruction, including the military. Of its proopias conditions and possibility. Especially of the strategic balance at the level of those weapons of the Russian and Yankees imperialists.
Well, above all this we will return more forward. But, we reiterate in reference to the two annexes, in our position on the development of contradictions in this War of aggression of Russian imperialism against the nation Ukraine, in which the main contradiction is oppressed nation Against Russian imperialist aggression war. Than the imperialists In their wars against oppressed nations they can only Coquisote failures and get engaged in the quagmire. That he Yankee Emprialism is the fat dog and the main enemy of the Peoples of the world and Russian imperialism is the skinny dog, such as Aggressive imperialism in Ukraine is the main enemy there.
We publish two annexes, one is from a newspaper of
The USA and, the other, of a Yankee Imperialism Research Center:
1. In Ukraine, Russia advances little by little after
Death, The San Juan Daily Star.
2.
Center for Strategic and International
Studies Transcript, event: “Ukraine in the balance: a
update of the battlefield on war in Ukraine "
In Ukraine, Russia advances little by little after
death
·
o
The San Juan
Daily Star
2 days ago
§
Members of a humanitarian group transport the body
from a Russian military near Koroviy Yar, in the Donetsk region in Ukraine, the
January 7, 2023. Russia has made several adjustments after a disastrous year,
but it still seems much more comfortable absorbing large losses of troops and
team, even to achieve small profits. (Nicole Tung/The New York
Times)
Por Thomas Gibbons-Neff Y Anatoly Kur
When the Russian army launched its offensive against the
Avdiivka City, in eastern Ukraine, the past fall, the troops
Ukrainians noticed a change in their tactics as column after column
of Russian forces were devastated by artillery fire.
Russian forces divided their formations of
infantry in smaller units to avoid being bombarded, while
The number of Russian air attacks increased to demolish the defenses of the
city.
It was one of several adjustments made by the Russians to
help reverse your luck after a disastrous first year. But this
changes were obscured by an obvious fact: the Russian army still
I was much more willing to absorb great losses in troops and equipment,
even to get small profits.
Russian forces have a different pain threshold,
This month said a senior western official, as well as an unorthodox vision
of what is considered an acceptable level of military losses
.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers have
result injured or dead from the beginning of the Russian in large scale,
including tens of thousands last year in the Battle for the Eastern City
from Bakhmut.
Another city to the south, Marinka, fell into the hands of Russia in January,
After intense fighting and more losses
.
Avdiivka was one of the most expensive. The diverse
Russian casual estimates that circulate among military analysts, bloggers
Prorruse and Ukrainian officials suggest that Moscow lost more troops
Taking Avdiivka that in 10 years of fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
But the figures of victims are difficult to
verify: they are inflated on the side that causes them and minimized on the side
that suffers them, which leaves the real cost unknown. The figure is considered
Officer of Soviet dead in Afghanistan, around 15,000, is very
underestimated.
An outstanding military blogger wrote that the Russians
They had lost 16,000 soldiers in Avdiivka, a figure that follows for now
being impossible to confirm.
"Despite Russia's great losses in
Avdiivka, they still have an advantage of personnel along the front and can
Continue attacks in multiple directions, "said Rob Lee,
principal researcher of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, with
Headquarters in Philadelphia.
Russia's slow advance occurs when
European nations take measures to reinforce support for Ukraine and strengthen
His own protections against a possible Russian aggression
. Monday, NATO
exceeded the last obstacle to passing the membership of Sweden, less than a year
after Finland joined, an expansion of the military alliance that
challenges the hopes of President Vladimir Putin of Russia to fracture the
unity of their adversaries.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine said the
Sunday that 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died fighting Russia. Their
Comments caught the attention for how rare they were; Participants in the
War almost never reveal casualties. But most analysts and
Western officials say that the number of victims is much higher.
From the beginning of the invasion, Russia has been
willing to pay especially high cost to advance in the area of the
East of Ukraine known as Donbas, where Avdiivka is located
. Parts of
This traditionally Russian -speaking region has been occupied by
representatives of Russia since 2014, and trying to justify the invasion of
Large scale, the Kremlin has falsely affirmed that he is defending his
Russian speakers, saying they want to be part of Russia.
Some military analysts say that taking control
Total of the DonBass is the minimum that the Russian government needs to present the invasion
of Ukraine as a house victory. That may explain Moscow's will
of absorbing enormous losses to achieve marginal advances
.
Avdiivka has been strategic and symbolic for
Russian war propaganda
Due to its proximity to Donetsk, the city more
Grande del DonBass, who has been under the occupation backed by Russia since
2014. Ensure Avdiivka would take the Ukrainian artillery of the city,
reducing the civilian population. Low and pressure on supply lines
rear.
Kremlin's propensity to shoot more projectiles,
concentrate more people and rely on a much larger and capable air force on
This war allowed him to gradually change the course against the deep
Defenses of Ukraine in Avdiivka. The huge cost in injured and dead, they say
Some analysts, was only the byproduct of a strategy that he achieved in great
measured its objective, despite the loss of men and material, especially
When Western military aid and Ukrainian ammunition decreased
subsequently.
The latest for now.
A Russian military analyst close to the industry of
Defense, Ruslan Pukhov, wrote last week that the assault on Avdiivka was
part of a broader Russian strategy of pressing the Ukrainian forces to
throughout the entire line of the 600 mile front with attacks and probes for
exhaust the enemy "for a thousand cuts."
"
This strategy, however, is enough
expensive for Russian armed forces in terms of losses, which could
lead to the exhaustion of your forces
"Pukhov wrote in a magazine
Russian current. "
This, in turn, could give the Ukrainian part once
plus the initiative
”.
However, most analysts are
issuing sobering evaluations about Ukraine's perspectives to
2024 If you do not receive American help. As the war enters its
third year, both sides struggle to find enough men to
Continue fighting with the same level of intensity. The much greater population
of Russia, around 144 million people, three times that of Ukraine,
It gives a significant advantage in labor.
The magnitude of Russia's losses has annulled in
part of the impact of this arithmetic.
Kremlin's decision to summon 300,000 men
In September 2022 (for the first time since World War II) has
shocked and baffled to the nation, according to the polls. Hundreds of thousands
of men had already fled from the country when the war began, threatening with
Sur Sound the image of normality cultivated by Putin.
Since then, the government has tried to postpone what
more possible another round of mobilizations. Instead, incentives have promoted
financial and legal to attract the front as volunteers to convicts,
Debors, immigrants and other vulnerable social groups. It has also begun
to strictly enforce mandatory military service for young men,
previously Laxo, in the country.
In a publication published in the application of
Telegram messaging on February 18, a Russian military blogger for war cited
An anonymous military source that claimed that since October, the Russian forces
They had suffered 16,000 "irreplaceable" human losses, as well as that of 300
armored vehicles in the assault to Avdiivka. The Ukrainian forces had
suffered between 5,000 and 7,000 irreplaceable human losses in battle,
The blogger Andrei Morozov wrote.
These statements could not be verified in a form
independent.
Center for Strategic and International Studies
TRANSCRIPT Event “Ukraine in the Balance: A Battlefield Update on the War in
Ukraine” DATE Thursday, February 22, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. ET
Center for Strategic and International Studies
TRANSCRIPTION
Event
“Ukraine in the balance: an update of the field of
battle
In Ukraine "
DATE
Thursday, February 22, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. hour
from the east
HIGHLIGHTING
El Honorable Michael Vickers
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
CSIS experts
Seth Jones
Senior Vice President; Harold Brown chair; and director,
International Security Program,
CSIS
Eliot A. Cohen
Arleight A. Burke Strategy Chair, CSIS
Emily Harding
Director, Intelligence Program, National Security
and technology and deputy director,
International Security Program, CSIS
Seth G. Jones:
welcome to
Center for Strategic and International Studies. My name is Seth Jones. Am
the director of the International Security Program. It has been two years since
The Russians invaded Ukraine.
We are here for
discuss a range of military, intelligence, political and other issues
Type on invasion, the state of war.
And Eliot Cohen accompanies me.
Eliot is the president of Arleight Burke in CSIS, former advisor of the
United States Department of State and author of several books. Emily
Harding, National Intelligence Director Security and Technology Program,
and deputy director of the International Institute Security Program in CSIS.
Also previously in the CIA, the National Security Service, thus
as the Select Senate Intelligence Committee. And the honorable Mike Vickers,
former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Undersecretary of Operations
Specials, former green beret, official CIA operations.
But the most
Important, the author of the recently published memories, “By All Means
Available ”of Knopf, which was ... which is a great book. Mike, thanks for doing
that. And we have had - we have had a session on that as good. Let me
Start: if we could open the battlefield map. This is at the beginning
of this month. We get out of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense, Defense
Intelligence. And what I wanted to do is remind everyone where we have come
of. So you can't see it on the map itself, but you visualize it after
Russian initial attacks on at least five axes did control the
territory, some of which we can see here. They also tried to push
down from Belarus and parts of Russia to take kyiv, in what
They failed. Járkov City, which, as you can see, is not under Russian control,
in which they failed. Then we saw multiple phases in which the Ukrainians
They could effectively resume part of this territory, here in Kharkiv, with
an offensive operation.
Year
After we saw the Russians resume territory, even in the south, in Kherson.
And where we are now they are a couple of things. Recently we have seen
The Russians resume Avdiivka. I would say they are lit. The offensive. Have
Military initiative at this time. They have not recovered much territory.
We will talk about the details in a moment. And we have also seen a lot
Activity, Ukrainians point to Russian ships, infrastructure in Crimea and
In the Black Sea and its surroundings
.
So, with that
Brief general description, a little where we have arrived, Eliot, wanted
go to you first and ask how to characterize this stage of the
War at this time.
Eliot A. Cohen:
Well I think We have passed through three phases . The first phase, obviously l to Russian invasion and The successful Ukrainian defense . But keep in mind than during that phase could reach the doors of kyiv, get a large part of the area Around Kharkiv, and in fact they could take Kherson and overcome The Dnieper.
You saw
a
second phase, which was a Ukrainian counteroffensive, which was really
notably successful. Led to them back from Kyiv. The Russians ended
backing down.
The cleaning of the area around Kharkiv ended, some
minor advances in areas around Slavyansk. They resumed the city of
Kherson.
And now you are in The third phase, that it has been for some time, that It has consisted of A series of attacks and counterattacks. Russian attack a Bakhmut, that They finally took at a terrible price. A Ukrainian offensive. I wouldn't call it A counteroffensive, that was: he achieved minor successes, but not much; l At initiative Pasa again at the hands of the Russians since they have taken Avdiivka, again, at terribly high costs .
This is a phase
positional war. I think it is a mistake to talk about it as a point of death,
That is how some people talk about it. It is positional war that seems
quite familiar to military historians where the initiative changes
round trip, but where there is a lot of adaptation and innovation and change with the
initiative going and coming
.
And we don't know How much this positional phase can last. it can last a good time.
The other point that I think it is important to highlight is that it is easy become obsessed with the field campaign , which has different parts because it is one - We are talking about a very long front line.
In parallel It is carrying out an important naval campaign in which in fact, the Ukrainians have had a remarkable success by doing many damage to the sea fleet Black saving, of course, his flagship, but I also believe that five from nine of his landing boats, effectively retreating to Russians to some extent beyond the Crimean Peninsula, thus releasing the Maritime routes They have been able to export cereals, even further to, where The Russians have transferred some of its naval bases. So that is another campaign.
Hay
a deep campaign of attacks in which
Russians are attacking Ukrainian infrastructure
. They are attacking cities and
Ukrainian power plants and others, in addition to a kind of bombing
To sow terror. But with the Ukrainians who also attack Russia to a minor
measure, but still with real effect both in missiles of different types but
Also special operations forces.
And then it is underway
a kind of campaign
Information War
in which both Russians and Ukrainians are
trying to convince the public of different types in the West, in the south
Global and other places, who has the advantage, in which direction this is, of
What is all this.
I think it is very important to keep in mind that we have - There are multiple campaigns running and each one is in a place different .
Dr. Jones:
So, if we can open the map again, I want
concentrate a little, I want to stay on this subject and ask Mike and
Emily, looking at the map I want to perfect here. Some of the activities
more recent we have seen are here in Avdiivka, that the Russians have
Retaking to a big cost, we are listening to victims figures, with a grain
of salt, from more than 15,000 to 17,000. Russian casualties, which are huge if that is
TRUE.
The Russians also press Bakhmut. How ... mike, For you first? And then Emily, I mean, what is your opinion general about the important or What success has this had for the Russians? Wanna Saying, some people have done a big deal about this. that the Russians are Now to the offensive. They have Avdiivka resumed. But what is your meaning?
The Honorable Michael G. Vickers:
Well, the Russians are investigating in five
addresses along this line and Avdiivka, I think they were important
symbolic for Putin before his choice because basically, he had not taken
Nothing in a year from Bakhmut
.
You know, it has some value. But you mentioned the
Russian losses He
The exchange relationship was probably the order
From five to one, more or less, you know, a fairly small garnish of
Ukrainians, as in other places, could contain the Russians for quite a lot
time until they ran out of ammunition and personal.
Dr. Jones:
Emily, how important is this Russian success,
at least limited?
Emily Harding:
It is difficult to say it was a success for someone. Yes
lost 17,000 soldiers - and we should mention that I had to kill one of
His pro-kremlin bloggers to cover up the fact that they lost 17,000
soldiers; That is not a success for Putin.
I think what Mike says about a small garnish
Ukrainian that resists is absolutely true. There were some sad numbers
around 800 to a thousand. Ukrainian troops that could have been captured
When they tried to withdraw back and I think there are many criticisms really
unfair to the way the Ukrainians went back.
I mean, unless you have been in that
situation, it is very difficult for me to say that, they did not execute it as well as
They could have done it. But I believe that Ukrainians and Europeans should
insist on the fact that yes, the Russians achieved Avdiivka, but what do
price?
And look at the rest of that map. Can you pay that cost?
Throughout that forehead?
Dr. Cohen:
I think, you know, I would address this for a moment. Believe that part of the Russian intention in all this is, first, to agree with Mike; Putin wanted a symbolic victory of some kind before the elections. Maybe we want to talk a little about how politics Russian affects all this.
But I think what the Russians are, what the Russians They want to do now is convince everyone that the Ukrainian case does not have remedy .
Sra. Harding:
Yeah.
Dr. Cohen:
And that ... you know, and therefore, I think what They would probably do, Ultimately, what I would like to do is submit this to a negotiated agreement that is not permanent, which simply I would prepare them for another offensive somewhere later. So, in One way, I think that is the real objective.
You know, the center of gravity, to use some military jargon, it is. public opinion and the opinion of political elites, particularly in the United States, to persuade them that Ukraine You just can't win; You know, the Russians are relentless, they have resources that are essentially infinite and an infinite will to suffer. Now, I don't think any of those things is true, but I think that is In large part what the Russians want us to create .
Dr. Jones:
Then, Eliot, you mentioned the front. Yeah We could increase only these advance rates, so we gathered this, rates of progress for selective combined weapons offensives between 1914 and 2023 . I mean, I think it is true that the rhythm of progress of the offensive Ukrainian last year It was relatively slow. We evaluate between June 4 and on August 28, 2023, they got about 90 meters per day, which is quite slow.
They faced Russian defenses strongly
Fortified with mined fields. So the Russians could also bring
Fixed wing aircraft, helicopters and drones against tanks and armored personnel
Ukrainians who advance aircraft carrier and even disassembled infantry. But
Some people have raised the spectrum that seems: the situation is
It looks like World War. So how to respond to that?
Dr. Cohen:
Well, I would respond in several ways.
I would start by saying that it is really a bad Interpretation of what happened in World War I. You know, we, our mental image of World War I comes from a number of films in which it is only a group of snuggled types in a trench , Then they go up to the top and all are dejected by machine guns.
Actually, World War I was
a war
Very interactive
in which both sides are innovating all the time.
It was a
positional war
. And then what happens? And this can be a bit
misleading.
You know, armies do not move at their average progress rate
.
It
what happens is that they are slow, slow, slow and then, boom, there is a great
progress and everything suddenly are going very deep
.
This is like German offensives in 1918. It is
True for many wars. Even as the first Gulf War, there are, already
You know, 40 days of bombing and then, suddenly, the land war opens.
I think the other way in which the analogy of
World War I is misleading - and again, it is because people do not
Know the history, the reality type of tactical and operational history of the
World War I - is the assumption. This is simply a butcher shop and
There are many casualties. I don't want to minimize that - and it's absurd and there is no, you know,
No particular innovation.
Actually, this is a war in which there is
A lot of innovation, in which, I would say it in this way. I think the Ukrainians
Innovan from the bottom up and the Russians tend to innovate from above
down. Russians have a very vertical command system, so they can
be flexible. and learn and so on.
Ukrainians are a free society, so there is
Many guys with interesting ideas that come out and try things and experiment.
Both ways to do so have their advantages and disadvantages. But what
It is certainly not, a, it is not static; And B, it is not a conflict in which only
There are people hitting their heads. others without a genuine guy from
Innovation and improvement by any of the sides.
Then it exists - and what that means, ultimately
instance, is that there is the potential for, you know, serious instability
that goes from one place to another at any time, but certainly during the
Next year or so. You know, we should not assume that this will remain like this
Forever, because it won't be so.
Dr. Jones:
So Mike, have you seen big surprises until now? Honorable.
Vickers:
First, allow me to agree with Eliot about
The deceitful parallels of the First World War. An area where I think
There is a bit of similarity is that
It also has attributes of a war of
relative industrial capacity and the ability to stay
societies until you get the advances that Eliot spoke and the continuous
innovation.
So the big surprises are simple. Really
There are two.
One, how bad the Russian army has done, especially at the beginning of stages but even the last year, of this war of Position, Eliot spoke. AND You know, wear fight, have suffered losses much older and simply, you know, I have not had a good performance from a Military perspective The other side of the situation is how good The Ukrainians have done. Not only in defending its territory from the beginning, but then recovering it. And Járkov and Kherson, as Eliot mentioned, and Some of the innovations. You know, for a military without army, sinking Much of the Black Sea fleet, taking part of the fight in territory Russian also last week. Drushed, you already know, seven Russian airplanes. That It has been very good. I wish there would be bigger surprises. There are two in particular me keep in mind. First, if the clock that the United States could not go back persecuted. an incremental strategy. I think the Ukrainians would be a lot better if we had been bolder from the beginning.
Dr. Jones
With what? Long -range rockets or?
Honorable. Vickers:
Long -range projectiles, a variety of defenses
aerial, a variety of things that could have put the things we are
Doing now, you know, we should have started a couple of years ago and
We made them more in all areas. And then him
The second is the decrease in support in states Joined . I wish I could tell me that so many, particularly in the Republican party, now they are becoming against war and help Ukrainian can be in danger. But it is not a surprise. But it is certainly tragic.
Dr. Jones:
Well, that's a good transition for Emily. As
Would you value the American spare, including debates in Congress? And of
fact, before your answer, I just want to mention something that states
United has provided so far. Then we can go to the maps. Around
of 2 million bullets of 155 millimeters, 2,000- in addition to Stingers, Javelins and
Around 31 Abrams tanks. All these are DOD numbers.
You see Bradley Combat vehicles, Obuses, Himars, a
Patriot battery, Nasam, attack. Thus we have an idea of what states
United has provided since the invasion began. But what has been the
American response more recently?
Sra. Harding:
Yes, if this graph is supposed to relieve my
frustration, it is only a work species. (Laughs.) I would call him hesitation.
The United States response has been hesitant. I think, without charity, I know
I could say that we have been to play while Rome burns. We have been
debating among us, exactly what a small weapons system
It will lead to the top or not now for two years. And I think Mike is right.
If we had not been hesitating early onwards, if we had really
provided the things we should have provided, I would have been a lot
better now.
I would classify the debate within the United States
as partially of self -procession
.
There is a cube of that. And then partially self -centered.
And the autodisuasion piece is this constant to convince ourselves of
that if we provide the next system or additional capacity, then that will be what
that tilts Russia to expand the conflict. It simply has not happened.
Russia as interested as we are restricted to Ukraine. AND
the more that we allow them to continue advancing without retreating, the most will
press. Russia is a thug. They respond to force.
The egocentric piece is this completely debate
counterproductive, in which there are people who say, well, why are we
sending all these resources to Ukraine? Why do we spend all this money on
Ukraine, when we really should leave it here for a fight in the
Peaceful? Or we should really be kept here for priorities
internal It is simply the wrong way to see it.
First, from a numerical perspective
Basic, I think Angus King of Maine has a very good speech about this, the
money we spend in Ukraine does not leave the US
American defense. It goes to the US companies that send help to Ukraine. The
Great majority stay here
.
The other part is that it is not this or that. We have done
A great job here. In the CSIS, I know that some of our colleagues in
Washington have also done so that the types of weapons you need in a
fight in the Pacific are very different than the weapons that are needed in a
Fight in Ukraine. In addition, we have just seen Japan step forward and accept
Provide Ukraine for all kinds of help. And as they pointed out in the press this
Tomorrow, they share a common neighbor. Both Japan and Ukraine borders Russia. AND
Japan understands that this is not a Europe or a fight in the Pacific. This
It is a global message for a thug superpower.
And that's where we also have to think about it.
Dr. Cohen:
Can I participate in this? This is a really table
interesting. So you know, order of magnitude, something like 10,000
Jabalinas, that makes sense. That is the anti -tank missile you need. He
Abrams tank number. However, or with patriot batteries, that's
ridiculous. I mean, and the problem is that we tell ourselves, oh,
Well, we have given you, you know, high -end aerial defenses, the Patriots.
But a battery? Thirty -one tanks? By the way, we have hundreds of
stored abrams tanks. These are Abrams's old model. They are not the
that our soldiers use. They're available. They could have gone there
a long time. And I think it is reflected as a failure what to think: we have not
managed to think with the proper urgency level. I agree with Mike and
Emily in that. But we have not managed to think about the correct scale.
Honorable. Vickers: Escala.
Dr. Cohen:
And in part, it has been a long time, actually since
Korea, maybe. some parts of Vietnam, but we really have
involved in what is a war in which there is the entire
time. You know, I think we sometimes do a false dichotomy - and I'm afraid
that even some of our military thinkers address it in this way:
Between maneuvers and wear. Wear is not so much a strategy; is a
War condition You know, I think of -
Dr. Jones:
And nobody wants to be in a wear war.
Dr. Cohen:
But every - but if you are in a real war - yes
You are in a real war, you are in a war of wear. You know, I think of,
Let's say, 1967, the six -day war, you know. The Israelis lost
approximately a quarter of its Air Force. And it is important - or yes
You look, say, you know, the Germans crossing France in 1940, they
they lost as a fifth of their tanks, and you know, even more percentages
High, I think. Think in your Air Force. Simply - If you are in a war
It would be against a war with serious opponent - and by the way, it would also happen to us
We are going to take
great losses, and that means that you have to think
on the right scale. And unfortunately, I think that for our part he has
There will have been a systematic failure of thinking about the correct scale, with some
exceptions such as 155 millimeters rounds, where finally
We are expanding production, something that you already know about.
Dr. Jones:
Then yes. Yeah.
Sra. Harding:
Can I also play that with two fingers? So
Because I can listen to the screams from interwebs, batteries
Patriot, in reality I understand that due to the shortage of production in that
system and because I know many of our partners in the Middle East need them
desperately to do things like fighting the hutis, who are
shooting against Saudi Arabia. That is a reason, not an excuse. And here it is
where speech is inserted on the industrial defense basis and how not
We have been pointing enough to personnel who manufacture things like
Patriot batteries, there will be a demand for them will continue in the next two
years, five years, 10 years, so production increases to satisfy the
demand; And although we say for a second, that tomorrow the peace explodes throughout the
World, we will continue to comply with those contracts, so please constrain them.
Honorable. Vickers:
Yes. And I would add, you know, as my say
Old Chief Bob Gates, you know, you have to win the war you are.
Sra. Harding:
Yeah.
Dr. Jones:
My former boss Mike Vickers also said that. (Laughter.)
I want to return to a point, Emily, who did - you raised the perspective of
Other countries, including some of our adversaries. I think people can
forget or not realize that when it comes to the Russians, you know, the
Russians have also spent significant amounts of ammunition in this
War too. Then the question, in part - and that goes through drones and -
Where do Russians get help? And for those who want to focus or
They think we can focus (the United States can only focus on a theater
At the same time, so we should really focus on Taiwan, or even alone
Israel, or - and that we cannot do that, reality when you look cooperation is
that the Chinese have provided significant help to the Russians. And it has been in
All areas, not in wholesale weapons systems. But a range of
Technology for Russian weapons systems that includes everything from microchips
For weapons systems to pieces for ammunition.
North Koreans have provided rockets and ammunition
To the Russians. The Iranians have provided the Shahed-136 and other drones.
Then we are seeing the Russians receiving a variety of help from
The Chinese, of the North Koreans and the Iranians, which makes the United States
retain your help at this time is surprising because we have not seen the
Chinese in that sense, stop providing assistance to the Russians.
I also wanted to understand your opinion, Emily, about the
Europeans and where Europeans are when providing help to
Ukraine. There are also - there has also been talk that the Germans
They would provide Taurus, for example, which is a greater scope ammunition. which
It is your sense where the Europeans are and how useful they have been at the time of
Provide help to Ukraine? And then, you know, if you can add something else.
We have heard many criticisms. About Europeans
by several politicians about their defense expenditure, including 2 for
one hundred of the gross domestic product.
Dr. Jones:
Then yes. Yes. Mrs. Harding: mmm hmm. So,
To complement his excellent argument about China, we should not
Forget to what extent China has bought cheap Russian fuel, which is
keep the Russian economy afloat and allow them to do all the things that are
doing. More than saying about that.
But when it comes to Europeans, you know, I passed
The first year of this war reassuring European allies that
The United States is in this for the long term, which Biden has said that we are
In this in the long term.
The Russians are an old enemy. We understand that this goes
to be important not only for the security of Ukraine but also for the
Europe's security. Yes, there is talk of extremes about people, you know, that
They talk about their support to Ukraine. But those are the ends of the bell curve.
They were in this long term. And then, after a year passed, some of
Those bell curved voices at the end obtained a little stronger and a
Little more central and then I found myself saying it will be fine. It's going to be OK.
People like to add political points. But they will recover.
Now I find myself in the situation of having to look
To Europeans in the face and say: I really don't know what will happen to the current
Help package. I still have hope that the camera enters reason and
approves it because it is of vital importance for security in many ways.
It can be good for Ukraine and also for states
United at the same time.
But I think Europeans are really starting to
Get difficult questions about themselves: how do you see security
European without the presence of the United States? as?
The unfortunate comments of former president Trump
The other day about
I think NATO really shook them in a way
which is difficult to ignore and are starting to look at things from production
of defense until the end and through, you know, communications with each other.
We are seeing a silent defense production in
Some places and a loud defense. production in others. They are so far
To be able to do it, right? You know, direct NATO without the United States, but
Some very difficult questions are being raised.
And finally I want to point out that some of our
colleagues here at the CSIS have done a really good job in NATO and
We are working on a project now on whether the 2 percent threshold is
really relevant, if there are other ways to measure what should be
Really the contributions of NATO and if the 2 percent question is
Just a false track.
Dr. Jones:
Yes, frankly, I think it's mainly a track
false. I think the subject, at the end of the day - and I have also written about this - is
To what extent and how Europeans and high -level war are useful, for
example. So that it takes it to aerial capacities, land capacities,
Naval capacities, including anti -submarine war. That takes you out of the problem
of the percentage. And much more to the capabilities to perform operations.
Dr. Cohen:
Let me not agree with that. I think that,
On the one hand, it is important to be able to measure in a way, you know, more
Reasonable and militarily relevant operational contributions.
A figure of 2 percent of GDP, which is too much
low; I mean, I would say it is shooting at 3 (percent) or -
Dr. Jones:
The United States is closer to ... is in the range
3 percent, right?
Dr. Cohen:
Is politically significant and is a message
For the public involved and for the governments involved we expect
that they put important resources against their own defense and not put excuses and
Saying, well, we are hosts your forces, that is also a contribution.
You can't ... I don't think we can ignore your
Psychological dimension. I wanted to add, if I am allowed, two more things. One is
American production. It is absolutely fundamental because we have the greatest
Military industry and despite my previous scathing criticisms, we can
Expand things and get them on top. But it is also fundamental because
We provide leadership and central focus type for this. These are two
- There are two types of industrial coalition competitors here. You mentioned
one, Russia - Iran, China in the background with components and things, Korea del
North.
With us are the Europeans, obviously, with states
Joined. But, you know, South Koreans play a role and
Japanese play a role and the United States is critical for that. So,
Yes ... you know, and the South Koreans sell us 155 (- millimeters) so that later
we can give ours to the Ukrainians; Indeed part of the game.
We have to be in ESO center.
Now, I think it's important because ... I mean,
I think we are tending to be quite critical, and appropriately,
With our own government. Actually, the Russians are found in a way
different in a world of pain.
They are ... you know, they are in a state of mobilization.
It is not clear that
have really been able to increase military production of
a tremendously significant way. They still fight with production
of advanced pieces. of military team. You know, for example, they have had this
ARMATA T-14. tank they have been talking about for years. It's supposed to be
incredible. system. They have had problems implementing it. Have had
problems get it to occur. Your fossil fuel income has
gone decreasing. Yes, the Chinese buy that oil. The Chinese are good
merchants. And then they understand that. Oil is cheap and they ...
You know, they don't have the same pipelines and things. how that.
So I think, you know, the Russians - the same fact
that North Koreans have to depend for 152 millimeter projectiles,
They have as a caliber 30 percentage of failure, he tells you something about their
Military industry So, you know, we should remind ourselves
That if we, if the United States is in the center, we propose it and
We keep the feet of our European allies to the fire, we can easily
overcome these types both in quantity and quality, safe, but I would say
that even in quantitative terms. But there must be a lot of energy
policy placed. And unfortunately I don't see that.
Dr. Jones:
So, returning to its European point, yes, it is
important to spend more on the Ministry of Defense. That 2 percent threshold
In a certain sense, it simply highlights that. But at the end of the day, I think
It is also important how they are spending their money. So if we can
to achieve this. I'm going to go with Mike in a second with a question. But if
We could show the image here. I just want people to see here.
This is one of the Iranian drones, the Shahed. 136. This was shot down in kyiv,
And now he is in possession of Ukrainians. You can also see here what it is
of an Iranian drone. And here this Iranian flag is on the side. So this us
Give an idea of some of the other countries that have been providing assistance
To the Russians.
What takes me, Mike, to the Russians. That is, your
Russian military evaluation. You already talked a little about this, but what do you have? Good
made, in your sense? Where has you fought? And are we seeing some? Evolution
of the Russian concept of operations? They used more air than had in the past
in the offensive of Avdiivka. What does that mean?
Honorable. Vickers:
So where the Russians have done the best
They can really be in this position where they have had an advantage of
Artillery and an advantage. And then those two things - and, in addition,
The nine months, essentially, they were given to dig, prepare, put fields
Mined and other things that made the Ukrainian summer offensive of the year
past was very problematic. That, and the lack of aerial power of the Ukrainians.
You know, we essentially ask the Ukrainians to fight a war from a
so that the US army or the western military never
They would do. And you know, you just can't win that way. That is, it is
military negligence.
So that's where they have done better. They have done what
worse they have been able to in the integrated field of combined weapons operations,
Aeroterres operations. And this is something we have seen with the Russian Army
In the Russian-Georgian war. They thought they had plans to fix these
Things, you know, of the lessons learned. They have not really done a good
job. And you know, if everything seems to have worsened as the scale has
increased. I mean, his great advantage at this time is really in the
resources. And it may be more fragile than people think.
Dr. Jones:
So, if we could open the slide, only
To emphasize what Mike noticed. Can
Look, this is ... this was last year. But we can
See some of the Russian positions of positions. The trenches that raised
Here, the dragon's teeth. These are multiple rows of dragon teeth.
You can't see it here because it is buried, but the mined fields, the
Anti -tanks that have used, the mortar locations and locations
of weapons they have had. They had time during last year's offensive
To strengthen some of these defenses. measures. What about Russian air?
Honorable. Vickers:
Yes, Russian air, you know, it has been based
mainly in unmanned aerial missiles and vehicles
Strategic against populated centers. You know, and it certainly had some success
in that. In terms of aerial power on the battlefield, during the offensive
Ukrainian used attack helicopters reasonably well to limit
Ukrainian penetrations. Fixed wing aircraft have not done much. You
You know played a role in Avdiivka towards the end, when the Ukrainian army
I was withdrawing under pressure -
Dr. Jones:
And I didn't have many Earth-Aire missiles.
Honorable. Vickers:
And had no earth-Aire missiles. But
mainly it stayed behind the lines and planning pumps that
They can enter and achieve objectives. And then it has not been a great player.
You know, Russian doctrine integrates air with armies in the field, doing
to the upper army. A little different from our approach.
I would also add that, you know, its operational advantages
are
One thing. What the Russians really tell for
winning the war is
essentially knocking out the allies of Ukraine.
Basically cutting international support. You know, Eliot talked about this and Emily
He talked about political problems in Congress. But you know, that's his
theory. of the victory, is that if the aid is cut, they will have a chance
better.
Dr. Jones:
Well, because they also receive help. So he
Balance of power changes dramatically.
Honorable. Vickers:
Yes, they also receive help. The balance of
Power changes, exactly.
Sra. Harding:
This is one of those self -complicated prophecies of
those that spoke at the beginning. What is the message that Russians want
Let's absorb? that Ukraine cannot win, so we should withdraw the support.
And that idea that this is going to be totally self -fulfilled, which once we accept
The Russian policy of line then we go back, which makes it true, I think that
It is what we have to protect at all costs.
Honorable. Vickers:
I think Lenin called them useful idiots.
Dr. Cohen:
Well, and in a way it is already happening. Wanna
Say, even put aside Tucker Carlson, you know, you look at Senator Vance
Ohio. I mean, that's ... is saying what Russians would like
to say. that there is no way that Ukrainians can win, so
Let's be realistic and stop helping them.
Dr. Jones:
Well, Emily, the Russians have also been active in
Many other areas. We have seen Navalny face death. We have seen
to a Ukrainian deserter probably killed in Spain. What else do you have?
I mean, what are you doing with what the Russians are doing now in various
fields?
Sra. Harding:
I mean, they get paid in a way that
It seems quite surprising. What is clear: Navalny did not fall dead because
own will in a Russian prison. I know in my bones as sure as
I'm sitting here, and I didn't even have to do it. Be on the floor with him.
We will discover it at some point in the future that was in fact killed, and it was
Killed at a certain time for a certain reason. The fact that Putin
It has allowed it just before Munich the conference is quite interesting.
That came out almost at the same time that some news arose about some
New Russian capabilities potentially being in space, I think it is very
interesting.
And it is a quite bold message that we are in the
second anniversary of this war and its number one political critic, feels that
You can eliminate with little or no repair. And I think Europeans are
Analyzing that message. In a way, does anyone know enough
naive to think that Navalny was going out of prison and becoming the
Future leader of Russia? No, Putin was never going to allow that to happen. But
the fact that he did it in the way he did. I think it was a message
Very scary for Europeans. And I wish we also arrived
over there.
Honorable. Vickers:
And the moment
It is: not only did not die for natural causes, hence they will not release the body
until they have disinfected enough, but also the moment is not
accidental. Is designed to be right on our face, let's say: we can
Hcer this and what are you going to do about it?
Sra. Harding:
What we do about it? What are we doing
about?
Dr. Jones:
So,
While you look at the year 2024, Emily, indications and warnings, what
We should look for an idea of how things are going?
Sra. Harding:
Yes. So it's
When I take away my indignant politician and put my hat of
Impartial analyst, or at least I do my best to do it. If you see
The linear analysis of where this conflict is directed, we must think that Russia
He will try to take advantage of his advantage in men and possibly power of
fire, although we have an intense debate about who will have the advantage in
firepower. But they continue to throw metal and people in the problem.
You have to think that Ukraine will be trapped in this
defensive position for at least next year, while trying to discover
Some fundamental things and a reassessment of the strategy. So,
Looking, you know, what are you doing? To gather the labor you need to face
To the Russians? What do you do with mandatory military service or not? What do you do to
Try to obtain this hodgepodge of different materials they have and
combine it in an effective and coherent combat force. But that's really
Inherent to, we are sitting almost still while we try to solve this and
Wait for any type of Russian offense like the one we saw in Avdiivka.
So what would that evaluation change? Those who
The evaluations of the Ukrainian side would change, I think they are much more
Probable that the big ones, changes on the Russian side. So I'll review them
first.
The first option is that the United States approves the
Help package; Europeans do not use that as an opportunity to say
"UF" and go back to what they have been. In doing so, they also advance
with a huge amount of help; that Ukraine continues to carry the fight to
Russians We were talking about surprises before. One of my surprises is the little
that the Russian population has really felt the impact of this conflict. If that
Change, if we find a way to make the Russian population understand the
Costs of this conflict. to them in their places of origin. And then, if Ukraine
Find a way of choosing subaters differently. I mean, me
give in to military analysts in the room, who would know exactly
how it would be seen, but they find ways to focus on a particular area and
achieve progress there, could see that changing that scenario I proposed to
2024.
On the Russian side, these are much more likely issues
And high impact, could there be roller troops riots? We saw what
Unpleasant with the Wagner group. You know, could something like this happen again
On a smaller scale along the Russian front lines? Is there one
possibility? That at some point in 2025 there will be a fall in the
Russian production of ammunition? I think that would change the rules of the game to
the conflict if it were really true and if China had not come to
save them. And then the real black swan is that something arises from the murder
from Navalny, that really becomes some kind of internal disturbance
Within Russia that attracts Putin's attention to return to internal problems
Russians more than continue the war in Ukraine. You know, the fighter for the
Freedom in me really expects that to happen, but I don't see many
indications that this can be the way. We go
Dr. Jones:
So,
Eliot, I know you have written about it, if we can find photography. of the
New Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. what are your options
As we look at the course of 2024? I mean, some of this is
You will clearly defend the Russian forces, but what are your
options? in staying in the fight?
Dr. Cohen:
Well I think You are probably thinking of some very mundane things. Things like: how Can I simply sustain strength? How can I rotate tired troops? You know, how ... how do I train not only the new troops but also to the new troops as individuals? - Do you know, the Ukrainians have not been so intense as we would be in individual troops training, but in reality what is probably even the most important thing at this time is vitally important. But upper level training of units of Battalions/brigades, training of older states, I think there is much of that. They are thinking clearly: they have created this new command for aerial systems Not beed, get such things to stand up. And I think they - You know, they want to deliberately - the reason why they have clung to Avdiivka because it has some political meaning for them. But I think, as in Bakhmut, who decided that the Russians really bleed, because I think they understand (not everyone in the West do it: that resources Russia are not infinite and that if the Army Dustusia is suffering losses Very large, even among young officers and others. ignition: they will have problems to perform any type of maneuver important operation only because they will not have the officers who can carry out…. Then I think There is that. I think absorbing the new technology that get. Those are going to be their concerns to 2024, in addition to processing Other campaigns we have talked about.
Honorable. Vickers:
And we can help you by approving this aid bill.
Dr. Cohen:
Absolutely.
Honorable. Vickers:
But also, instead of simply considering giving Attack or long range weapons to Ukrainians, such as the missile system Army tactics and German Taurus of our two governments, giving them to they. And then, you know, it is possible that the Kerch bridge does not remain in foot for a long time .
Dr. Cohen:
And that really ... You know, just to emphasize that point, you know, when we have given the Ukrainian weapons of greater reach like the Himars or even ... we gave them, how are you 20 Atacms? They know how to use those things very effectively against vulnerable areas in the Russian rear: its logistics nodes, command and Control, barracks, things like that. And when that is done, the Russian ability to continue these offensives in places like Avdiivka. Therefore, it is a capacity of critical importance. And if we eliminate the Kerch bridge, they will have other ways to take things to Crimea, but it is a lot more difficult. And that is what we should be doing .
Dr. Jones:
I frequently remember the television program American “Macgyver ”By observing how Ukrainians have been Innovatives in how they have even used harpoons in the rear of trucks , For example; the way they have used some of their - and if we could show This here - some of its FPV, drones, or tied different types of improvised explosive devices, throwing themselves on Russian soldiers. They have been quite innovative . So, the last question for Mike and Emily is: Could you give us an idea, particularly to the American audience, of what What is at stake here? I mean, if you even look at a red team, if you look A Russian victory here, a Russian success, even a significant advance in the Battlefield, what would be the implications? And in more terms general, how important this is for the United States and how they should Think of Americans about it?
Honorable. Vickers:
Well, I think the first thing is the advanced defense of Europe. You know, we can talk about democracy, and this is the whitest war and black that can be found in moral terms. But it is also important For the defense of Europe, and Europe is still very important for states United in its long -term competition with China and Russia . And you know, there would be more threats to Europe if Russia won, and could also carry some time. And we would also have, you know, maybe a weakening of the European resolution, followed by a weakening of the US resolution. You know, as Eliot said, we tend to lead these things. And it is very important Let us do it. And then I think it is also a global problem. It is not just a European issue Then send messages to the evils everywhere. But, now You know, China is watching this closely, as to what happens there. And then their calculations on Taiwan will be affected by the result of This war .
Sra. Harding:
Yes, I would love to try to draw a straight line from what That is happening in Ukraine until, you know, someone's wallet in Kansas . It is a little long trip, but be patient. If you think about the way in which the United States operates on the world stage, we have deliveries Just in time on Walmart shelves. We have supply chains that They cover everyone. And all these things are possible because the United States and His allies have attached to a world system that tries to respect the State of law and that has predictable economic consequences for certain things that They happen . What Putin has done with his invasion of Ukraine that is to say: I don't None of that imports. I want the world system to be reaped in the way that I like it. I want to show that the UN makes no sense, that the United States It is weak, that American democracy is not as good as it seems. AND I want the United States to fight internally, alone, against yourself, instead to use its vast global power to guarantee a safer world and prosperous. The Chinese saw that and said: we like that idea. What we want It is a world that is safe for Chinese companies. We want to manage The world as we believe should be managed. We don't care about freedoms personal We do not care democracy. What matters to us is to make money For us and for our business. So we also agree with That as a plan. Let's see how we can alter this global system in our favor. To do