Lies, damned lies, the media — and Kharkov
Suicide and the West
Who can find the war? It is increasingly difficult.
Last week, I did a couple of voiceovers for SouthFront videos, which were highly critical of the “Russian command” and suggested that Russia had suffered a major defeat in Kharkov.
I like SouthFront — obviously — since I am, among other things, a broadcast professional and I work for them pro bono. They do a lot of commendable onsite reporting and try hard. But nobody is right all the time (especially me!). This time they were wrong.
Soon SouthFront’s views were supported by a chorus of many others: the pro-Russian internet was abuzz about the new UAF offensive in Kharkov and Russia ‘s “failure” there, as indicated by its withdrawal from Izyum.
SMOlogists seemed pretty consistent in their analyses — which did not repeat Western propaganda — but — as Mark Twain would have it — rhymed with it beautifully. Even Bernhard at Moon of Alabama and Dima at the Military Summary Channel were singing along.
Bernhard, probably the most balanced analyst there is, however, was rather nuanced and he quickly revised his position as events unfolded. As in: early on: “it seems like a defeat BUT…” Then later: “the Russians are turning things to their advantage…” And still later: “Don’t believe what the Western media say!”
Scott Ritter, who deserves considerable respect, just had to get into the act. He wrote an article, extensively cross-posted: Why Russia Will Still Win, Despite Ukraine’s Gains. If only he had read Larry Johnson or William Shryver first. Or me.
Sorry! “Gains”? But “lose” anyway? No, Scott: you can’t have your borscht and eat it too. Read Martyanov, he eats borscht, but he doesn’t dip a hot dog in it.
When strengthening your position is “defeat”
As I wrote last time, in The Failed NATO Nazi Offensive in Kharkov, the Russian “retreat” in Kharkov is in no way a “defeat”; the Ukrainian’s “gains” are instead liabilities.
Now, the UAF is no longer hiding under concrete and steel — it’s out in the open in a 2000 square kilometer chunk of territory the Russians didn’t want, having previously evacuated pro-Russian citizens and most of their troops.
Izyum was once possibly valuable in the event of an assault on Kramatorsk but with gains in the South, that usefulness is now limited.
Like so many other SMOlogists, Ritter is long on conjecture, short on objective analysis. And his claims to a magical understanding of what Vlad’ is thinking do not help his thesis.
The facts?
The UAF has suffered casualties that promise to be on the same scale as the huge losses sustained in Kherson. In the end, 30 to 50,000 KIA and wounded. And many of those will be from the large contingent of foreign “volunteers”.
Rumor has it that these people are there to operate that new weaponry supplied by NATO states. No one really knows about this for sure, of course — although we do know that NATO “advisors” and “volunteers” are much involved in various, undisclosed capacities and comprise a large percentage of the force. And are dying horribly.
Mind Reading the Russians
It is always tempting to look at events and try to mind-read the Russian General Command (RGC), who, unlike their foreign counterparts do not blather a lot to the Media. In doing that bit of mental legerdemain, Ritter cites his knowledge of “mobility” warfare as a former Marine Corps officer.
However, what is actually known as “maneuver warfare” in the Marine Corps, is a bastardized and limited version of John Boyd’s much more comprehensive concept of conflict, necessarily limited by the need to conform to WestPoint teachings — which insist that securing defined territory within a fixed window of time must be the priority. “Maneuvre” can optimize such goals, but flexibility is lacking.
Russian “mobility warfare” is Combat Sambo — it is dynamic and responsive — it prioritizes destroying the enemy over securing territory, with an “open” window of time, using mobile weaponry and tactics. It is all about identifying opportunity.
The GRC do not make pronouncements outside of general goals — because their strategy changes with events. This is classic John Boyd. Which is classic Sun Tzu.
Frustratingly, for SMOlogists, the fact that there is no “window” of time for the Russians means it takes as long as it takes — which is eminently rational since the Ukraine is just one battlefield in a larger, mostly economic hybrid war against Russia, a new kind of world war. Russia’s war is existential and there are theaters other than Ukraine to consider. Russia will not weaken its hand by pushing to accomplish everything to fit an artificially conceived schedule. And its real enemy is not Zelensky, it the US of A!
Suicide as a Media Tool
In the Pacific War, the Japanese lost the war when they lost their carriers, which was early on. After that, they had a few tactical successes, but the end was clear: defeat. So, they ramped up their propaganda. The Japanese people really thought they were winning since that is all that knew, all that were told. The same thing is happening in the West today.
The US started a diplomatic and economic world war against China and Russia years ago — and it lost when its primary weapon of mass destruction — sanctions — proved to merely strengthen its enemies. Addo that it lost its industrial base and military superiority, except in numbers.
So the only war the West can win is the PsyWar, which is ironically, a war that hurts its own people — just as was the case with Hirohito’s Japan, where millions were sacrificed so the dynasty could live.
One should remember how the Japanese used suicide attacks, both on the ground and in the air. Zelensky is doing that too. The attacks in Kherson and Kharkov are indeed “suicidal”, as are new attacks shaping up in Donbass. Kamikaze attacks damaged a few carriers and sunk a few ships — nominally “tactical” successes== but they changed nothing.
The Nazis in Germany had their own Kamikazes. But again, they accomplished little but to feed the propaganda machine.
Ritter Rittin’
The Ukrainians had been signaling their intent to conduct an offensive in the Kherson region for many weeks now. It appears that when Ukraine initiated its attacks along the Kherson line, Russia assumed that this was the long-awaited offensive, and rushed reserves and reinforcements to this front.
The Ukrainians were repulsed with heavy losses, but not before Russia had committed its theater reserves. When the Ukrainian army attacked in the Kharkov region a few days later, Russia was taken by surprise.
The RF did not commit their reserves after the UAF attacked.
As Ritter himself admits, they had their forces in place, ready and waiting to act before the offensive began. They took minimum casualties.
Nor were they “surprised” by the attack in Kharkov, preparations for which were known for weeks. They had already withdrawn forces for redeployment to the South given the probability of further attacks in Kherson and against the ZNPP were high.
So the UAF was left, as one writer put it, “punching the air”, while being hit by artillery, missiles and bombs.
Just in the first few days, the UAF lost hundreds of men and a lot of equipment. So much for the Western aid that Ritter calls a “game changer”. Sorry, Scott, a few HIMARS don’t change anything!
Moreover, the attack in Kharkov gave the Russians an excuse to mount precision missile attacks on the Ukrainian power grid, impairing resupply to forces in Kharkov. They also attacked a dam to impair the UAF offensive in South.
Who can find the war? It is increasingly difficult.
Last week, I did a couple of voiceovers for SouthFront videos, which were highly critical of the “Russian command” and suggested that Russia had suffered a major defeat in Kharkov.
I like SouthFront — obviously — since I am, among other things, a broadcast professional and I work for them pro bono. They do a lot of commendable onsite reporting and try hard. But nobody is right all the time (especially me!). This time they were wrong.
Soon SouthFront’s views were supported by a chorus of many others: the pro-Russian internet was abuzz about the new UAF offensive in Kharkov and Russia ‘s “failure” there, as indicated by its withdrawal from Izyum.
SMOlogists seemed pretty consistent in their analyses — which did not repeat Western propaganda — but — as Mark Twain would have it — rhymed with it beautifully. Even Bernhard at Moon of Alabama and Dima at the Military Summary Channel were singing along.
Bernhard, probably the most balanced analyst there is, however, was rather nuanced and he quickly revised his position as events unfolded. As in: early on: “it seems like a defeat BUT…” Then later: “the Russians are turning things to their advantage…” And still later: “Don’t believe what the Western media say!”
Scott Ritter, who deserves considerable respect, just had to get into the act. He wrote an article, extensively cross-posted: Why Russia Will Still Win, Despite Ukraine’s Gains. If only he had read Larry Johnson or William Shryver first. Or me.
Sorry! “Gains”? But “lose” anyway? No, Scott: you can’t have your borscht and eat it too. Read Martyanov, he eats borscht, but he doesn’t dip a hot dog in it.
When strengthening your position is “defeat”
As I wrote last time, in The Failed NATO Nazi Offensive in Kharkov, the Russian “retreat” in Kharkov is in no way a “defeat”; the Ukrainian’s “gains” are instead liabilities.
Now, the UAF is no longer hiding under concrete and steel — it’s out in the open in a 2000 square kilometer chunk of territory the Russians didn’t want, having previously evacuated pro-Russian citizens and most of their troops.
Izyum was once possibly valuable in the event of an assault on Kramatorsk but with gains in the South, that usefulness is now limited.
Like so many other SMOlogists, Ritter is long on conjecture, short on objective analysis. And his claims to a magical understanding of what Vlad’ is thinking do not help his thesis. .
The facts?
The UAF has suffered casualties that promise to be on the same scale as the huge losses sustained in Kherson. In the end, 30 to 50,000 KIA and wounded. And many of those will be from the large contingent of foreign “volunteers”.
Rumor has it that these people are there to operate that new weaponry supplied by NATO states. No one really knows about this for sure, of course — although we do know that NATO “advisors” and “volunteers” are much involved in various, undisclosed capacities and comprise a large percentage of the force. And are dying horribly.
Mind Reading the Russians
It is always tempting to look at events and try to mind-read the Russian General Command (RGC), who, unlike their foreign counterparts do not blather a lot to the Media. In doing that bit of mental legerdemain, Ritter cites his knowledge of “mobility” warfare as a former Marine Corps officer.
However, what is actually known as “maneuver warfare” in the Marine Corps, is a bastardized and limited version of John Boyd’s much more comprehensive concept of conflict, necessarily limited by the need to conform to WestPoint teachings — which insist that securing defined territory within a fixed window of time must be the priority. “Maneuvre” can optimize such goals, but flexibility is lacking.
Russian “mobility warfare” is Combat Sambo — it is dynamic and responsive — it prioritizes destroying the enemy over securing territory, with an “open” window of time, using mobile weaponry and tactics. It is all about identifying opportunity.
The GRC do not make pronouncements outside of general goals — because their strategy changes with events. This is classic John Boyd. Which is classic Sun Tzu.
Frustratingly, for SMOlogists, the fact that there is no “window” of time for the Russians means it takes as long as it takes — which is eminently rational since the Ukraine is just one battlefield in a larger, mostly economic hybrid war against Russia, a new kind of world war. Russia’s war is existential and there are theaters other than Ukraine to consider. Russia will not weaken its hand by pushing to accomplish everything to fit an artificially conceived schedule. And its real enemy is not Zelensky, it the US of A!
Suicide as a Media Tool
In the Pacific War, the Japanese lost the war when they lost their carriers, which was early on. After that, they had a few tactical successes, but the end was clear: defeat. So, they ramped up their propaganda. The Japanese people really thought they were winning since that is all that knew, all that were told. The same thing is happening in the West today.
The US started a diplomatic and economic world war against China and Russia years ago — and it lost when its primary weapon of mass destruction — sanctions — proved to merely strengthen its enemies. Addo that it lost its industrial base and military superiority, except in numbers.
So the only war the West can win is the PsyWar, which is ironically, a war that hurts its own people — just as was the case with Hirohito’s Japan, where millions were sacrificed so the dynasty could live.
One should remember how the Japanese used suicide attacks, both on the ground and in the air. Zelensky is doing that too. The attacks in Kherson and Kharkov are indeed “suicidal”, as are new attacks shaping up in Donbass. Kamikaze attacks damaged a few carriers and sunk a few ships — nominally “tactical” successes== but they changed nothing.
The Nazis in Germany had their own Kamikazes. But again, they accomplished little but to feed the propaganda machine.
Ritter Rittin’
The Ukrainians had been signaling their intent to conduct an offensive in the Kherson region for many weeks now. It appears that when Ukraine initiated its attacks along the Kherson line, Russia assumed that this was the long-awaited offensive, and rushed reserves and reinforcements to this front.
The Ukrainians were repulsed with heavy losses, but not before Russia had committed its theater reserves. When the Ukrainian army attacked in the Kharkov region a few days later, Russia was taken by surprise.
The RF did not commit their reserves after the UAF attacked.
As Ritter himself admits, they had their forces in place, ready and waiting to act before the offensive began. They took minimum casualties.
Nor were they “surprised” by the attack in Kharkov, preparations for which were known for weeks. They had already withdrawn forces for redeployment to the South given the probability of further attacks in Kherson and against the ZNPP were high.
So the UAF was left, as one writer put it, “punching the air”, while being hit by artillery, missiles and bombs.
Just in the first few days, the UAF lost hundreds of men and a lot of equipment. So much for the Western aid that Ritter calls a “game changer”. Sorry, Scott, a few HIMARS don’t change anything!
Moreover, the attack in Kharkov gave the Russians an excuse to mount precision missile attacks on the Ukrainian power grid, impairing resupply to forces in Kharkov. They also attacked a dam to impair the UAF offensive in South.
The Ukrainians have responded by shelling Russian towns, which gives the RF further options to make things difficult for Ukrainians. As usual, they continue shelling civilians in Donbas and orchestrating terrorist assassinations. Their attacks on the ZNPP indicate they don’t care about poisoning the environment.
Critical Thinking for Beginners
If you want to know about the SMO, you have to read carefully. And choose your sources even more carefully. Basic critical thinking.
Moon of Alabama is very good. So is Andrei Martyanov on the Saker. And Larry Johnson and Pepe Escobar. There are many others. They all have different points of view of course. And they bring up different points
For example, Larry Johnson notes that the SMO is not “Russia’s War”; it belongs to the DPR and LPR — as it has been since 2014.
This is a war of independence, just like the American Revolution, with the DPR and LPR throwing off the yolk of their Banderite Ukrainian speaking masters.
The Larry Johnson View
Larry Johnson writes:
The Ukrainians and NATO know that most of the ground war is being fought by Donbas militias, but do not want to inform the public of that because it undercuts their propaganda campaign to make this “invasion” all about Russia.
Johnson also makes another point about control of information.
If this conflict is poker, the Russians never show their cards. Whereas the West can’t control their tells. If they have aces, they just have let you know and gloat.
We also know that Russia is much better at deception than Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine did nothing to hide its intent to launch an attack in the Kherson region and also signaled it would attack around Kharkov. Russia? Helped the Donbas militias reinforce their forces around Kherson (and successfully beat back the Ukrainian attack causing massive Ukrainian losses). Russia also leaked information that it was sending huge armor and artillery reinforcements towards Kharkov as that offensive got underway when, in reality, it organized a tactical withdrawal from the region and redeployed forces south to Donetsk.
The Russians destroyed a lot of Ukie armor, air resources and artillery early on, which is why the UAF just hunkered down in the Maginot Grid. They still don’t have enough. NATO supplies a lot of obsolete stuff — much of which just doesn’t reach the troops, either destroyed from the air by the Russians or sold on the black market, sometimes to the Russians themselves (really, really cheap!). The more advanced stuff takes time and training before it can be used.
Having a three to one advantage in numbers makes no difference. If you are a big guy facing off a small guy, your size won’t matter if that small guy has a gun. A big gang of guys with knives doesn’t do well, faced by two guys with machine guns and grenades, and a sniper on a rooftop.
Despite all that “game changing aid” that the MSM (and Ritter) tout, the UAF still lacks the suite — the combination — of weapons it needs, despite having superiority in numbers.
If you are a big guy facing off a small guy, your size won’t matter if that small guy has a gun. A gang of guys with knives don’t do well, faced by two guys with machine guns and grenades, and a sniper on a rooftop.
Despite all that “game changing aid” that the MSM (and Ritter) tout, the UAF has its knives and a few handguns, but it still lacks the full suite of weapons it needs, despite having superiority in numbers
There is on more salient fact–the Ukrainian offensive around Kharkov took place without any meaningful support from Ukrainian combat air or artillery. Why is that important? That means the Russian air force–both fixed wing and rotary wing–is unscathed and intact. Russian armor and artillery systems also were not destroyed. If they ain’t destroyed they can still fight and the Ukrainian troops do not have a large reserve of armor and artillery to protect them.
And the Ukraine’s “success” in Kharkov?
Ukraine has incurred horrendous casualties over the last two and a half weeks of combat. Russia and the militias have far fewer losses.
One can assume that 10 Ukies die for every Russian or allied soldier. The longer losses mount, the weaker the power of the regime. At some point, even pro-Kiev Ukrainians have to suffer a loss of morale. As the Japanese did when defeat came, they may welcome the winners.
The future?
Contrary to what Ritter seems to say, Russia has not used its reserves, although it has slyly suggested it might — as opposition parties in Russia demand. “Might” is not the same was “will”. Of course, Russia has massive reserves. Right now, this war is for the DPR and LPR to win.
Of course, if the DPR and LPR join Russia after the November referenda, Russian law applies and Russia can use conscript forces, now banned by law from operating outside of the Federation in Eastern Ukraine. As Johnson says:
Russia has not tapped into its trained military reserve. Ukraine has no trained military reserve left.
In addition, Russia has scaled up attacks on critical infrastructure in the Ukraine although only to the degree that it effects operations in the field.
The war is over — but the SMO continues. And, at some point, the “Ukraine” will cease to exist as it was: it will collapse. So will the American Empire, although that will take longer. But you won’t read that in the NYT.
…the western sources are liars. After years of insisting there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that United States defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, why would these guys lie about something were the very future of NATO may be at stake? If Joe Biden and his cronies say it is so, take it to the bank. They have.
The “West” has nothing left but lies — and suicide. From Russia’s point of view, if the US and the EU want to kill themselves — sad — but just hand them the knife to cut their bellies and get it over with, so hopefully they don’t include innocent bystanders in their self-destruction. The majority of mankind will be better off.
Julian Macfarlane. I am a journalist and media analyst. I make no money from these articles, but I need your support to keep going. Please subscribe, share, comment and spread the word. These articles are in the public interest. You may copy, quote or reprint in any form.
Flooding after dam strike. UAF alleged to have dumped toxic chemicals in the water to poison ethnic Russians downstream
The Ukrainians have responded by shelling Russian towns, which gives the RF further options to make things difficult for Ukrainians. As usual, they continue shelling civilians in Donbas and orchestrating terrorist assassinations. Their attacks on the ZNPP indicate they don’t care about poisoning the environment.
Critical Thinking for Beginners
If you want to know about the SMO, you have to read carefully. And choose your sources even more carefully. Basic critical thinking.
Moon of Alabama is very good. So is Andrei Martyanov on the Saker. And Larry Johnson and Pepe Escobar. There are many others. They all have different points of view of course. And they bring up different points
For example, Larry Johnson notes that the SMO is not “Russia’s War”; it belongs to the DPR and LPR — as it has been since 2014.
This is a war of independence, just like the American Revolution, with the DPR and LPR throwing off the yolk of their Banderite Ukrainian speaking masters.
The Larry Johnson View
Larry Johnson writes:
The Ukrainians and NATO know that most of the ground war is being fought by Donbas militias, but do not want to inform the public of that because it undercuts their propaganda campaign to make this “invasion” all about Russia.
Johnson also makes another point about control of information.
If this conflict is poker, the Russians never show their cards. Whereas the West can’t control their tells. If they have aces, they just have let you know and gloat.
We also know that Russia is much better at deception than Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine did nothing to hide its intent to launch an attack in the Kherson region and also signaled it would attack around Kharkov. Russia? Helped the Donbas militias reinforce their forces around Kherson (and successfully beat back the Ukrainian attack causing massive Ukrainian losses). Russia also leaked information that it was sending huge armor and artillery reinforcements towards Kharkov as that offensive got underway when, in reality, it organized a tactical withdrawal from the region and redeployed forces south to Donetsk.
The Russians destroyed a lot of Ukie armor, air resources and artillery early on, which is why the UAF just hunkered down in the Maginot Grid. They still don’t have enough. NATO supplies a lot of obsolete stuff — much of which just doesn’t reach the troops, either destroyed from the air by the Russians or sold on the black market, sometimes to the Russians themselves (really, really cheap!). The more advanced stuff takes time and training before it can be used.
Having a three to one advantage in numbers makes no difference. If you are a big guy facing off a small guy, your size won’t matter if that small guy has a gun. A big gang of guys with knives doesn’t do well, faced by two guys with machine guns and grenades, and a sniper on a rooftop.
Despite all that “game changing aid” that the MSM (and Ritter) tout, the UAF still lacks the suite — the combination — of weapons it needs, despite having superiority in numbers.
If you are a big guy facing off a small guy, your size won’t matter if that small guy has a gun. A gang of guys with knives don’t do well, faced by two guys with machine guns and grenades, and a sniper on a rooftop.
Despite all that “game changing aid” that the MSM (and Ritter) tout, the UAF has its knives and a few handguns, but it still lacks the full suite of weapons it needs, despite having superiority in numbers
There is on more salient fact–the Ukrainian offensive around Kharkov took place without any meaningful support from Ukrainian combat air or artillery. Why is that important? That means the Russian air force–both fixed wing and rotary wing–is unscathed and intact. Russian armor and artillery systems also were not destroyed. If they ain’t destroyed they can still fight and the Ukrainian troops do not have a large reserve of armor and artillery to protect them.
And the Ukraine’s “success” in Kharkov?
Ukraine has incurred horrendous casualties over the last two and a half weeks of combat. Russia and the militias have far fewer losses.
One can assume that 10 Ukies die for every Russian or allied soldier. The longer losses mount, the weaker the power of the regime. At some point, even pro-Kiev Ukrainians have to suffer a loss of morale. As the Japanese did when defeat came, they may welcome the winners.
The future?
Contrary to what Ritter seems to say, Russia has not used its reserves, although it has slyly suggested it might — as opposition parties in Russia demand. “Might” is not the same was “will”. Of course, Russia has massive reserves. Right now, this war is for the DPR and LPR to win.
Of course, if the DPR and LPR join Russia after the November referenda, Russian law applies and Russia can use conscript forces, now banned by law from operating outside of the Federation in Eastern Ukraine. As Johnson says:
Russia has not tapped into its trained military reserve. Ukraine has no trained military reserve left.
In addition, Russia has scaled up attacks on critical infrastructure in the Ukraine although only to the degree that it effects operations in the field.
The war is over — but the SMO continues. And, at some point, the “Ukraine” will cease to exist as it was: it will collapse. So will the American Empire, although that will take longer. But you won’t read that in the NYT.
…the western sources are liars. After years of insisting there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that United States defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, why would these guys lie about something were the very future of NATO may be at stake? If Joe Biden and his cronies say it is so, take it to the bank. They have.
The “West” has nothing left but lies — and suicide. From Russia’s point of view, if the US and the EU want to kill themselves — sad — but just hand them the knife to cut their bellies and get it over with, so hopefully they don’t include innocent bystanders in their self-destruction. The majority of mankind will be better off.
Poster in UAF occupied Nikolaev
Julian Macfarlane. I am a journalist and media analyst. I make no money from these articles, but I need your support to keep going. Please subscribe, share, comment and spread the word. These articles are in the public interest. You may copy, quote or reprint in any form.
