The Russo-Ukrainian war

What if we got it wrong? (Free)

Updated 10/22/2022 (see below).

This will be my first post, where I disclose something I’ve heard through my private and somewhat confidential information channels. I would say that what I am going to present is the worst-case scenario for the Russo-Ukrainian war I can think of. My “working scenario” for the past few months has been rather different.

A commentary, which I read in the spring (which I cannot find anymore, it seems) argued that it would have been in the interest some powerful U.S. institutions to try to disintegrate the Eurasian power structure that was forming between China, Russia and Europe, because it would threaten the hegemony of the U.S. The best way to accomplish would be to push President Putin “over the edge” in Ukraine.

Now, however, with the emergence of new information, I have started to ponder a even more sinister scenario. It’s founded on the idea that Russia, not the U.S. or the “West”, is engaged to a ‘proxy war’ in Ukraine. This is to say that, for example, it was never the intention of President Putin to invade Ukraine.

It’s naturally possible that the scenario I present below can align with the aforementioned (U.S. driven) one. This would put as squarely back on the geopolitical high-stake games Soviet Union (Russia) and the U.S. played during the Cold War.

I’ll let you be the judge. Let’s dive in.

Re-thinking the war in Ukraine

In Tuesday, 13 September, I published a Twitter thread, where I went through an alternative scenario for the aims of President Putin considering the Russo-Ukrainian war. The main point, as shortly summarized above, was that what if Russia, and President Putin, are using Ukraine as a ‘proxy war’ against the west and not the other way around? I go in more details shortly, but first the reason why I started to reconsider.

Russia has made two simulations of nuclear bombing-runs to Stockholm. First in 2013, confirmed by the NATO, and the second in late-March 2022. No one really knew, or at least it was not made public, what was the main aim of these runs. Some say that the 2022-run was to scare Sweden for joining to NATO. However, earlier this week I received information that somewhat contradicts this or at least challenges this.

My source, with contacts to intelligence community, told me that Sweden had received trustworthy intel that Russia was going to invade Gotland, an island in the middle of the Baltic sea, in early 2022. Who controls Gotland (Sweden) and Kaliningrad (Russia), basically controls the Baltic Sea. According to my source, this also explains why there were practically no discussion about NATO in Sweden before submitting the application. Swedes understood that aims of Russia (President Putin) were much further than any ‘skirmish’ in Ukraine.

The 2013 bombing-run of Stockholm made no sense to me before, but now it does, somewhat. Russia (Pres. Putin) has probably had her eyes on Gotland for a very long time, and Russians were simulating an attack that would basically immobilize the whole Swedish society rendering all efforts to retake Gotland pointless.

Moreover, Baltic Sea is the main supply route of Finland. If Russia would control it, it would force Finland to negotiate, under heavy terms.

Recently, I also came across with a very interesting interview of a former Swiss intelligence and military officer Jacques Baud. He has been a harsh critic of the current globalized order and has thus been labelled as “conspiracy theorist” by some. I symphatize. He presented Ukraine as major strategic game for Russia, where inferior forces were used to create an image of a wide-spread conflict (an invasion).

His interview, combined with my newly received intel, got me thinking that we may have misread President Putin intentions also in Ukraine. Other obscurities in the “Ukrainian operation” also support this.

It is an obvious fact that one cannot take the country of the size of Ukraine with the strength of just 200k+ men. The operational errors, like troops running out of gasoline, were also a bit too “obvious”. I fell for them first, but now I look them at a a different angle. While there were surely some operational problems and failures (military operations always have those, especially in Russia), it makes no sense to start on offensive with utterly unprepared force.

So, I am questioning my earlier stance on whether that even occurred and if it did, how intentional was it?

‘Drawing out’ the resources

If I would like to draw or exhaust the resources of my opponent, in this case the West, with my inferior force, I would create an image of an effort for a full-scale invasion with several fronts. This would tie and disburse the men and the resources of my opponent, while exhausting and straining them. I would tie my opponents resources to fight, and then retreat and regroup to another location.

This, operativnoe iskoustvo (operational art describing the manouvres of military formations to engage a superior enemy) is what Jacques Baud and a secretive U.S. source are suggesting Russia has done.

While reliable figures of casualties are very hard to come by, all the information, at least before Kharkiv offensive, I have seen point to considerably larger losses on the Ukrainian side. If the stunning figures of Russian losses in Kharkiv region are even remotely accurate, this would naturally change that balance to the Ukrainians, but we have to remember that also the west is using propaganda.

In any case, the military aid to Ukraine is drawing from a limited supply of the West.

Just a week ago, Josep Borrell, EU's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, stated that "The military stocks of most member states has been, I wouldn't say exhausted, but depleted in a high proportion, because we have been providing a lot of capacity to the Ukrainians". While this could be part of western propaganda, the fact remains that European countries have a rather limited capacity of ammunitions, etc., which have in any case been strained/drawn.

To finalize the “blow”, if possible and plausible, I would hit on the economic and societal fabric of my opponent through, e.g., cutting crucial supplies, as an act of counter-sanctions. To note, it should have been clear to President Putin that the west would impose sanctions, as it was also clear to me before the onset of the war. This would weaken my opponent materially, politically and psychologically.

Could President Putin really have played such a “long game” in Ukraine and in Europe? A definite answer is impossible to give, at least at this point, but something can be learned by analyzing the background of mr. Putin.

Who is mr. Putin and what he aims for?

The father of President Putin, allegedly, survived from the siege of St. Petersburg 1941-1944. He taught his son to always check, check and check, everything before you act. Would a person with such a family and personal history make large irrational mistakes, like starting a war in Ukraine and conduct nuclear bombing runs to the largest capital in the Nordics just out of ‘whims’ in his head? It’s of course possible, but unlikely. Vladimir Putin is a strategist to the bone.

In 2017, Brookings Institute published a research on Vladimir Putin, by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy, entitled: What makes Putin tick, and what the West should do. I think everyone should read it. Two important quotes from the article:

The notion that Putin is an opportunist, at best an improviser, but not a strategist, is a dangerous misread. Putin thinks, plans, and acts strategically. But, as we have stressed in the book, for Putin, strategic planning is contingency planning. There is no step-by-step blueprint. There are strategic objectives, and there are many ways to achieve those objectives. Exactly what his next step towards the objective will be depends on the circumstances. It depends on how his adversary reacts.

Sanctions hurt, but they do not deter him as they deterred Yeltsin.  Putin has the capacity to act, and he is willing to escalate to deter the West instead. Putin has even put the nuclear option on the table to “scare the hell out of” the West.… Putin knows he has to make the West think he will use nuclear weapons if the war moves to the military phase, not just that he might use them. This is the ultimate deterrent. Putin is not hell-bent on destroying Russia or his presidency and his system. He will have a contingency for deploying nuclear weapons if he feels he needs to, but … Putin wants the Russian state to survive with him at its head, even as he wants to push the United States and Europe away from Russia and out of its neighborhood.

The former increase the likelihood that objectives of President Putin in Ukraine may differ from those presented in the western media, as I have presented above.

The latter stokes a fear that he may have reached a point, where he thinks that the only way for Russia to ensure security, bezopasnost (direct translation: the absence of threat), is through military operations in threatening surrounding areas. This includes, in my thinking, all the members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.

Moreover, if driven againts the wall in Ukraine, he might see nuclear weapons as the only way out. This would escalate the war into a completely new and extremely dangerous phase.

End notes

This has been a rather speculative entry. I do hope that this remains as pure speculation and that we would see a quick peacefire and the change of ‘guard’ in Kremlin.

I am skeptical, though.

Putin has created a Stalin-like command-and-control grip on Russian society. Some criticism and even smaller riots are likely to be allowed, but an actual coup would require a major countering power, which I am not sure exists in modern Russia.

Again, I do hope I am wrong on this, but we have to also be prepared for the possibility that the current western narrative about Russia is too optimistic.

---

Update 9/21/22

The speech of President Putin given today (you can find excepts from it here). It seems to somewhat validate my fears and the scenario presented above.

Putin makes, actually a somewhat truthful, claim the Russia is fighting the “western military complex”. He also mentions, again truthfully, that Ukrainian military is assisted (commanded) by western advisors.

He then announces a partial mobilization, which “applies to reserves and those who had previously served in the military” starting today. In addition there were (false) claims of ‘nuclear blackmail’. The option to use nuclear weapons is now clearly on the table, like Hill and Gaddy warned (see the quotes above), while, at this point, most likely as a threat only.

However, as we noted in Q-Review 3/2022:

“…as mentioned above, it has been a goal of President Putin to establish a land corridor to the Crimean Peninsula. He’s unlikely to yield on that. What this means that we would probably be facing a prolonged crisis between the two nations.“

Both of the above mentioned parts of his speech are likely to enforce that. Partial mobilization was probably announced to strenghten and secure the East-South corridor and the (all but guaranteed) results of the referendums in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to join Russia. After the referendums they will become a part of Russia in Putin’s thinking and thus could be defended, in the extreme case, using nuclear weapons.

Again, I could be wrong about this, but if I am not, things just got quite a bit more worrisome in Europe. It also looks quite obvious that all talk about a quick-coup in Russia can be forgotten and we have to be prepared for the full usage of the ‘energy weapon’ by Russia during the winter. Economic war is, unfortunately, likely to accelerate in all fronts.

Update 9/27/22

A chilling warning was given by U.S. Navy Admiral Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, that nuclear war with a nuclear-capable opponent is now possible (no longer “theoretical”). This warning was likely addressed to both China and Russia.

I also read a column by (U.S. Col. ret) Douglas MacGregor, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration and a decorated veteran, on the war-situation in Ukraine. His main points were:

1. Ukraine has lost some of its best soldiers in disastrous “hold your ground” strategies, e.g., around Mariopul.

2. Ukrainian losses have always been considerably higher than those of Russia, but have reached horrific levels after the failed counterattack in Kherson.

3. Russia has been conducting retreat-and-bomb strategies in several key areas resulting to heavy losses in the Ukrainian side.

4. Washington has been unable (possibly unwilling) to stop the war in Ukraine.

Again, I am no military expert, and MacGregor has given some disturbive statements previously. Yet, I think that he would be very cautious concerning his assessments on the situation on the ground, as spewing pure propaganda would be very likely to hurt his reputation (and business) as a military strategist and commentator. Thus, his comments reinforced my view that the war in Ukraine is not going as well as presented by the Western media.

I have also had few random contacts with Ukrainian people from, e.g., the Kharkiv region. They tend to tell the same thing, which is that war is not going as the Ukrainian propaganda presents.

So, we remain in a ‘propaganda-mist’, but I consider that evidence is building that Russia is actually slowly reaching what are likely to have been the original strategial aims of President Putin, I note above. This, if true, would turn the situation in Europe even more hazardous.

It’s thus possible (cannot assess the likelihood of this though) that we could see some very “surprising” actions by Russia in the coming weeks that would shatter the western narrative in Ukraine. Again, I am hoping, dearly, that I am wrong on this, but I do worry.

Update 9/28/22: The strategic 'angle' of the U.S.

The sabotage of Nordstream pipelines, outside of the Danish island Bornholm, is a likely to be a (dangerous) game changer in the European-Ukranian-Russian conflict. At current time, we do not have the knowledge who committed the bombing. It may, however, contribute to both Russia's and U.S.’s strategic interests.

Like I write above, it is likely (even probable) that it was in the interest of the U.S. (read CIA) to push President Putin into a war in Ukraine. The “power alliance” that was forming between Europe, Russia and China would have been a direct threat to U.S. hegemony. That has been all but decimated, for now at least. To make sure that Germany does not back down, and to make it look like Russia ia escalating, a 'false flag’ operation, i.e., the sabotage of the main pipelines delivering natural gas from Russia to Germany, would serve U.S. interests/aims. Especially so, as it seems that the EU is softening its stance of sanctions.

However, the sabotage of the Nordstream plays into the strategic aims of Pres. Putin as well. Germany and Europe now have their backs against the wall, and all that is needed for a “gas chaos” to erupt in Europe, is shutting down the gas coming through east (Ukraine and Poland). Preparations for this seems to be underway. Another thing is that the ‘blame game’ seems to be turning against the U.S. with even highly distinguished Professor Jeffrey Sachs speculating openly on the possibility that “the U.S. did it”.

Let's remember that Putin is, according to Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy , a 'reactionary strategist'. No matter who blew up the pipeline, he is likely to turn it to play into a his strategical game.

Update 10/4/22: Some speculation on developments

I have recently received two bits of information on rather worrying (possible) developments in Russo-Ukrainian war.

First one tells the story of extremely heavy losses on Ukrainian troops in their takeover of the city of Lyman in the Donetsk region during the past few days. The other tells a tale of a massive buildup of Russian forces in the East.

If these reports would hold true, they would mean A) that Russia is likely to be preparing for a major offensive, and B) that Ukrainian forces may be unable to resist that due to their heavy losses. If such developments would come into play, they would imply that the war in Ukraine may be reaching a troubling turning point.

Again, this is speculation based on unofficial and unconfirmed sources. However, some reports have already came out stating that the Kharkiv offensive did not go as originally presented in the western media (see, e.g., this and this).

What I worry here is that the western propaganda-like reporting will turn against us, if the reported “facts” have not represented actual developments on the ground. Imagine the shock in the (misinformed) West, if Russia, let’s say sometime in October, launches a major counteroffensive to reclaim all of the annexed territories possibly causing a chaotic retreat of Ukrainian forces.

Again, I am hoping that the information and the speculation are wrong, but the more I read, the more worried I become. Something just doesn’t add up.

Update 10/20/22: Russian winter-offensive looming?

To continue with my worst-case scenario, I now will speculate on the possibility of a large-scale Russian winter-offensive.

First, I would like to disclose that I had close contacts in the operating leadership of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in the East of Ukraine. I received some extra-ordinary intel, which I naturally cannot disclose here fully to protect the sources.

I also received a lot of information of the criminal behaviour of Russian forces especially against western journalists and ‘freedom fighters’. I consider Russia as a ‘terrorist state’ in that retrospect.

What I did also learn was that Russia had two highly trained, very modern mercennary army corps on which one was used in the East-Ukraine in the invasion phase and also to push Ukrainian forces back, whenever there was a threat of the Russian defence line breaking up. The same army corp, according to my intel, was used in Syria in 2016 to stave off the uprising of the, probably somewhat western-backed, rebels and jihadists.

The point is that the information I have been able to gather, imply that these mercennary army corps have not been really used in Ukraine yet, while some even claim that one of them would have been wiped out. I have seen no credible evidence on that. Again, propaganda seems to be very heavy.

I have also been rather concerned of the military buildup in Russia during the past two decades, while most the West has sat idly by. I simply could not understand, why the West did not see it and/or consider it as a major threat. The likelihood that most of this development would have been destroyed in Ukraine in a matter of months, is slim to none.

The “secretive U.S. military source” I mentioned at the first post above has turned out to be a Marinus collaboration of John F. Schmitt, Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Lt. Gen. (ret) Paul K. Van Riper, Col. James K. Van Riper, and Col. Eric M. Walters. A group not be easily dismissed. Their piece I cited can be found on Reddit.

Their analysis on the situation in the ground in Ukraine tells a story of a ‘smoke and mirrors’ tactics in the North and ‘conquer, fortify and domesticate’ in the South/South-East, where the ethnicity of Ukranians is mostly Russian. For the Russian effort, this makes complete sense, that is, to bring the ethnic Russians back to the ‘motherland’, while “de-nazifying” that part of Ukraine. Most importantly, however, (and this was my intuition from the very start) President Putin has established a land-corridor to Crimea, which he will probably defend by any means necessary.

In recent weeks there have been a rumours and also some western intel of Russia massing their troops in Crimea and in the annexed regions, but also in around Belgorod, north of Kharkov Oblast. If accurate, this could mean that President Putin could be planning a massive winter offensive in many fronts possibly to crush Ukrainian army altogether. This, again, under the assumption that Russian losses have been heavily exaggerated (see above).

If so, with the help of the fresh recruits from partial mobilization combined with the possible full-engagement of the modern army corps, air force and artillery, Russia would probably be able to unleash a war-machine not seen in Europe for a very long time.

What also points to this possibility is the current bombing campaign of critical Ukrainian energy infrastructure. It seems too focused to act as a mere terror campaign. The aim of it could thus be to hinder the morale of the home-front with darkness and cold. This, combined with a major military offensive, could push Ukraine to the brink and possible even over.

Update 10/28/22: I received an info that Ukrainians would have none or very few diesel engines to be used in their railways. If this holds, i.e., that they would rely mostly on electrice engines in all railway traffic, it would naturally put the Russian strikes to energy infrastructure to a whole new light presenting them as a preparation for a large-scale military operation.

Moreover, if the Ukrainian losses are so large as some speculate (Ukrainian casualties are a national security issue and so getting accurate information on them is next to impossible), their army could easily be completely over-run. As a results, Ukrainian military and state could collapse completely.

Why winter then? For two reasons.

First, Russia needs time to re-train the mobilized reserves. Secondly, the Ukrainian ‘lowlands’, or steppes which, when frozen, carry tanks much better. I know this well, as I served as a group-leader in armored engineer company during my mandatory military service. The T-72 battletanks, which were the main tanks in Finland during that time (now we have Leopard 2A6:s), were constantly ‘submerged’ in the Finnish swamps and lowlands in the war drills during summer and fall. If one is planning to launch a large-scale offensive with tanks over the plains, he/she will prefer winter-time.

Again, this is speculation, and a worst-case scenario, but as I have presented above, there is evidence pointing that this scenario has a fairly (worryingly) high likelihood of becoming reality.

If such a scenario would materialize, just imagine the shock in Europe possibly (likely) already in the grips of energy and economic crises. Fear and discontent could start to rip societies apart. And, I suspect that this could be the ultimate aim of President Putin in Europe.

Again, I hope that I am wrong and Ukraine wins the war and reclaims her territories. That, unfortunately, currently looks rather unlikely.

---

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as at the date of this entry.  The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed.  Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice.  Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision, and readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.  Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.