By JACK CONRAD*
Trump's immediate plan is to freeze the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and establish an 800-mile buffer zone along the existing front line.
Frankly, I didn’t expect this to happen. I did think Donald Trump would win on November 5. But I didn’t expect that, after holding back for so long, Joe Biden – a defeated president, after all – would give Ukraine the green light to deploy its ATACMS (the US Army’s tactical missile system). No wonder Britain soon followed suit.
The government of Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer granted permission for its Storm Shadow rockets to hit targets inside the Russian Federation. Just a few days later, France followed suit with its Scalp missiles. Germany, for reasons of its own, behaved quite differently. Chancellor Olaf Schultz, despite constant complaints from his bellicose Green coalition colleagues, stubbornly refuses even to supply his Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.
Volodymyr Zelensky was quick to use them. A battery of Atacms was launched on November 19 – Russia claims it shot down five of them and damaged a sixth. US military sources, on the other hand, admit that although two of them were intercepted, six of the eight successfully hit their target, namely an ammunition depot in Karachev.[1] Then came the “shadow storm”; twelve of them were launched. Ukraine and its Western facilitators claim success. In any case, these missiles cannot win the war… Moreover, Ukraine does not have a large supply of these missiles. In fact, its stocks are very limited. Therefore, at present, their use is more symbolic than military.
Hence the instinctive statement made by the editorial of the Morning Star, that giving the green light to Atacms and Storm Shadows is an attempt to “try to tilt the military advantage back in Kiev’s favor before Trump enters the White House.” Now, this reveals a truly profound ignorance of the real state of affairs.[2] It also reflects a certain “official communist” affection for the Kremlin occupants; now, the fact is that they have an extreme right-wing, deeply reactionary policy; they are closely aligned ideologically with the Orthodox Church.
The nuclear doctrine
Faced with the crossing of another red line with the launch of the Atacms and Storm Shadows missiles, the Putin regime and its allies responded by changing Russia’s nuclear doctrine. Previously, the nuclear option was reserved for a situation where there was a threat to Russia’s “existence.” Now, that choice can be made in the event of a major attack or attacks that “create a critical threat to the sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity” of Russia and its neighbor and ally, Belarus.
Putin’s new doctrine also states that countries that aid and abet an attack will be considered co-belligerents. Thus, Russia is threatening NATO with a nuclear response to a strong Ukrainian strike using conventional weapons. Now, this strategy is widely known as “escalate to de-escalate”; however, John Hyten, the former head of the US Space Command, says it can more accurately be translated as “escalate to win.”[3]
To underscore the new doctrine, an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, designed to carry nuclear payloads, was launched from Russia’s Kapustin Yar rocket base. About 15 minutes later, it struck targets 500 miles away in Dnipro. Not only are these missiles very fast, 10 times the speed of sound, but they can also maneuver in midcourse and are therefore very difficult to intercept. The one launched carried six independently targeted warheads, although, as it turned out, none of them were nuclear (the United States had received 30 minutes’ warning “through nuclear risk reduction channels,” presumably because they are strategic weapons).[4]
By the way, Atacms, Storm Shadow, Scalp, etc. are usually called “long-range missiles” in popular jargon. This causes endless confusion; after all, they have a range of about 150-190 miles. This is a lot, compared to the anti-tank missiles employed on the battlefield. In fact, they are unlikely to give Ukraine the ability to strike “deep into part of Russia’s territory”.[5] The country is, after all, quite large, with 11 time zones and 5.600 miles from east to west. The intermediate-range ballistic missile, remember, has a range of less of 3.420 miles. Intercontinental ballistic missiles reach over 3.000 miles.
Anyway, or The New York Times reports that Biden's change of heart on the Atacms was due to the sending of North Korean troops to fight at Kursk.[6] There are currently around 12.000 North Koreans there, but it is suggested that their number could eventually rise to 100.000.[7]Russia itself has amassed an army of 50.000 troops, ready for another attempt to recapture the Ukraine-controlled salient captured in August.
The first failed, presumably because Ukrainian forces quickly dug in and planted dragon's teeth and other similar defenses. Russia reportedly counterattacked head-on with tanks and suffered heavy losses. However, Ukraine has now lost more than 40 percent of the territory it had initially taken from the Russians. At its peak, Ukrainian forces controlled approximately 531 square miles of Russian territory, now reduced to approximately 309 square miles.[8]
But surely Biden’s main goal with his ATACMS decision has less to do with Russian ammunition stockpiles, command posts and fuel silos and more to do with the incoming Trump administration. After all, albeit in hyperbolic fashion, candidate Trump promised to bring peace within 24 hours of his election. Except for the hopelessly stupid, no one believed that for a moment; however, it is clear that he has every intention of forcing Ukraine to sit down at the negotiating table and offer Russia some kind of deal.
The Biden administration’s determination has always been to use the conflict in Ukraine as a “proxy war to hurt Russia”; it never intended to truly help Ukraine win the war. This explains why the United States “did nothing” to promote a ceasefire or peace agreement, as the “Make America Great Again” campaign argued. Trump’s choice of Keith Kellogg as special envoy to deal with the Ukraine-Russia conflict therefore highlights the idea that there is a general deterioration: “once” the Russian-Ukrainian conflict “reached a stalemate and became a stalemate war, it became in the interest of Ukraine, the United States, and the world to seek a ceasefire and negotiate a peace agreement with Russia.”[9]
Basically, Trump’s immediate plan is to freeze the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and establish an 800-mile buffer zone along the existing front line. Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna has already offered “boots on the ground” for this purpose. But Baltic, Polish, British, Dutch and Nordic contingents are expected to occupy this zone.[10] Keep in mind, however, that peacekeeping forces may not remain as such; they are in fact made up of combatants who remain active.
With the fighting over, negotiations will continue. Trump – it is rumored – insists that Ukraine will have to cede Crimea to Russia, thus allowing it free access to the warm waters of the Mediterranean. In addition to this particular territory, the deal could force Ukraine to cede all or part of Donbass. Alternatively, it should allow the existence of two autonomous oblasts within Ukraine. Zaporizhzhia and Kherson could also be ceded, divided or, possibly, exchanged in exchange for the Kursk enclave. There is also talk that Trump will prevent Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO, another strategic concession to Russia.
A seriously unequal treaty could – as I have argued in a series of recent articles under the title of “Notes on the War” – to end the deposition of Zelensky by means of a coup by the Azov battalions. One can imagine Lieutenant Colonel Denys Prokopenko – also called Comrade ‘Redis’ – marching on Kiev.
The putschists, if successful, would accuse Zelensky of being a sellout, of being a Jewish traitor, of not being a true Ukrainian. But without powerful external backers, any post-Zelensky regime could not do anything serious. After all, Ukraine lacks an independent arms industry. For example, although Ukraine can upgrade Soviet-era T-72 tanks, even for this it is heavily dependent on Western military supplies.[11]
Nor should one discount, when it comes to Trump's peace plan, the fact that there is a pro-war Democratic-Republican party that exerts a powerful influence in the US Congress and Senate: yes, there is an active Republican minority in Congress that wants war and more war – not talk and more talk.[12] Essentially, what unites the pro-war party is the plan to reestablish U.S. global hegemony outlined in Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1987 bestseller, The Grand Chessboard.
At a cost of a relatively meager $64,1 billion, Russia, in nearly three years of “special military operation,” has arrived at what is a 1914st-century version of the Western Front of 18-XNUMX.[13] It is, in fact, a quagmire that has so far cost between 113.000 and 160.000 Russian lives.[14] And the more Russian casualties, the more Russia’s coffers are drained, the more inflation, the more a color revolution and the installation of some loose neocolonial regime becomes possible – at least that is the reasoning at both the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Therefore, Ukraine must be forced to keep its commitment to keep fighting until all Russian troops are withdrawn from every inch of its pre-2014 territory… a U.S. strategic design that serves the central goal of containing and encircling China and ending its “inevitable” rise.
Remember, moreover, that Trump doesn’t just come with an olive branch: he also comes with a big stick. If the Putin regime and its allies reject his peace deal, it will likely lead to “increased U.S. support for Ukraine.”[15] So perhaps Trump will embrace Zelensky's victory plan. in its entirety… that is, including its three secret clauses. They supposedly involve the supply of Tomahawk subsonic cruise missiles with a range of 1.350-1.550 miles and, much more importantly, the West providing a strong “deterrent package,” albeit a non-nuclear one.[16]. In other words, while Trump is seeking some kind of accommodation with Russia, the alternative is “going to World War III.”
Morality is important
American neo-isolationist commentators – echoed by the gullible left, especially the pro-Kremlin left – accept theses such as: the Russian invasion is succeeding; Ukraine is woefully incompetent; the Kursk incursion was a terrible mistake; it was nothing more than a brilliant trap by Putin; Zelensky foolishly diverted vital troops from the Donbass front, etc.
Such were the views of several contributors who attended a symposium on the war in Ukraine organized by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Stewardship in mid-August 2024—sponsored by George Soros and the Ford Foundation. Here are some of the speakers’ thoughts:
Ivan Eland: “Ukraine risks being surrounded by superior forces.” Mark Episkopos: “It is unlikely to yield any strategic benefit for Ukraine and will require a massive, sustained investment over time of troops and equipment that could weaken Ukraine’s defenses.” Lyle Goldstein: “Legitimate questions can be asked about the wisdom of the new attack.” Maitra adds: It could “embolden hardliners in the Russian government and dissuade Putin from pushing for peace negotiations.” Stephen Walt: “A marginal spectacle” that “will not affect the outcome of the war.” John Mearsheimer also: “A major strategic mistake that will hasten [Ukraine’s] defeat.”[17]
This type of assessment of successful Ukrainian incursion The Kursk conflict goes hand in hand with the claim that the United States has reached its limits in Ukraine. But no one in European ruling circles, much less in the United States, seriously expected Ukraine to defeat Russia and push its armed forces back to their pre-2014 borders. That was never going to happen. No, not even if it got Javelin anti-tank missiles, Leopard II main battle tanks, F-16 fighters or Atacm cruise missiles. In fact, the widespread expectation was that Ukraine would surrender in February 2022. The balance on the fronts, even if Ukraine is currently retreating, is therefore a major victory as far as the Western hawks are concerned.
Moreover, at Kursk, Ukrainian forces not only managed to hold the Sudzha salient. It was Russia that was forced to divert precious resources to drive them out. Putin has reportedly set a deadline of February 2025. If the attackers need a 3-to-1 advantage over the defenders, that explains the 50.000 Russian troops ready for a “massive fight” at Kursk.[18] It also explains the presence of these 12.000 Korean People's Army soldiers.
That said, a Ukrainian collapse cannot be completely ruled out. It cannot be dismissed simply because of the slow and crushing Russian advance on the Eastern Front. They captured more than 386 square miles between September 1 and November 3, indicating that Russian momentum has accelerated marginally in recent months.
It also can’t be because Trump’s presidency begins in just a few weeks and he is threatening to cut off arms supplies unless Ukraine accepts a significant loss of sovereign territory. As a result, troop morale must be very low. Consider: Are Ukrainian troops willing to die for land that could be traded in some grand bargain? Do they think they can still win?
And since they are outnumbered and outgunned, there must be a growing reluctance to come out of the trenches for some futile counterattack. Increasingly they defy shouted orders, sneak out at night, refuse to return from leave. Others, perhaps, seek out the “traitors” in Kiev. The most extreme expression of loss of morale is the occurrence of “mutiny,” writes Edgar Jones of King’s College London…[19] in the case of the Azov brigade, this would, ironically, be an expression of its constituent esprit de corps.
Morality matters. It matters far more than all the Leopard II tanks, F-16s, and Atacms combined. As Napoleon Bonaparte famously observed, “In war, three-quarters of the time is character and personal relations; the balance of forces and equipment counts only for the remaining quarter.”[20] Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz placed “moral qualities” at the center of his classic 1832 study, Vom Kriege (“On War”). Significantly, he writes that the physical components of war are “little more than the wooden handle, while the moral factors are the precious metal, the real weapon, the finely honed blade.”[21]
Not surprisingly, the importance of morality has long been explicitly recognized in official military manuals. For example, the 1914 edition of the British Army’s field service regulations states that “Success in war depends more on moral than on physical qualities. Skill cannot compensate for the lack of courage, energy, and determination… Therefore the development of the necessary moral qualities is the first of the objects to be attained.”
The manual goes on to state: “Numerical advantage on the battlefield is an undoubted advantage, but skill, better organization and training, and above all a firm fighting determination in all ranks to conquer at any cost, are the main factors of success. [And] lack of determination is the surest source of defeat.” It also notes that the turning point of a battle is reached when the enemy is “morally and physically exhausted.”[22]
However, there is no doubt that the average Ukrainian soldier is more motivated by moral considerations than the average Russian soldier. They, that is, the Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians, are fighting for their homeland, their right to self-determination, their patriotic honor, their family, their friends, their children, their ancient traditions. They are facing a foreign invader who denies their very national existence and has already invaded about 20% of the country. Despite the rising death toll, power outages, difficulty in recruiting new recruits and desertion of soldiers, a Ukrainian collapse is unlikely… unless it decides to defy Trump’s dictates.
What about Russian soldiers? What are they fighting for? For a greater Russia? For the denazification of Ukraine? Against NATO’s eastward expansion? Hardly worth a life… perhaps that’s why conscripts are officially exempted from serving in Ukraine. However, Russia is increasingly turning to professional troops for its fighting.
They are offered: three years of service, board and bed, and many additional benefits, plus a monthly salary of 200.000 rubles (about £1.500).[23] Good salaries for Russia, especially in those poorer “oblasts” where most of the recruits come from.[24] Naturally, there is a high probability that they will not survive. In this case, Russia provides a posthumous payment of 11 million rubles to the families.[25]As for North Korea's cannon fodder, they must be terrified. They are about to be fed into the meat grinder for the glory of the Great Successor!
When it comes to the war in Ukraine, much commentary focuses on the purely physical components: deployed men; numbers of dead, captured, and wounded; artillery shell production; missile capabilities; fighter jet supplies; gas pipelines; power grids. It is easy to see, then, why the same conclusion is so often reached: Ukraine must lose. Of course, it should be made clear that such an assessment ignores the fundamental fact that Ukraine is waging a war waged on behalf of NATO and the United States for global hegemony. Yet the question of morality is rarely treated with the seriousness it deserves.
The fact is that while the morale of Ukrainian troops is certainly low at the present time, the morale of Russian troops is probably very low as well. Their lives are wasted on a colossal scale in criminally irresponsible human wave attacks. Discipline is brutal. The food is horrible. Corruption at the highest levels is rampant.
For their own obvious reasons, Ukrainian military authorities have distributed a report captured in the Kursk region in August, which paints a vivid picture of morale among Russian troops. It cites the example of a soldier who committed suicide in January this year. He had, according to the report, “a nervous and psychological breakdown, caused by his prolonged state of depression due to his service in the Russian army.”
Unit commanders were instructed to ensure that soldiers had access to Russian state media at their disposal on a daily basis to maintain their “psychological condition.” In an undated, typewritten document came further instructions on how to maintain morale, calling for soldiers to receive 5 to 10 minutes a day, as well as an hour a week of political instruction, “with the aim of maintaining and raising the political, moral and psychological condition of personnel.”[26]
The politicization of the troops is aimed at ensuring that orders are followed. It is not impossible that the troops will impose themselves on the junior officers and non-commissioned officers and elect their own political commissars. Many front-line soldiers will have parents and grandparents with an elementary knowledge of the writings of Marx, Engels and, above all, Lenin. There is certainly a collective memory of how the imperialist war turned into a revolution in 1917. We know that this fear palpably haunts the upper echelons in Ukraine and Russia.
The visceral recognition that soldiers have more in common with each other than with their rulers, the hoarding oligarchs and corrupt politicians in Kiev and Moscow, certainly already exists. Indeed, far from the intense fighting around this or that frontline town or village, unofficial truces are no doubt observed in the trenches and water-filled ice holes, as soldiers abide by the old adage of “live and let live”… It is only a short step from there to fraternization.
Middle East
Some on the left do not want to see how the war in Ukraine “could trigger World War III.”[27] With Russia possessing 5.580 nuclear warheads… and threatening to use them against NATO in Putin’s new doctrine, such a view is hard to sustain. After all, the United States has its own arsenal of 5.044 nuclear warheads and a military budget that exceeds its six or seven closest allies and rivals. Then there are Britain (225 nuclear warheads) and France (290 nuclear warheads), both locked into the US-dominated NATO alliance.
Furthermore, Russia has an “eternal” friendship with China, a country that has the world’s second largest economy and its third largest stockpile of nuclear warheads (500).[28] And as we have argued repeatedly – and demonstrated by citing numerous reliable sources – the main target for the US to bog Russia down in the grueling Ukrainian quagmire is China, its only serious rival. Surely a recipe for World War III.
Instead, we are told that while the Russia-Ukraine war could escalate into a full-blown Russia-NATO war, the “real trigger” for a Third World War could be an escalation in the Middle East. For example, “With the intensification and extension of Israel’s war on Gaza and Lebanon, backed by US-led imperialism and fully supported by the British and other capitalist governments, there is a clear danger of a Third (nuclear) World War.”[29]
In the Middle East, there is only one power with nuclear weapons: Israel. Although it neither officially admits nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal, this country follows a strategy of “deliberate ambiguity” and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, which would allow periodic inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Despite this, Israel is believed to have between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads, which can be launched by land, sea and air.[30]
Israel may attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, which have already produced enough uranium for such weapons. Israel, it is worth remembering, has launched “surgical” military strikes against Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007). However, neither Operation Opera nor Operation Out of the Box triggered a world war, or even a regional war.
If something like this happens in 2025 or 2026, don’t expect a fatal blow: the chances of Israel using nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities remain zero. Its nuclear weapons are there to deter. As it did in Iraq and Syria, Israel would use conventional missiles and bombs. But in this case, it would have to employ very powerful and precision bombs to destroy bunkers. Iran has built its most valuable nuclear facilities underground and covered them with thick layers of cement and steel. So something similar or perhaps America’s own Massive Ordnance Penetrator would be needed, along with the kind of aircraft capable of delivering such a payload: this strategic weapon weighs 30.000 pounds (far more than what Israel’s F-16s and F-35s can carry). However, a B2 stealth bomber could do the job… and perhaps Trump would agree to a lend-lease deal for the plane.
In any case, Israel would not wage such a war against Iran: there certainly would be no invasion. No, Israel would seek to strategically degrade Iran… and this could only be done with the implicit approval of the United States, or even through its direct participation. For example, an initial Israeli “pre-emptive” strike followed by Iranian retaliation, which in turn provokes extensive and intensive US bombing to prevent a second holocaust. And this seems to be the recipe that will be employed.
Neither Russia nor China, in these or similar circumstances, would rush to Iran’s aid. They will not – I repeat – they will not go to war with Israel over an attack on Iran. Nor, to state the obvious, will any other nuclear power (India, Pakistan, North Korea). Attacking Israel, after all, would be attacking the United States. There would be diplomatic protests… but little more.
The Arab League may well react completely differently. However, that is another story.
Jack Conrad, ppseudonym of John Chamberlain, is a leader of the CPGB-PCC and editor of the Weekly Worker.
Translation: Eleutério FS Prado.
Originally published on the portal Without permission [https://www.sinpermiso.info/textos/algunas-notas-sobre-la-guerra-de-ucrania]
Notes
[1] abcnews.go.com/International/new-russian-nuclear-doctrine-threatens-response-ukraines-western/story? Id=115998090.
[2] Morning Star Editorial November 19, 2024.
[3] www.stratcom.mil/Media/Speeches/Article/1600894/us-strategic-command-space-and-missile-defense-symposium-remarks.
[4] www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/21/7485721.
[5] www.reuters.com/world/biden-lifts-ban-ukraine-using-us-arms-strike-inside-russia-2024-11-17.
[6] The New York Times, November 17, 2024.
[7] www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-17/north-korea-may-end-up-sending-putin-100-000-troops-for-his-war.
[8] www.newsweek.com/russia-north-korea-kursk-donetsk-gains-map-1990741.
[9] americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-russia-ukraine.
[10] The Guardian, November 19, 2024.
[11] mil.in.ua/en/articles/can-ukraine-produce-tanks.
[12] For example, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (Texas) said in response to Biden’s decision on the ATACMS: “Better late than never, but it was too late… I’ve been asking the administration for two years to untie their hands, and with every weapons system they drag their feet and finally approve it… Let them use everything we’re giving them. Stop putting restrictions on them.”thehill.com/homenews/4998825-us-ukraine-missile-policy-shift-biden-gop).
[13] November 20, 2024 – www.state.gov/us-security-cooperation-with-ukraine. Remember that the annual US “defense” budget is about $900 billion. As www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending.
[14] The Guardian, October 22 from 2024.
[15] The independent, June 25, 2024.
[16] sputnikglobe.com/20241029/zelensky-requests-tomahawk-missiles-as-part-of-non-nuclear-deterrence-package—reports-1120718428.html.
[17] responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-kursk-incursion.
[18] www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/11/24/50000-russians-are-poised-to-attack-20000-ukrainians-in-kursk-ukrainian-brigades-are-bracing-for-a-massive-fight.
[19] E Jones Morale, Psychological Wellbeing of the UK Armed Forces and Entertainment: A Report to the British Forces Foundation in London 2012, p13.
[20] E Knowles (ed) The Oxford Dictionary of Oxford Quotations 1999, p. eleven.
[21] C. von Clausewitz, about the war, Princeton, NJ, 1989, pp184-85. The term morality is used here in the sense of psychological perspective rather than ethical principles and right or wrong.
[22]War Office, Field Service Regulations, Part I, Operations, 1909 (with amendments), London, 1914
[23] Ukrainian soldiers receive something like half that amount. Their minimum monthly salary is 33.000 hryvnia (about £630). Seeenglish.nv.ua/business/new-benefits-for-ukrainian-serviceman-in-2024-50432568.html.
[24] www.forcesnews.com/russia/what-are-russian-soldiers-being-paid-fight-putins-war.
[25] www.intellinews.com/how-much-is-a-russan-s-life-worth-347848.
[26] The Guardian, 20 September 2024.
[27] TonyClark, Letters Weekly Worker November 21, 2024.
[28] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons.
[29] Ian Spencer, Bob Paul, Andy Hannah, Paul Cooper, Carla Roberts and Anne McShane, 'Danger of World War III: The Communist Response' Weekly Worker 24 October 2024.
[30] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
