Ukraine: a new phase in the war of attrition


Dayne Goodwin
 

A new phase in the war of attrition
What’s holding back the Ukrainian counter-offensive? Will mobilization help the Russian side? What are the air strikes on Kyiv and Belgorod all about?
Our analysts explain, Meduza, Nov. 4
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/11/04/a-new-phase-in-the-war-of-attrition
  .  .  .
... So far, NATO has declined to supply Ukraine with aircraft. Missile systems are scarce, and it’s been decided not to deliver the Patriot surface-to-air system to Ukraine. Other systems will come from different countries piecemeal, according to their means. Some of the systems have yet to be produced; obsolete ones (such as the the Patriot’s predecessor, the Hawk) might be reactivated.  All in all, the Russian decision to attack Ukrainian air defense positions seems rational, since the West will have a hard time replacing disabled systems in a timely manner.
  .  .  .
What will happen next?
No compromise seems likely to end the war in the near future. The Kremlin’s idea of such a compromise involves large territorial concessions by Ukraine. This cannot satisfy either Kyiv or its partners in the West. Ukraine is not currently inclined towards any kind of compromise — perhaps, Kyiv doesn’t think too highly of Russia’s ability to benefit from mobilization.

Strategic bombardments are unlikely to alter Kyiv’s basic position. Attacking civilian infrastructure rarely helps demoralize the defenders. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military and technical potentials lie, almost in their entirety, safely outside of the country itself. The Kremlin, on the other hand, cannot negotiate over the annexed regions for the sake of ending the war, since it’s promised to “stay” with those territories “forever.”

It follows that the Russian command will have to find new ways of exploiting its remaining advantages (like its greater aviation numbers, and the greater power and range of its missiles) — to achieve, if not victory, then at least a lesser goal of securing some of the occupied territories. Until the Kremlin — or, less probably, Kyiv and its Western partners — are confronted with a real threat of outright military defeat, the war will continue.
   #   #   #
Translated by Anna Razumnaya.


David Walters
 

That is true, Patriots are off the table (for no good reason, the U.S. has a thousand sets of these and 10,000 missiles available!). However, they are really for counter-ballistic missiles systems. I don't know if the Russians have yet used them, they have used lots of hyper-sonic (5,000mph) missiles to hit targets with. The U.S. doesn't, I believe, even make such a missile. The problem here is that most Patriot missiles systems use missiles that cost $3 million a pop. If the Russians flood the air with missiles, the expenditure of such missiles would disappear in about an hour their entire quantity, depending how many would be sold to Ukraine. In March Poland received a few batteries of these. It is unclear if they were staffed by US or Polish NATO members.

 

There are other systems that are equally highly rated that Ukraine IS getting, such as the join Norwegian-US NASAM missile with about half the range of the Patriots and have already been used effectively against both Russian cruise missiles and higher flying missiles and...drones. Each one of these costs $1.2 million per missile. So you see the problem here? It really is financially impossible to protect Ukraine from drone and lower flying missile attacks via the these very advanced missiles.

 

Falling back a few decades there is a very effective anti-drone system that was originally designed to protect against ground-assault craft (think A-10 or drones or helicopter gun shops) and that is the "gephard" like anti-aircraft "tank" that are in Ukraine. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg Its range of fire is only about 9,000 feet but that is far higher than any Russian drone and they have already shot down some of these very slow flying drones. Cost per ammo is about $5. Several countries do produce and even Ukraine produced a version of this at some point. In every country they were being phased out as unable to attack higher flying or very fast aircraft. Enter drones: now they are undergoing a revival. The huge German arms manufacturer, Rheinmetal, now makes is testing advanced version of equipped like the Russian Panstir with both cannons and MANPADs. There is now a huge arms race to develop anti-drone tech that is going to sort into the billions of dollars if it hasn't already.

David Walters

David


John Reimann
 

Is it possible to produce electronic jamming devices to deactivate or neutralize the drones?

John Reimann

--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook


David Walters
 

Yes, there are dozens of systems now out on the market that are low altitude jammers. The problem is that not all drones, like the recent wave of Iranian drone attacks, that are more like the WWII Nazi-era V1 attacks on London "point and shoot". An onboard guidance system determines the direction and target for the drones. But there are jammers for these too, though many don't work on all drones.


Walter Lippmann <walterlx1944@...>
 

The fact that many nations of the EU itself have become involved in the war, at the behest of the United States, is also irrefutable proof of the orphanhood of those who do not want to realize that jumping on that bandwagon has already had a boomerang effect. Europe will be left without the oil and gas supplied by Russia at much cheaper prices than those offered today by the United States, which, moreover, will always be a more unsafe, polluted and expensive gas.

Alarm bells are ringing in European nations. The cold is at the gates and, in many cases, it is already passing through the dwellings of the inhabitants of the Old Continent. Popular protests are becoming a daily occurrence, while the political and administrative framework is shaking.

===
Translation:
https://groups.io/g/cubanews/topic/granma_why_so_much/94866162
Original: 
https://www.granma.cu/mundo/2022-10-21/por-que-tanta-insistencia-en-la-guerra-21-10-2022-01-10-03


David Walters
 

[First, THANKS YOU Walter for providing these translations. Always first rate!]

This line the Cuban Communist Party projects is pure catastrophism based on a factually incorrect analysis and quite self-serving (politically): European nations and the U.S. are ONLY involved in providing arms and intelligence. Also, lots of training by the UK of Ukrainian troops. There are: No troops being provided to fight, no heavy armor (some, usually 60's era Soviet tanks but none of the modern ones), no ground attack jets or choppers of any sort, no naval craft that could take on Russia's ships, no very long range missiles (though that might be changing), not enough HIMAR reloads to make that big a difference, not enough intermediate range anti-missile defense, and a host of other items the Ukrainians have been quite open about asking for. The Cubans, who are understandably weary of the machinations of U.S. Imperialism, are flat our wrong, especially since they have denounced the Russian Imperialist attack on a weaker country. You think they would learn a thing or two from their own predicament.

 

What Russia IS doing is making the European working class rally around NATO and the EU and this has been going on for years. I'm glad the Chinese government spoke up to tamp down RUSSIA'S talk of nuclear weapons.

 

David Walters


Chris Slee
 

Cuba, under blockade from the United States, needs the support of Russia (just as Ukraine, under attack from Russia, needs the support of the US).  This inevitably affects Granma's coverage of Ukraine - though the extent of the crude propaganda in this article is pretty extreme.  I hope that the Cuban leadership has a more sophisticated understanding of the situation than the writer of the Granma article.

Chris Slee



Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...>
 

There is nothing to discuss when no specific disagreement is cited.


Walter Lippmann

Los Angeles, California

November 9, 2022

===================================================

Cuba, under blockade from the United States, needs the support of Russia (just as Ukraine, under attack from Russia, needs the support of the US).  This inevitably affects Granma's coverage of Ukraine - though the extent of the crude propaganda in this article is pretty extreme.  I hope that the Cuban leadership has a more sophisticated understanding of the situation than the writer of the Granma article.

 

Chris Slee


Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...>
 

The fact that there are no US soldiers on the ground in Ukraine doesn't

prove that this war regarding Ukraine isn't a US-EU operation. Without

US-EU support, this war would have been over a long time ago.

 

Cuba has NOT "denounced" the Russian invasion of Ukraine
nor has Cuba characterized the invasion as "imperialist".


Here is
the Cuban position on the Ukraine war:

 

EXCERPT: It is impossible to make a rigorous and honest examination of the current situation in Ukraine, without carefully assessing the Russian Federation’s just demands of the United States and NATO, and the factors that have led to the use of force and non-observance of legal principles and international norms which Cuba strongly supports and, are, particularly for small countries, an essential resource in resisting hegemony, abuse of power and injustice.  

https://en.granma.cu/cuba/2022-02-28/cuba-advocates-a-solution-that-guarantees-the-security-and-sovereignty-of-all

Walter Lippmann

Los Angeles, California

November 9, 2022
====================================================



This line the Cuban Communist Party projects is pure catastrophism based on a factually incorrect analysis and quite self-serving (politically): European nations and the U.S. are ONLY involved in providing arms and intelligence. Also, lots of training by the UK of Ukrainian troops. There are: No troops being provided to fight, no heavy armor (some, usually 60's era Soviet tanks but none of the modern ones), no ground attack jets or choppers of any sort, no naval craft that could take on Russia's ships, no very long range missiles (though that might be changing), not enough HIMAR reloads to make that big a difference, not enough intermediate range anti-missile defense, and a host of other items the Ukrainians have been quite open about asking for. The Cubans, who are understandably weary of the machinations of U.S. Imperialism, are flat our wrong, especially since they have denounced the Russian Imperialist attack on a weaker country. You think they would learn a thing or two from their own predicament.

 

What Russia IS doing is making the European working class rally around NATO and the EU and this has been going on for years. I'm glad the Chinese government spoke up to tamp down RUSSIA'S talk of nuclear weapons.

 

David Walters


Dennis Brasky
 

Poor Walter - he sounds so upset that Russian imperialism wasn't allowed to finish off the conquest of Ukraine a long time ago!


On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:57 PM Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...> wrote:

The fact that there are no US soldiers on the ground in Ukraine doesn't

prove that this war regarding Ukraine isn't a US-EU operation. Without

US-EU support, this war would have been over a long time ago.

 


_._,_._,_


Michael Karadjis
 

Chris notes that "Cuba, under blockade from the United States, needs the support of Russia (just as Ukraine, under attack from Russia, needs the support of the US)" though also noting that the crude propaganda in this article was "extreme." That's for sure.

Cuba's position is, quite simply, shit. But certainly, we can understand its position given the weight of the US blockade and other aggression over the decades. This has led, for example, to Cuba voting *against* the 2014 UN resolution to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to declare the "referendum" under Russian armed occupation illegitimate. Cuba could have abstained, like many countries did, but chose instead to vote against, along with only Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Assadland and a couple of others. At least this year Cuba has abstained on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, still a horrible and reactionary, pro-imperialist, position, but better than voting against the resolution as in 2014.

Not surprisingly, while Ukraine under its post-Maidan government continued to vote for several years *against* the US embargo on Cuba despite Cuba's vote in 2014, in the last few years Ukraine took to abstaining (and, given Cuba's abstention on the invasion this year, it once again abstained last week). This is also a shit, and pro-imperialist, position, but again understandable. I wonder how many will cite this as evidence that Ukraine deserves everything it gets due to such voting, but not make the same conclusion regarding Cuba's shit votes.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:07 PM Dennis Brasky <dmozart1756@...> wrote:
Poor Walter - he sounds so upset that Russian imperialism wasn't allowed to finish off the conquest of Ukraine a long time ago!

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:57 PM Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...> wrote:

The fact that there are no US soldiers on the ground in Ukraine doesn't

prove that this war regarding Ukraine isn't a US-EU operation. Without

US-EU support, this war would have been over a long time ago.

 



Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...>
 

It's such a shame that so many Western leftists have embraced Washington's war in Ukraine.
These are the same who embraced Washington's war against Libya, Yugoslavia and Syria.

 

 

Walter Lippmann

Los Angeles, California

November 9, 2022


David Walters
 

Factually incorrect for different reasons. It is first and foremost RUSSIA'S war on Ukraine, it is being waged against 40 million Ukrainians who have decided not to be a colony of Russia, Walter. Secondly, it is a shame that some many Western leftists have embraced Russia's war on Ukraine in the name of Know-Nothing faux-anti-Imperialism. Thirdly, as you just defined "Campism" quite well, all those conflicts had different types of interventions and not all of them for regime change (Syria, for example, which clearly was never aimed at regime change by the US). In fact  many "Western leftists" had completely different positions on all these wars that were spread all over the map. The way you polemicize Walter is find the largest brush you can and paint everyone with it. If you are going to campaign for Russia, you ought to get be more nuanced instead of just launching a bunch of factually inaccurate assertions.


Marv Gandall
 

David, what do you make of the Russian withdrawal from Kherson to the east bank of the Dnipro? Might they be looking to draw Ukrainian forces into the city in order to pummel them with artillery? 


hari kumar
 

Walter originally wrote two comments:
The second of his comments, was: 
"Cuba has NOT "denounced" the Russian invasion of Ukraine nor has Cuba characterized the invasion as "imperialist."
 Michael K accurately summarises this is 'shit'. 

But Walter's first comment was this:
"The fact that there are no US soldiers on the ground in Ukraine doesn't prove that this war regarding Ukraine isn't a US-EU operation. Without
US-EU support, this war would have been over a long time ago." 
This is more accurate I believe.  Although I suspect that the resistance of a peoples who fight for their 'homeland' and a war of resistance against invaders,  is being under-estimated again. 
Nonetheless the battle for control of NATO and, EU itself - at the highest levels is not being followed closely enough by progressives and leftists.

Having lost their 'English poodle' as a surrogate for themselves within the EU, the USA has now been more than amply rewarded. The faction of the German ruling class - represented by 'Greens' (Halbeck & Baerbock) and FDP - have nicely given a berth for USA via "SOCEUR" ("US Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) headquartered in Stuttgart-Vaihingen" - See https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/9052 ).

This operation involves the deployment of "the Resistance Operating Concept (ROC)" - or - known by most leftists as the same types of strategy deployed by various 'People's Wars". Differences apart from the political intents and raison d'etre, include a much more heavily financed manner of course. 
Hari
 
.
 


David Walters
 

Marv, thanks for asking. I wrote on FB yesterday or so that the move by the Russian forces was very, very smart. on their part. It is a huge political defeat for them as many commenters have noted (including the Russian blogoshere where many users are calling for heads to roll because of this). But it smart. Given that Russia's logistical supply line is shot to hell, defending that part of the Kherson Oblast (north/west of the Dnieper River) is simply not tenable. By doing that they are doing shortens those lines immensely and makes fortifying the south/eastern side of the river easier.  It was as I noted, very smart by letting the military, in this case, lead the politics of the move.

It seems the Russians have planted explosives all over the place, at every piece of civilian infrastructure etc etc. They did a LOT of work fortifying Kherson City itself so I'm still not convinced they have withdrawn all their assets from the city itself. The Ukrainian forces have now moved their troops in according to the Western sources map which was updated like 3 times today to reflect the new Ukrainian control. So that part IS happening. The City itself? Not so much yet. Give it a few days.

Probably there will be pummeling as you suggest of Ukrainian *static* positions if they move into the city. We won't know until that happens. Russian military doctrine is the do just that: destroy everything they can with artillery and air strikes (by comparison the US accomplishes this with air strikes mostly as they did in Iraq on two occasions). Also, keep in mind, the Ukrainians were trained originally to do the same thing as their playbooks are exactly the same, however, the Ukrainian side, getting training from NATO know, may withhold such artillery style "carpet bombing", which they have been accused of doing to Donestk city. On the other hand, both sides simply can't "free fire" like the U.S. is known to do: neither side can *waste* that kind of ammunition and though the Ukrainians don't have the same logitical supply issues that the Russians have, they do not have unlimited supplies of rockets (Grav and Himmers) and shells for their cannon.

David


Marv Gandall
 

Thanks, David, a persuasive analysis. It seems to me Kherson may perhaps be an inflection point. The Zelenskyy regime could claim victory if they reoccupy the city, even one reduced to rubble, and Putin and his circle likewise if it leads, under US and NATO pressure, to a settlement or a frozen peace in which the Russians retain all or most of what they presently control. Both Russia and the NATO powers lately seem more open to cutting their losses and preventing further escalation. In that case, we’d be back more or less to the pre-invasion status quo. I don’’t think this result would be regarded as a huge triumph by either the Ukranian or Russian workers and soldiers who were called on to sacrifice so much blood and treasure in pursuit of total victory, as their leaders defined it,
 
I’ve  been anticipating an outcome resembling the now mutually discredited Minsk accords for a some time, including back in February when I was among those who thought the sides would settle before the reckless Russian invasion, so I’m more tentative now.


John Obrien
 

The fact is there are Russian military attacking Ukraine for benefit to Putin - a known religious fascist murderer.
Putin is no socialist and workers lives do not matter to him.  

I prefer what Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, many Bolsheviks and Nikita Kruschev  in their recognizing and supporting
Ukraine as a nation and those who identified as Ukrainians.   

I remember the same Cuban government supported Breshnev's 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia - and NOW I guess that
Walter Lippmann believes that was the correct position?    Sam Marcy did but then Walter was in a different political view
and seems to have become what he now states.

It is clear that there are two different views on Putin - and Walter cares nothing about whom Putin harms.

I am delighted Putin is being defeated - and hopeful next year that the Russian workers and disaffected military
remove the Putin clique from power.  Would it not be great to have instead a worker led Russian republic?

The tragedy is the many harmed by Putin wanting a "Greater Russia" - and being the same as the U. S. militarists
who bully and threaten for domination, exploitation and privilege.  

Putin is no "objective anti-imperialist" - jut more of the problem with insecure people wanting power and recognition.

Should not all on this list want Russian workers in power and not Putin?






From: Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 4:57 PM
To: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [marxmail] Ukraine: a new phase in the war of attrition
 

The fact that there are no US soldiers on the ground in Ukraine doesn't

prove that this war regarding Ukraine isn't a US-EU operation. Without

US-EU support, this war would have been over a long time ago.

 

Cuba has NOT "denounced" the Russian invasion of Ukraine
nor has Cuba characterized the invasion as "imperialist".


.


Walter Lippmann <walterlx@...>
 

Some us are getting a little older in recent years. As a result, some of us sometimes find ourselves remembering things as we wish they were rather than as they were in fact. I'm just a boy of 78. I've always appreciated Joseph Hansen's take on the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Nothing has changed my opinion since he wrote it in 1968. Here's his introduction to a detailed discussion of those events.

Cuba was completely dependent on the USSR and the other Eastern European countries for its economic survival at that time. This fact had to be on the mind of Fidel Castro when he looked at those events over which he had neither control nor influence. If we only look back and think in terms of "right" and "wrong", regardless of context and circumstance, it's easy to simply condemn Cuba and Fidel Castro 54 years later.

Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
November 15, 2022
=======================

Fidel Castro's Position on the invasion and occupation
of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact countries
By Joseph Hansen (1968) 


What has happened to Fidel Castro's speech of August 23 in which he supported the invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact countries?

Is it being hailed by Moscow? Has the Soviet command tried to put a copy in the hands of every citizen of Czechoslovakia, the better to explain why foreign troops have been stationed in their country? Have the Czechoslovak communications media opened a public discussion of the questions it raises?

If the speech is not being widely circulated, has it at least been placed on the agenda for discussion at a governmental level, or among the leaders of the Communist parties of the "socialist camp"?

The truth is that even the Communist Party, U. S. A., one of the few pro-Moscow parties in the West to support the invasion wholeheartedly, has displayed an ambiguous attitude toward Castro's speech. While utilizing the fact that Castro approved the action of the Warsaw Pact countries, the top CPUSA leaders have refrained from disseminating or discussing Castro's speech as a whole.

The silence over what Castro said— one might justifiably call it a conspiracy of silence— is all the stranger in view of the fact that the Cuban leader remains the only one of all those who backed the action of the Warsaw Pact governments whose position can be characterized as internally consistent, if you accept the basic premise advanced by the Kremlin to justify sending troops into Czechoslovakia.

What led the Warsaw Pact allies to decide to block Castro's contribution from being discussed on a broad basis? Why did they decide that?

READ HANSEN'S FULL TEXT HERE:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/hansen-castro-czechoslovakia-1968.html
============================
JOHN O'BRIEN:

I remember the same Cuban government supported Breshnev's 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia - and NOW I guess that Walter Lippmann believes that was the correct position?