What Will Actually Happen if Russia Invades Ukraine
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
Are Finland and Sweden Ready For War with Russia?
Russian officer reveals why he quit Putin's war
Why Russia is Scared of Finland Joining NATO
Why Europe should not fall for Putin's peace trap | Michael Clarke
Russia Warns Long-Range U.S. Missiles at Ukraine Border 'Intolerable'
BY XANDER LANDEN ON 5/28/22
Reacting to news reports that the U.S. is planning to send long-range rocket systems to Ukraine, a top Russian diplomat on Saturday called for an "end to the senseless and extremely risky pumping of weapons into the country."
On Friday, news outlets reported that the Biden administration is expected to send multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to the Eastern European nation. Ukrainian officials have requested the weapons to attack Russians at longer ranges and threaten Russian logistics hubs and routes to slow their offensive in the Donbas region.
In a post on Telegram on Saturday, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, said the Biden administration "may give Kyiv HIMARS MLRS and M270 MLRS, which will be equipped with M31 GMLRS guided missiles."
"There is a risk that such equipment will be placed near Russia's borders and Ukrainians will be able to strike at Russian cities. Such a situation is unacceptable and intolerable for us," he said, according to Ukrayinska Pravda.
A top Russian diplomat on Saturday called for an "end to the senseless and extremely risky pumping of weapons into" Ukraine on Saturday amid reports that the U.S. will send the country rocket system. Above, a boy stands in front of a damaged building after a strike in Kramatorsk in the eastern Ukranian region of Donbas, on May 25.ARIS MESSINIS
In an interview this week, Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Newsweek that Russia "is now using artillery extensively and ruthlessly."
"To counter this, to save the lives of our servicemen and civilians, we need MLRS," he added.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the Biden administration is expected to announce its decision to send the weapons to Ukraine next week. Asked about whether a decision on the rocket systems had bee made, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Friday that officials "are still working through what the next drawdown package is going to look like."
In response to a request for comment on Saturday, the U.S. Department of Defense referred Newsweek to comments made by Kirby at Friday's news conference.
When asked about the MLRS weapons by a reporter, Kirby said: "Certainly, we're mindful and aware of of the Ukrainian asks, privately and publicly, for what is known as a multiple-launch rocket system."
"I won't get ahead of decisions. I've never done that since we've been starting to do these drawdown authority packages, but I can assure you that we are in constant communication with them, and we're still committed to helping them succeed on the battlefield, and to succeed specifically in the fight they're in," he added.
READ MORE
"We are calling for an end to the senseless and extremely risky pumping of weapons into the country. It is important to refrain from threats against us and claims of a military victory for Ukraine," the ambassador said, according to Ukrayinksa Pravda.
Meanwhile, an anchor on a Kremlin propaganda TV channel recently warned that the U.S. would face a "harsh response" if it supplied Ukraine with the long-range rocket systems.
www.newsweek.com
.
BY XANDER LANDEN ON 5/28/22
Reacting to news reports that the U.S. is planning to send long-range rocket systems to Ukraine, a top Russian diplomat on Saturday called for an "end to the senseless and extremely risky pumping of weapons into the country."
On Friday, news outlets reported that the Biden administration is expected to send multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to the Eastern European nation. Ukrainian officials have requested the weapons to attack Russians at longer ranges and threaten Russian logistics hubs and routes to slow their offensive in the Donbas region.
In a post on Telegram on Saturday, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, said the Biden administration "may give Kyiv HIMARS MLRS and M270 MLRS, which will be equipped with M31 GMLRS guided missiles."
"There is a risk that such equipment will be placed near Russia's borders and Ukrainians will be able to strike at Russian cities. Such a situation is unacceptable and intolerable for us," he said, according to Ukrayinska Pravda.
A top Russian diplomat on Saturday called for an "end to the senseless and extremely risky pumping of weapons into" Ukraine on Saturday amid reports that the U.S. will send the country rocket system. Above, a boy stands in front of a damaged building after a strike in Kramatorsk in the eastern Ukranian region of Donbas, on May 25.ARIS MESSINIS
In an interview this week, Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee, told Newsweek that Russia "is now using artillery extensively and ruthlessly."
"To counter this, to save the lives of our servicemen and civilians, we need MLRS," he added.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the Biden administration is expected to announce its decision to send the weapons to Ukraine next week. Asked about whether a decision on the rocket systems had bee made, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Friday that officials "are still working through what the next drawdown package is going to look like."
In response to a request for comment on Saturday, the U.S. Department of Defense referred Newsweek to comments made by Kirby at Friday's news conference.
When asked about the MLRS weapons by a reporter, Kirby said: "Certainly, we're mindful and aware of of the Ukrainian asks, privately and publicly, for what is known as a multiple-launch rocket system."
"I won't get ahead of decisions. I've never done that since we've been starting to do these drawdown authority packages, but I can assure you that we are in constant communication with them, and we're still committed to helping them succeed on the battlefield, and to succeed specifically in the fight they're in," he added.
READ MORE
- Putin's 'Private Army' Troops Fired for 'Refusing' to Fight in Ukraine
- Russia TV Says U.S. 'Crossing a Red Line' by Supplying Ukraine With MLRS
- Putin 'Angry Man' Focused on 'Revenge' After Ukraine War Failures: Gardiner
"We are calling for an end to the senseless and extremely risky pumping of weapons into the country. It is important to refrain from threats against us and claims of a military victory for Ukraine," the ambassador said, according to Ukrayinksa Pravda.
Meanwhile, an anchor on a Kremlin propaganda TV channel recently warned that the U.S. would face a "harsh response" if it supplied Ukraine with the long-range rocket systems.
Russia Warns Long-Range U.S. Missiles at Ukraine Border 'Intolerable'
Russian ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov said Saturday that Russia hopes "common sense will prevail and Washington will not take such a provocative step."
www.newsweek.com
.
STATUS:
Russia's invasion after 100 days:
Ukraine goes on the offensive
The battle for Ukraine has turned into a slugfest of dueling artillery. It's not the lightning-quick takedown Russian President Vladimir Putin intended. But former CIA Director David Petraeus says there's no denying Russian progress.
It's a swath of territory that, if it were in the United States, would stretch from Orlando, Fla., to North Carolina.
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin asked, "How do you think Vladimir Putin feels about the first 100 days?"
"I'm not sure that he would look in the mirror and say, you know, this hasn't gone well at all," Petraeus replied. "He would regard this as very much a work in progress."
"If Russian forces are nowhere near as good as we thought they would be, are they still just good enough?"
"They are plastering the areas where they find Ukrainian resistance, but that can only go on for so long, because they're also taking very, very high losses."
By some estimates Russia has suffered 15,000 killed, and lost 1,000 tanks.
The Ukrainians, too, are suffering losses – 60 to 100 soldiers killed each day. But their equipment is being replenished by the U.S. and other Western countries … 108 Howitzers with a range up to 20 miles; four rocket systems which can fire salvos out to 40 miles.
© Provided by CBS NewsThe U.S. has supplied Ukraine with four M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), which can launch multiple, precision-guided rockets with a range of 40 miles. / Credit: CBS News
Martin asked, "Is the U.S. giving Ukraine enough to just hold the line? Or are they giving them enough to actually take back lost territory?"
"I think that we and the other countries are giving Ukraine enough to take back lost territory," Petraeus said, "but again, that does remain to be seen."
. . .
The Ukrainians have now gone on the offensive, both in the South (against the Russian-held city of Kherson), and in the north (outside Kharkiv).
Petreaus said it is an attempt to outflank the Russians: "If they can get through that and get into the soft spot of the Russian defenses, then it's very possible that they could just keep on going."
But Hayward believes the Ukrainians will face a stark reality:
Russia's invasion after 100 days: Ukraine goes on the offensive (msn.com)
.
Russia's invasion after 100 days:
Ukraine goes on the offensive
The battle for Ukraine has turned into a slugfest of dueling artillery. It's not the lightning-quick takedown Russian President Vladimir Putin intended. But former CIA Director David Petraeus says there's no denying Russian progress.
It's a swath of territory that, if it were in the United States, would stretch from Orlando, Fla., to North Carolina.
CBS News national security correspondent David Martin asked, "How do you think Vladimir Putin feels about the first 100 days?"
"I'm not sure that he would look in the mirror and say, you know, this hasn't gone well at all," Petraeus replied. "He would regard this as very much a work in progress."
"If Russian forces are nowhere near as good as we thought they would be, are they still just good enough?"
"They are plastering the areas where they find Ukrainian resistance, but that can only go on for so long, because they're also taking very, very high losses."
By some estimates Russia has suffered 15,000 killed, and lost 1,000 tanks.
The Ukrainians, too, are suffering losses – 60 to 100 soldiers killed each day. But their equipment is being replenished by the U.S. and other Western countries … 108 Howitzers with a range up to 20 miles; four rocket systems which can fire salvos out to 40 miles.
© Provided by CBS NewsThe U.S. has supplied Ukraine with four M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), which can launch multiple, precision-guided rockets with a range of 40 miles. / Credit: CBS News
Martin asked, "Is the U.S. giving Ukraine enough to just hold the line? Or are they giving them enough to actually take back lost territory?"
"I think that we and the other countries are giving Ukraine enough to take back lost territory," Petraeus said, "but again, that does remain to be seen."
. . .
The Ukrainians have now gone on the offensive, both in the South (against the Russian-held city of Kherson), and in the north (outside Kharkiv).
Petreaus said it is an attempt to outflank the Russians: "If they can get through that and get into the soft spot of the Russian defenses, then it's very possible that they could just keep on going."
But Hayward believes the Ukrainians will face a stark reality:
"I personally think that it is a foregone conclusion that the Ukrainian military will beat the Russian military," he said. "And when they finally retake those pieces of Ukraine that are currently occupied, they're going to find nothing left."
Russia's invasion after 100 days: Ukraine goes on the offensive (msn.com)
.
What Would Happen If Russia and the US Went to War
What if Russia and the United States go to war? Check out today's epic new video that puts the two heavy-hitting military powers against each other. Could a war between the two nations actually happen? Watch right now to find out!
What if Russia and the United States go to war? Check out today's epic new video that puts the two heavy-hitting military powers against each other. Could a war between the two nations actually happen? Watch right now to find out!
We’ve seen 100 days of post cold-war Russia vs. the Ukrainians and it has not been impressive. Of course, they’ve killed a lot of ordinary people and damn-near leveled the country but with a much larger air, sea and ground force, the Russians have not subdued the much smaller and less equipped Ukrainians.
In fact, there are assessments at the 100 day point which have the Ukrainians going on an offensive soon that could be decisive in their favor. The 100 Day point seems to answer the question against the Russians, especially since it looks like the Russians are searching for something, perhaps the capture of the Donbas Region to then call the utter destruction of buildings and homes — victory.
Assuming we’re not talking nuclear engagement, where neither party would likely prevail or even survive, I think the Russian performance after 100 days tells a lot about which would likely prevail.
.
Russian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
Yuliya Talmazan and Phil McCausland and Artem Grudinin - 4h ago
React|
976
Ukraine said it feared scores of civilians might be dead or injured after a Russian missile strike hit a crowded shopping mall in the center of the country Monday.
© Provided by NBC NewsRussian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
More than 1,000 people were inside at the time of the rocket attack, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
“The number of victims is impossible to imagine,” he added in a post on the Telegram messaging app, sharing video that showed plumes of gray smoke rising above a building that was consumed in flames as people and first responders ran in front of it.
Yuliya Talmazan and Phil McCausland and Artem Grudinin - 4h ago
React|
976
- Share
Save
Ukraine said it feared scores of civilians might be dead or injured after a Russian missile strike hit a crowded shopping mall in the center of the country Monday.
© Provided by NBC NewsRussian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
More than 1,000 people were inside at the time of the rocket attack, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
“The number of victims is impossible to imagine,” he added in a post on the Telegram messaging app, sharing video that showed plumes of gray smoke rising above a building that was consumed in flames as people and first responders ran in front of it.
Russian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
Yuliya Talmazan and Phil McCausland and Artem Grudinin - 4h ago
React|
976
View attachment 4061
Ukraine said it feared scores of civilians might be dead or injured after a Russian missile strike hit a crowded shopping mall in the center of the country Monday.
© Provided by NBC NewsRussian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
More than 1,000 people were inside at the time of the rocket attack, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
“The number of victims is impossible to imagine,” he added in a post on the Telegram messaging app, sharing video that showed plumes of gray smoke rising above a building that was consumed in flames as people and first responders ran in front of it.
Yuliya Talmazan and Phil McCausland and Artem Grudinin - 4h ago
React|
976
- Share
Save
View attachment 4061
Ukraine said it feared scores of civilians might be dead or injured after a Russian missile strike hit a crowded shopping mall in the center of the country Monday.
© Provided by NBC NewsRussian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
More than 1,000 people were inside at the time of the rocket attack, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
“The number of victims is impossible to imagine,” he added in a post on the Telegram messaging app, sharing video that showed plumes of gray smoke rising above a building that was consumed in flames as people and first responders ran in front of it.
PUTIN IS A WAR CRIMINAL!Russian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
Yuliya Talmazan and Phil McCausland and Artem Grudinin - 4h ago
React|
976
- Share
Save
Ukraine said it feared scores of civilians might be dead or injured after a Russian missile strike hit a crowded shopping mall in the center of the country Monday.
© Provided by NBC NewsRussian strike hits shopping center with more than 1,000 people inside, Ukraine says
More than 1,000 people were inside at the time of the rocket attack, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
“The number of victims is impossible to imagine,” he added in a post on the Telegram messaging app, sharing video that showed plumes of gray smoke rising above a building that was consumed in flames as people and first responders ran in front of it.
I HOPE HE LIVES LONG ENOUGH TO STAND TRIAL!! HE IS A POS!
At least 20 people were killed in Russia's missile attack on a crowded Ukrainian mall
Updated June 28, 2022
www.npr.org
.
Updated June 28, 2022
Over 20 people were killed in Russia's missile attack on a crowded Ukrainian mall
Russia has been escalating bombardments of Ukrainian cities this week — attacks Moscow says are aimed at military installations but often hit civilian targets instead.
www.npr.org
.
Again Putin and all his generals are POS!!!At least 20 people were killed in Russia's missile attack on a crowded Ukrainian mall
Updated June 28, 2022
Over 20 people were killed in Russia's missile attack on a crowded Ukrainian mall
Russia has been escalating bombardments of Ukrainian cities this week — attacks Moscow says are aimed at military installations but often hit civilian targets instead.
.
Are we witnessing a military
revolution on Ukraine battlefields?
Opinion by Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth, Opinion Contributors - 11h ago
The Hill
Opinion by Jonathan Sweet
and Mark Toth, Opinion Contributors -
July 1, 2022
President Volodymyr Zelensky and his Ukrainian warriors have unleashed a “Red Dawn”-like response against Russian troop advances in nearly every part of the country. Russian tanks — the much-heralded T-72, T-80 and T-90 — are no match for the Javelin, Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW), Baykar Bayraktar TB2 and Switchblade drones. Their turrets litter the Ukraine landscape. Neither composite armor, explosive reactive armor, nor countermeasure suites have been effective against the modern weapon systems designed to destroy them.
These defensive weapons, supplied by the United States and NATO, are dramatically altering the battlefield and providing a much-needed shot in the arm to a president in Kyiv unwilling to “take a ride.” Ukraine has marginalized the once vaunted Russian War Machine. As the combat continues, the Ukraine Defense Ministry recently reported they have:
Ukrainian resiliency and Russian ineptness aside, are we witnessing a revolution in military affairs (RMA) moment?
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus introduced us to the reality that “change is the only constant.” That applies to warfare as well, from tactics and strategy to weapons systems and protective equipment. When change fundamentally reshapes how we fight, it is known as RMA — a hypothesis in military theory about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for military reform.
Broadly stated, RMA claims in certain periods of the history, there were new military doctrines, strategies, tactics and technologies that led to irrecoverable changes in the conduct of warfare. Furthermore, those changes compel an accelerated adaptation of novel battlefield doctrines and strategies. Examples include the machine gun from World War I, Blitzkrieg from World War II, long-range precision missile fires from Desert Storm, and communications and network-centric warfare.
The war in Ukraine is continually introducing high-tech weapon systems to the battlefield that are fundamentally marginalizing armor — tanks and armored personnel carriers — by utilizing centuries-old tactics that have fundamentally marginalized, while ingeniously also exploiting, the manner in which the Russian military employs them. Russian President Vladimir Putin exposed himself to this possible RMA moment by fighting a war using WWII tactics with modern-day armor; the Ukrainian military is winning by destroying them wholesale with modern weapon systems using infantry tactics as old as the French and Indian War.
In Ukrainian hands, $175,000 Raytheon FGM-148 Javelins and their “fire and forget” technology are acting as long-range snipers, while the $40,000 UK Thales NLAW are serving as close-in brass knuckles. Both have easily destroyed Russian armor, including Russia’s $2.8 million T-72 tanks by homing in on their manned turrets from the topside — structurally their weakest defensive armor link. Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, pricier at $5 million each, provide 24-hour air cover and have been highly effective at destroying a variety of Russian armor, command posts, surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries, and multiple rocket launchers. Perhaps the most revolutionary are the U.S. AeroVironment Switchblade 300s and 600s. These $6,000 loitering drones, capable of staying airborne for 30 minutes and ranging seven miles, are carried in a backpack and provide infantrymen over-the-horizon intelligence. They also are kinetic and can destroy Russian armor and artillery.
But, are we witnessing RMA? Yes, but it’s a culmination of bad Russian strategy, the Kremlin’s overreliance on antiquated tactics, poor training, abysmal execution, and Ukraine’s adaptation to asymmetric armor tactics. Poor operations security contributed as well. The modern-day tank has lost its “fear factor”; its presence makes everything around it vulnerable.
It is certainly akin to long-range precision fires and network-centric warfare. These new weapon systems provide stand-off precision fires on smaller, more lethal platforms and the ability for soldiers on the ground to geo-locate and target enemy forces using social media and cell towers. The infantryman can now deliver accurate, lethal fires, unseen, miles away from the target — a modern-day bogeyman to the Russian soldier. The WWII saying that “loose lips sink ships” is still relevant, but in 2022, “social media posts” sideline tanks and general officers — bad operations security still has deadly consequences.
The Javelin anti-tank missile and Switchblade drone have exposed weaknesses in armor, and not just Russian tanks and APCs. Air Defense security from drone strikes has taken on increased significance, as does enhanced armor protection on the top of tanks and APCs. Armor is vulnerable, and it’s much harder to hide on today’s battlefield. Much as Blitzkrieg tactics defeated the Maginot line, the principles of speed and security will be needed to overcome advances in today’s weapons technology.
Asymmetric weapons systems employed during the Ukraine war have diminished the mobility and intimidation factor of the modern-day tank to the status of the post-WWII battleship. RMA has relegated decisive tank battles on the plains of Europe to the past – the same as aircraft carriers in WWII put an end to decisive naval armada battles envisioned by Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Now, with the introduction of U.S.-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), RMA may be on the verge of changing how artillery is employed on the battlefield. While counter-battery fires aren’t new, large lethargic artillery formations found at the regiment, division and corps levels, the staple of Russian tactics, present themselves as lucrative targets. Their prolonged exposure on the battlefield ensures their destruction. The mobility, range and accuracy of HIMARS is a game changer, and certainly will alter how Russia fights.
Revolution comes fast — hopefully, a little too fast for Putin.
Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel, served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14, working with NATO partners in the Black Sea and Baltics. Follow him on Twitter @JESweet2022.
Mark Toth is a retired economist, historian and entrepreneur who has worked in banking, insurance, publishing and global commerce. He is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, and has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world, including London, Tel Aviv, Augsburg and Nagoya. Follow him on Twitter @MCTothSTL.
Are we witnessing a military revolution on Ukraine battlefields? (msn.com)
revolution on Ukraine battlefields?
Opinion by Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth, Opinion Contributors - 11h ago
The Hill
Opinion by Jonathan Sweet
and Mark Toth, Opinion Contributors -
July 1, 2022
President Volodymyr Zelensky and his Ukrainian warriors have unleashed a “Red Dawn”-like response against Russian troop advances in nearly every part of the country. Russian tanks — the much-heralded T-72, T-80 and T-90 — are no match for the Javelin, Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW), Baykar Bayraktar TB2 and Switchblade drones. Their turrets litter the Ukraine landscape. Neither composite armor, explosive reactive armor, nor countermeasure suites have been effective against the modern weapon systems designed to destroy them.
These defensive weapons, supplied by the United States and NATO, are dramatically altering the battlefield and providing a much-needed shot in the arm to a president in Kyiv unwilling to “take a ride.” Ukraine has marginalized the once vaunted Russian War Machine. As the combat continues, the Ukraine Defense Ministry recently reported they have:
- inflicted 34,430 casualties, and
- destroyed: 1,504 tanks, 3632 armored personnel carriers, 756 artillery pieces, 240 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, 216 aircraft and 183 helicopters.
Ukrainian resiliency and Russian ineptness aside, are we witnessing a revolution in military affairs (RMA) moment?
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus introduced us to the reality that “change is the only constant.” That applies to warfare as well, from tactics and strategy to weapons systems and protective equipment. When change fundamentally reshapes how we fight, it is known as RMA — a hypothesis in military theory about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for military reform.
Broadly stated, RMA claims in certain periods of the history, there were new military doctrines, strategies, tactics and technologies that led to irrecoverable changes in the conduct of warfare. Furthermore, those changes compel an accelerated adaptation of novel battlefield doctrines and strategies. Examples include the machine gun from World War I, Blitzkrieg from World War II, long-range precision missile fires from Desert Storm, and communications and network-centric warfare.
The war in Ukraine is continually introducing high-tech weapon systems to the battlefield that are fundamentally marginalizing armor — tanks and armored personnel carriers — by utilizing centuries-old tactics that have fundamentally marginalized, while ingeniously also exploiting, the manner in which the Russian military employs them. Russian President Vladimir Putin exposed himself to this possible RMA moment by fighting a war using WWII tactics with modern-day armor; the Ukrainian military is winning by destroying them wholesale with modern weapon systems using infantry tactics as old as the French and Indian War.
In Ukrainian hands, $175,000 Raytheon FGM-148 Javelins and their “fire and forget” technology are acting as long-range snipers, while the $40,000 UK Thales NLAW are serving as close-in brass knuckles. Both have easily destroyed Russian armor, including Russia’s $2.8 million T-72 tanks by homing in on their manned turrets from the topside — structurally their weakest defensive armor link. Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, pricier at $5 million each, provide 24-hour air cover and have been highly effective at destroying a variety of Russian armor, command posts, surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries, and multiple rocket launchers. Perhaps the most revolutionary are the U.S. AeroVironment Switchblade 300s and 600s. These $6,000 loitering drones, capable of staying airborne for 30 minutes and ranging seven miles, are carried in a backpack and provide infantrymen over-the-horizon intelligence. They also are kinetic and can destroy Russian armor and artillery.
But, are we witnessing RMA? Yes, but it’s a culmination of bad Russian strategy, the Kremlin’s overreliance on antiquated tactics, poor training, abysmal execution, and Ukraine’s adaptation to asymmetric armor tactics. Poor operations security contributed as well. The modern-day tank has lost its “fear factor”; its presence makes everything around it vulnerable.
It is certainly akin to long-range precision fires and network-centric warfare. These new weapon systems provide stand-off precision fires on smaller, more lethal platforms and the ability for soldiers on the ground to geo-locate and target enemy forces using social media and cell towers. The infantryman can now deliver accurate, lethal fires, unseen, miles away from the target — a modern-day bogeyman to the Russian soldier. The WWII saying that “loose lips sink ships” is still relevant, but in 2022, “social media posts” sideline tanks and general officers — bad operations security still has deadly consequences.
The Javelin anti-tank missile and Switchblade drone have exposed weaknesses in armor, and not just Russian tanks and APCs. Air Defense security from drone strikes has taken on increased significance, as does enhanced armor protection on the top of tanks and APCs. Armor is vulnerable, and it’s much harder to hide on today’s battlefield. Much as Blitzkrieg tactics defeated the Maginot line, the principles of speed and security will be needed to overcome advances in today’s weapons technology.
Asymmetric weapons systems employed during the Ukraine war have diminished the mobility and intimidation factor of the modern-day tank to the status of the post-WWII battleship. RMA has relegated decisive tank battles on the plains of Europe to the past – the same as aircraft carriers in WWII put an end to decisive naval armada battles envisioned by Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Now, with the introduction of U.S.-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), RMA may be on the verge of changing how artillery is employed on the battlefield. While counter-battery fires aren’t new, large lethargic artillery formations found at the regiment, division and corps levels, the staple of Russian tactics, present themselves as lucrative targets. Their prolonged exposure on the battlefield ensures their destruction. The mobility, range and accuracy of HIMARS is a game changer, and certainly will alter how Russia fights.
Revolution comes fast — hopefully, a little too fast for Putin.
Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel, served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14, working with NATO partners in the Black Sea and Baltics. Follow him on Twitter @JESweet2022.
Mark Toth is a retired economist, historian and entrepreneur who has worked in banking, insurance, publishing and global commerce. He is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, and has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world, including London, Tel Aviv, Augsburg and Nagoya. Follow him on Twitter @MCTothSTL.
Are we witnessing a military revolution on Ukraine battlefields? (msn.com)
On February 24th 2022, Russia brought war back to Europe after almost eight decades of peace. Its invasion of Ukraine has shattered all expectations of modern European powers resolving their problems peacefully, and brought NATO itself to the brink of full-blown war against Russia. But this is only one of four possible ways that this war ends- and the other three may surprise you. Check out today's epic new video to find out how the Russian war in Ukraine will end!
The Washington Post
At least six explosions hit Crimea air base in nearly an hour
Samuel Oakford, Joyce Lee
August 14, 2022
Shortly before 3:20 p.m. on Aug. 9, Nikolay Abbasov, a resident of Saki, near Crimea’s western Black Sea coast, heard an explosion. Walking to his window, he filmed a cloud of smoke rising in the distance. At almost the same moment, a Russian influencer, Diana Andreeva, was enjoying the beach in nearby Novofedorivka when she turned her camera to capture the cloud, which was rising from Saki air base, home to the Russian Navy’s 43rd Independent Naval Attack Aviation Regiment.
About 50 minutes later, both would capture two massive explosions at the base, capping an alleged attack claimed by Ukraine that killed at least one person and injured 13 others, according to Russian officials. The blasts left at least eight military aircraft destroyed or significantly damaged and wrecked parts of the facility, according to defense sources, military analysts and a review of satellite imagery. If Ukraine was responsible, the attack would be one of its most audacious of the war, playing out in front of residents and tourists deep into Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014.
To better understand what happened in Saki, The Washington Post analyzed more than two dozen videos, spoke to eyewitnesses, and consulted eight military and geospatial experts, confirming that at least six explosions rocked the base over the course of nearly an hour.
Anonymous Ukrainian officials have said the attack was carried out by the country’s special forces or guerrilla fighters known as “partisans,” but have provided few details. Resistance fighters have been active in Kherson, which neighbors Crimea to the north, where they’ve been blamed for assassinations.A senior Pentagon official on Friday told reporters that Ukraine had selected the target and that the Defense Department hadn’t determined what weapons were used. A news article on the Pentagon’s website does not attribute an attack to Ukraine.
Russia said the incident resulted from the accidental detonation of munitions at the site — a theory that The Post’s analysis does not rule out. Crimean leader Sergey Aksyonov raised the terrorist threat level to “yellow” but did not comment on Ukraine’s potential involvement.
Ukraine’s vague explanations have inspired various theories from analysts, including that special forces planted explosive charges at the base or used drones to fire or deliver bombs, or that the country’s military used a precision weapon with a range beyond systems it is known to operate.
Experts said The Post’s analysis raises questions about how any attack was conducted, and whether it benefited from secondary blasts caused by fires at the base.
“The question remains: How many of these explosions were caused by independent events, versus a chain effect of initial exploding ordinance or fuel that then caught other ordinance fuel or fire?” said Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at the Rand Corp.
‘The sky is pitch black’
The Post synchronized videos and images shared on social media confirming at least a half-dozen explosions at Saki air base. Witnesses told The Post that they heard more.
Shortly before 3:20 p.m., Abbasov filmed smoke from the first blast identified by The Post. “It just hit so hard — it made my bed shake,” he says in the video. The footage matches accounts of other witnesses, and a Russian Defense Ministry statement that said “several aircraft munitions detonated at an enclosed storage site” at “about 3.20 p.m.”
At least six explosions hit Crimea air base in nearly an hour (msn.com)
Ukraine: Global Reactions 6 Months After Russia Invaded
By Reuters
Aug. 24, 2022
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his wife Olena lay flowers at the Memory Wall of Fallen Defenders of Ukraine, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, during marking the Independence Day in Kyiv, Ukraine August 24, 2022. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERSREUTERS
(Reuters) - Ukraine marked 31 years of independence on Wednesday, six months to the day after Russia invaded.
Following are related comments from prominent figures
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKIY:
"A new nation appeared in the world on Feb. 24 at 4 o'clock in the morning. It was not born, but reborn. A nation that did not cry, scream or take fright. One that did not flee. Did not give up. And did not forget...
"We will not sit down at the negotiating table (with Russia) out of fear, with a gun pointed at our heads. For us, the most terrible iron is not missiles, aircraft and tanks, but shackles. Not trenches, but fetters...
"What for us is the end of the war? We used to say: peace. Now we say: victory."
UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER DMYTRO KULEBA:
"If we don't have independence, we don't have anything."
GERMAN CHANCELLOR OLAF SCHOLZ
"Today would normally be filled with joyful concerts, picnics and parades, held under a blue Ukrainian summer sky ... But the dark shadow of Russia’s brutal war of aggression remains a heavy burden...
"Our borders and our hearts remain open for all those who are forced to flee the terror imposed on them by Russia ...
"Germany stands firmly by Ukraine's side in this hour of danger - today and for as long as Ukraine needs our support. Your yellow and blue flag and that of the EU, with yellow stars on a blue background, are cut from the same cloth."
BRITISH PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON
"Today Ukraine's independence is threatened once again and people are fighting with steel and with courage to defend their homes and their families, and to preserve their right to decide their own destiny...
"However long it takes, the United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine and provide every possible military, economic and humanitarian support."
(Reporting by Reuters bureaus; Compiled by John Stonestreet; Editing by Alison Williams)
Copyright 2022 Thomson Reuters.
.
By Reuters
Aug. 24, 2022
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his wife Olena lay flowers at the Memory Wall of Fallen Defenders of Ukraine, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, during marking the Independence Day in Kyiv, Ukraine August 24, 2022. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERSREUTERS
(Reuters) - Ukraine marked 31 years of independence on Wednesday, six months to the day after Russia invaded.
Following are related comments from prominent figures
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKIY:
"A new nation appeared in the world on Feb. 24 at 4 o'clock in the morning. It was not born, but reborn. A nation that did not cry, scream or take fright. One that did not flee. Did not give up. And did not forget...
"We will not sit down at the negotiating table (with Russia) out of fear, with a gun pointed at our heads. For us, the most terrible iron is not missiles, aircraft and tanks, but shackles. Not trenches, but fetters...
"What for us is the end of the war? We used to say: peace. Now we say: victory."
UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER DMYTRO KULEBA:
"If we don't have independence, we don't have anything."
GERMAN CHANCELLOR OLAF SCHOLZ
"Today would normally be filled with joyful concerts, picnics and parades, held under a blue Ukrainian summer sky ... But the dark shadow of Russia’s brutal war of aggression remains a heavy burden...
"Our borders and our hearts remain open for all those who are forced to flee the terror imposed on them by Russia ...
"Germany stands firmly by Ukraine's side in this hour of danger - today and for as long as Ukraine needs our support. Your yellow and blue flag and that of the EU, with yellow stars on a blue background, are cut from the same cloth."
BRITISH PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON
"Today Ukraine's independence is threatened once again and people are fighting with steel and with courage to defend their homes and their families, and to preserve their right to decide their own destiny...
"However long it takes, the United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine and provide every possible military, economic and humanitarian support."
(Reporting by Reuters bureaus; Compiled by John Stonestreet; Editing by Alison Williams)
Copyright 2022 Thomson Reuters.
.
Last edited:
Just over half of Americans say U.S. should back Ukraine until Russia withdraws - Reuters/Ipsos poll
Simon Lewis
Wed, August 24, 2022 at 5:06 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After half a year of war in Ukraine, a slim majority of Americans agree that the United States should continue to support Kyiv until Russia withdraws all its forces, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Wednesday.
The polling suggests continued support for President Joe Biden's policy of backing Ukraine, despite economic worries and domestic political developments grabbing Americans' attention in recent months.
The Biden administration has provided weapons and ammunition for Ukraine's bid to repel Russian forces and is expected to announce a new security assistance package of about $3 billion, a U.S. official said, as Ukraine's marks its Independence Day on Wednesday.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has vowed to recapture territory seized after the Feb. 24 invasion and in earlier incursions beginning in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea.
Out of 1,005 people in the United States who took part in an online poll last week, 53% expressed support for backing Ukraine "until all Russian forces are withdrawn from territory claimed by Ukraine."
Only 18% said they opposed.
That support came from both sides of the political divide, although Democratic voters were more likely to back the position, with 66% of Democrats in support compared to 51% of Republicans.
A slim majority, 51%, also supported providing arms such as guns and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine's military, compared with 22% who opposed.
In previous polls, higher numbers of Americans have backed providing arms to Ukraine but directly comparable polling was not available.
In line with past polling, there was little support among Americans from across the political spectrum for sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. Only 26% said they supported such an intervention, but 43% agreed with sending U.S. troops to NATO allies neighboring Ukraine who are not at war with Russia.
The poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
(Reporting by Simon Lewis; Editing by Mary Milliken and Cynthia Osterman)
Just over half of Americans say U.S. should back Ukraine until Russia withdraws - Reuters/Ipsos poll (yahoo.com)
.
Simon Lewis
Wed, August 24, 2022 at 5:06 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After half a year of war in Ukraine, a slim majority of Americans agree that the United States should continue to support Kyiv until Russia withdraws all its forces, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Wednesday.
The polling suggests continued support for President Joe Biden's policy of backing Ukraine, despite economic worries and domestic political developments grabbing Americans' attention in recent months.
The Biden administration has provided weapons and ammunition for Ukraine's bid to repel Russian forces and is expected to announce a new security assistance package of about $3 billion, a U.S. official said, as Ukraine's marks its Independence Day on Wednesday.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has vowed to recapture territory seized after the Feb. 24 invasion and in earlier incursions beginning in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea.
Out of 1,005 people in the United States who took part in an online poll last week, 53% expressed support for backing Ukraine "until all Russian forces are withdrawn from territory claimed by Ukraine."
Only 18% said they opposed.
That support came from both sides of the political divide, although Democratic voters were more likely to back the position, with 66% of Democrats in support compared to 51% of Republicans.
A slim majority, 51%, also supported providing arms such as guns and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine's military, compared with 22% who opposed.
In previous polls, higher numbers of Americans have backed providing arms to Ukraine but directly comparable polling was not available.
In line with past polling, there was little support among Americans from across the political spectrum for sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. Only 26% said they supported such an intervention, but 43% agreed with sending U.S. troops to NATO allies neighboring Ukraine who are not at war with Russia.
The poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
(Reporting by Simon Lewis; Editing by Mary Milliken and Cynthia Osterman)
Just over half of Americans say U.S. should back Ukraine until Russia withdraws - Reuters/Ipsos poll (yahoo.com)
.
Head of Russian oil giant Lukoil dies after falling from hospital window, reports state media
From CNN's Anna Chernova, Fred Pleitgen and Chris Liakos
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Oil Company Lukoil, Ravil Maganov, attends an awarding ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow on November 21, 2019. Mikhail Klimentyev/SPUTNIK/AFP/Getty Images
The chairman of Russian oil and gas giant Lukoil — which spoke out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine — has died after falling out of a hospital window, state news agencies RIA Novosti and TASS reported Thursday.
Ravil Maganov died at the Central Clinical Hospital west of Moscow, according to the reports, which cite the hospital and law enforcement sources.
"The incident occurred around 07:00 am Moscow time in the Central Clinical Hospital ... The man fell out of the sixth-floor window and died as a result of his injuries," a source told TASS.
Lukoil confirmed Maganov’s death in a statement published on its website, saying only that the executive died "following a severe illness" and making no mention of a fall.
"We deeply regret to announce that Ravil Maganov, Chairman of PJSC LUKOIL Board of Directors, passed away following a severe illness," the statement read. "Ravil Maganov immensely contributed to the development of not only the Company, but of the entire Russian oil and gas sector."
Russia's second largest oil company made headlines in early March after speaking out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
"The Board of Directors of LUKOIL expresses herewith its deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine. Calling for the soonest termination of the armed conflict, we express our sincere empathy for all victims, who are affected by this tragedy," reads a statement from the board of directors to shareholders, staff and customers published March 3.
"We strongly support a lasting ceasefire and a settlement of problems through serious negotiations and diplomacy,” added the statement.
Lukoil produces more than 2% of the world's crude oil and employs more than 100,000 people.
RIA Novosti quoted a law enforcement source who said the businessman "most likely committed suicide."
"Yes, we can confirm the fact [of death]. Investigating authorities are working on the spot to establish the causes of the incident," the source said, according to RIA.
At least five prominent Russian businessmen have reportedly died by suicide since late January, according to previous CNN reporting.
www.cnn.com
.
From CNN's Anna Chernova, Fred Pleitgen and Chris Liakos
The chairman of Russian oil and gas giant Lukoil — which spoke out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine — has died after falling out of a hospital window, state news agencies RIA Novosti and TASS reported Thursday.
Ravil Maganov died at the Central Clinical Hospital west of Moscow, according to the reports, which cite the hospital and law enforcement sources.
"The incident occurred around 07:00 am Moscow time in the Central Clinical Hospital ... The man fell out of the sixth-floor window and died as a result of his injuries," a source told TASS.
Lukoil confirmed Maganov’s death in a statement published on its website, saying only that the executive died "following a severe illness" and making no mention of a fall.
"We deeply regret to announce that Ravil Maganov, Chairman of PJSC LUKOIL Board of Directors, passed away following a severe illness," the statement read. "Ravil Maganov immensely contributed to the development of not only the Company, but of the entire Russian oil and gas sector."
Russia's second largest oil company made headlines in early March after speaking out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
"The Board of Directors of LUKOIL expresses herewith its deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine. Calling for the soonest termination of the armed conflict, we express our sincere empathy for all victims, who are affected by this tragedy," reads a statement from the board of directors to shareholders, staff and customers published March 3.
"We strongly support a lasting ceasefire and a settlement of problems through serious negotiations and diplomacy,” added the statement.
Lukoil produces more than 2% of the world's crude oil and employs more than 100,000 people.
RIA Novosti quoted a law enforcement source who said the businessman "most likely committed suicide."
"Yes, we can confirm the fact [of death]. Investigating authorities are working on the spot to establish the causes of the incident," the source said, according to RIA.
At least five prominent Russian businessmen have reportedly died by suicide since late January, according to previous CNN reporting.
Head of Russian oil giant Lukoil dies after falling from hospital window, reports state media
A team of international experts have arrived at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant for a planned inspection of the facility on Thursday despite the "significant" risks of their mission, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said. Follow here for the latest.
.
OPINION>INTERNATIONAL
Like his soldiers,
is Putin doomed?
BY ALEXANDER J. MOTYL,
OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
09/13/22 07:30 AM ET
Vladimir Putin is kaput.
The proof of that is the below letter, written by a 26-year-old soldier in the Russian army, V.V. Tarasenko. We know nothing about Tarasenko, except that he was a resident of Putin’s brainchild, the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic, and that he has a wife, Valeria, and a small son.
We also know that Tarasenko died in battle during the recent Ukrainian offensive in Kharkiv province. Ukrainian intelligence found the letter; the Ukrainian analyst and soldier, Taras Berezovets, posted it on Facebook. The letter was written with little punctation and without capital letters. I’ve added them to make it more comprehensible:
Tarasenko’s fate and complaints are not unique. The Russian leadership, with Putin at the head, has evinced a profoundly cavalier attitude toward lives — not just of innocent Ukrainians, who’ve been the targets of genocide, but also of Russian soldiers and residents of the self-styled Luhansk and Donetsk “people’s republics,” the LNR and DNR, both of whom have been recognized as independent by the Russian Federation. As Tarasenko says, the soldiers of the Russian army are nothing less than cannon fodder. Most likely to be sent to the front without the requisite training, supplies, weaponry and ammunition are the men of the LNR and DNR, many of whom have been forcibly conscripted and sent to die. So much for Putin’s concern for Ukraine’s Russian speakers.
Tarasenko knew that he was cannon fodder; other conscripts must also know that they are doomed. It’s hard to imagine that morale is especially high among soldiers facing certain death for no discernible reason other than the megalomaniacal ambitions and oversized ego of their country’s fascist dictator. It’s even harder to imagine a scenario in which an army consisting of terrified boys who dream of spending time on the beach with their girlfriends or wives can possibly sustain a meaningless war — and least of all, win it.
Tarasenko’s letter presages his death, and it also may foretell Putin’s rapidly approaching end. His war — as should be evident by now even to the Kremlin’s propagandists, German left-wingers and American neorealists — is proving to be one of history’s enormous strategic blunders. Like Napoleon and Hitler, Putin surely faces removal and possible exile on some distant isle or in his bunker.
Local policymakers in St. Petersburg and Moscow evidently agree. On Sept. 8, the Muscovites adopted a resolution stating outright that Putin must go: “We ask that you release yourself from the post [of president] as a result of the fact that your views and your model of rule are hopelessly out of date and impede the development of Russia and its human potential.”
The Petersburgers were even more radical. They proposed that the State Duma, Russia’s moribund legislature, charge Putin with “state treason” with the intent of having him removed from office.
Putin has lost his legitimacy, and a ruler — even a fascist dictator — needs to be deemed legitimate by elites and masses to remain in power. If, as seems likely, the views of Tarasenko and the policymakers in Moscow and St. Petersburg are widespread, then the ongoing decay of the Russian army can only accelerate, and popular discontent can only increase. A social explosion may be inevitable.
Whatever the scenario, Putin’s end definitely is near, and the world would do well to minimize the chances of his acting even more destructively by hastening a Ukrainian victory and thereby giving a fillip to the Russian democratic opposition and bringing the Putin era to a close as soon as possible.
Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as “Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires” and “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.”
Like his soldiers, is Putin doomed? | The Hill
.
Like his soldiers,
is Putin doomed?
BY ALEXANDER J. MOTYL,
OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
09/13/22 07:30 AM ET
Vladimir Putin is kaput.
The proof of that is the below letter, written by a 26-year-old soldier in the Russian army, V.V. Tarasenko. We know nothing about Tarasenko, except that he was a resident of Putin’s brainchild, the so-called Luhansk People’s Republic, and that he has a wife, Valeria, and a small son.
We also know that Tarasenko died in battle during the recent Ukrainian offensive in Kharkiv province. Ukrainian intelligence found the letter; the Ukrainian analyst and soldier, Taras Berezovets, posted it on Facebook. The letter was written with little punctation and without capital letters. I’ve added them to make it more comprehensible:
“This letter is for the future, if I should die or be taken prisoner or become a vegetable! Written 17.7.22. It is very hard to write, I’m crying, but I must. Beloved Lera, tell [our son] what kind of dad I was, that we were sent as cannon fodder to Zaliman [a village in Kharkiv province]! Without armor, without ammunition, without normal weapons. This is about our situation. When our son grows up, tell him his dad wanted very much to return home to be the best dad ever. I’ve been drinking and I’m writing emotionally. I know that all this will be forgotten and that you will be living your own life, that you’ll find a new husband, that I’ll simply disappear in the war like all the guys. Unfortunately, I didn’t have a normal life. Say that dad was an athlete, didn’t smoke and didn’t drink. It’s terrible that everyone has forgotten me. It’s very hard to accept all this, but all people die. And this cycle can’t be changed. It’s bad to die in the summer. If only I were at the seashore.”
To [my] wife.
Tarasenko V.V.
Tarasenko’s fate and complaints are not unique. The Russian leadership, with Putin at the head, has evinced a profoundly cavalier attitude toward lives — not just of innocent Ukrainians, who’ve been the targets of genocide, but also of Russian soldiers and residents of the self-styled Luhansk and Donetsk “people’s republics,” the LNR and DNR, both of whom have been recognized as independent by the Russian Federation. As Tarasenko says, the soldiers of the Russian army are nothing less than cannon fodder. Most likely to be sent to the front without the requisite training, supplies, weaponry and ammunition are the men of the LNR and DNR, many of whom have been forcibly conscripted and sent to die. So much for Putin’s concern for Ukraine’s Russian speakers.
Tarasenko knew that he was cannon fodder; other conscripts must also know that they are doomed. It’s hard to imagine that morale is especially high among soldiers facing certain death for no discernible reason other than the megalomaniacal ambitions and oversized ego of their country’s fascist dictator. It’s even harder to imagine a scenario in which an army consisting of terrified boys who dream of spending time on the beach with their girlfriends or wives can possibly sustain a meaningless war — and least of all, win it.
Tarasenko’s letter presages his death, and it also may foretell Putin’s rapidly approaching end. His war — as should be evident by now even to the Kremlin’s propagandists, German left-wingers and American neorealists — is proving to be one of history’s enormous strategic blunders. Like Napoleon and Hitler, Putin surely faces removal and possible exile on some distant isle or in his bunker.
Local policymakers in St. Petersburg and Moscow evidently agree. On Sept. 8, the Muscovites adopted a resolution stating outright that Putin must go: “We ask that you release yourself from the post [of president] as a result of the fact that your views and your model of rule are hopelessly out of date and impede the development of Russia and its human potential.”
The Petersburgers were even more radical. They proposed that the State Duma, Russia’s moribund legislature, charge Putin with “state treason” with the intent of having him removed from office.
Putin has lost his legitimacy, and a ruler — even a fascist dictator — needs to be deemed legitimate by elites and masses to remain in power. If, as seems likely, the views of Tarasenko and the policymakers in Moscow and St. Petersburg are widespread, then the ongoing decay of the Russian army can only accelerate, and popular discontent can only increase. A social explosion may be inevitable.
Whatever the scenario, Putin’s end definitely is near, and the world would do well to minimize the chances of his acting even more destructively by hastening a Ukrainian victory and thereby giving a fillip to the Russian democratic opposition and bringing the Putin era to a close as soon as possible.
Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as “Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires” and “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.”
Like his soldiers, is Putin doomed? | The Hill
.
Kremlin TV Airs Call for Russia to Admit ‘Serious Defeat’
‘HUMILIATING’ . . . Even the most war-happy Putin loyalists are now pushing for the recognition of recent “failures” Russia has suffered in Ukraine.
Brutal realizations have been raining upon the Kremlin’s top propagandists—and when it rains, it pours. The same pundits who used to threaten NATO countries with nuclear strikes are begrudgingly acknowledging that Russia’s Armed Forces have suffered a series of humiliating setbacks in Ukraine.
Appearing on Russia’s NTV show The Meeting Place on Monday, policy analyst Viktor Olevich surmised: “Unfortunately, the situation is difficult. Can we say that the Russian forces moved closer to meeting the goals and carrying out the tasks set by the president at the beginning of the special operation—or did they get further away? Obviously, we’re now further away.”
Bogdan Bezpalko, member of the Council for Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, was even more outspoken. “For two months, Ukrainian Armed Forces and military equipment have been massing in that area, all Telegram channels have been writing about it. Where was our damn reconnaissance? All of their heads should be laying on Putin’s desk, hacked off at the base... Of course, this is a tactical defeat. I hope it will be very sobering.”
On Monday’s broadcast of The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, filmmaker Karen Shakhnazarov likewise dispensed a large dose of brutal honesty. “I urge everyone not to panic in the face of a defeat we’ve suffered in the Kharkiv region, and we have to acknowledge it,” he said. “A defeat has some meaning when you acknowledge it and draw new conclusions. And if you don’t acknowledge it, all you get is another defeat, perhaps even more devastating. This is a very difficult situation and we have to recognize that we’re battling a very powerful adversary.”
Shakhnazarov, whose public calls to cease the hostilities made waves shortly after Russia initially invaded Ukraine, regressed to a diametrically opposite position. With the conviction of a fatalist, he asserted: “No one can stop this war, because it was historically necessary... Neither Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], nor Zelensky and not the West can end this war.
- striking Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure—a move that is often praised on Russian state TV, with propagandists promoting the idea of causing a total blackout that would deprive all of Ukraine of roads, bridges, electricity and running water.
State TV pundits concur that such measures are necessary because Russia’s Armed Forces can’t keep up with the goals set by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Shakhnazarov noted: “All of us are aware of the problems experienced by our Armed Forces. In my opinion, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were obviously unprepared for the magnitude of this war. Ukraine’s Armed Forces were prepared, they’ve been training and getting ready for eight years.”
Solovyov was unwilling to concede Russia’s defeat to the Ukrainian troops and claimed that American and British soldiers were covertly fighting in their ranks. “In the process of preparing the battle-ready Ukrainian troops, it turns out they’ve been rapidly turning darker in color and becoming fluent English speakers. They’re becoming indistinguishable from the mercenaries... Some of them have a Southern drawl, others speak with a British accent. Stop pretending already,” he said. The idea of being defeated by NATO, as opposed to this smaller neighboring country, seems to sweeten the pot for many of the Kremlin’s cheerleaders.
Shakhnazarov complained that the patriotic mood in the country is being negatively undermined from within by a continued obsession with the Western lifestyle and entertainment: “It starts with small things. Why are they showing American movies on our television? Eff me! I just want to say, eff me, why are you doing that? It’s humiliating!”
The filmmaker urged for clarity in the “political solution of the Ukrainian question.” While no one argued with Shakhnazarov about Russia’s defeat, the existence of the Ukrainian ethnicity was too much to bear for some of the Kremlin’s mouthpieces. Political analyst Dmitry Drobnitsky asserted: “The recognition of the existence of the Ukrainian people is the biggest mistake in our Soviet history.” Shakhnazarov followed up: “So there are no Ukrainian people?” Drobnitsky replied: “The Ukrainian people do not exist. Any historian will tell you that they don’t exist... You’re offering me to recognize their existence. Thanks, but no thanks.”
After objecting to arguments about the supposed non-existence of the Ukrainian ethnicity and the Ukrainian language, the Germany-based pundit Alexander Sosnovsky became visibly unsettled by what he was hearing. In a scene that resembled a Mitchell and Webb sketch, in which two Nazi officers come to the realization that they are the ‘baddies’ in WWII, he bitterly concluded: “I don’t want to go any further, because this smells of nationalism.”
Kremlin TV Airs Call for Russia to Admit ‘Serious Defeat’ (thedailybeast.com)
.
‘HUMILIATING’ . . . Even the most war-happy Putin loyalists are now pushing for the recognition of recent “failures” Russia has suffered in Ukraine.
Brutal realizations have been raining upon the Kremlin’s top propagandists—and when it rains, it pours. The same pundits who used to threaten NATO countries with nuclear strikes are begrudgingly acknowledging that Russia’s Armed Forces have suffered a series of humiliating setbacks in Ukraine.
Appearing on Russia’s NTV show The Meeting Place on Monday, policy analyst Viktor Olevich surmised: “Unfortunately, the situation is difficult. Can we say that the Russian forces moved closer to meeting the goals and carrying out the tasks set by the president at the beginning of the special operation—or did they get further away? Obviously, we’re now further away.”
Bogdan Bezpalko, member of the Council for Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, was even more outspoken. “For two months, Ukrainian Armed Forces and military equipment have been massing in that area, all Telegram channels have been writing about it. Where was our damn reconnaissance? All of their heads should be laying on Putin’s desk, hacked off at the base... Of course, this is a tactical defeat. I hope it will be very sobering.”
On Monday’s broadcast of The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, filmmaker Karen Shakhnazarov likewise dispensed a large dose of brutal honesty. “I urge everyone not to panic in the face of a defeat we’ve suffered in the Kharkiv region, and we have to acknowledge it,” he said. “A defeat has some meaning when you acknowledge it and draw new conclusions. And if you don’t acknowledge it, all you get is another defeat, perhaps even more devastating. This is a very difficult situation and we have to recognize that we’re battling a very powerful adversary.”
Shakhnazarov, whose public calls to cease the hostilities made waves shortly after Russia initially invaded Ukraine, regressed to a diametrically opposite position. With the conviction of a fatalist, he asserted: “No one can stop this war, because it was historically necessary... Neither Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], nor Zelensky and not the West can end this war.
This war can end only with the defeat of one of the sides.
For us, this defeat may prove fatal.
We should understand that it might lead to the disintegration of the country.”
“Now it’s impossible
to pull the wool over our eyes,
pretending that everything is wonderful.”
Mikheyev argued that failures would likely prompt “serious people” to make some “radical decisions,” like - striking Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure—a move that is often praised on Russian state TV, with propagandists promoting the idea of causing a total blackout that would deprive all of Ukraine of roads, bridges, electricity and running water.
State TV pundits concur that such measures are necessary because Russia’s Armed Forces can’t keep up with the goals set by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Shakhnazarov noted: “All of us are aware of the problems experienced by our Armed Forces. In my opinion, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were obviously unprepared for the magnitude of this war. Ukraine’s Armed Forces were prepared, they’ve been training and getting ready for eight years.”
Solovyov was unwilling to concede Russia’s defeat to the Ukrainian troops and claimed that American and British soldiers were covertly fighting in their ranks. “In the process of preparing the battle-ready Ukrainian troops, it turns out they’ve been rapidly turning darker in color and becoming fluent English speakers. They’re becoming indistinguishable from the mercenaries... Some of them have a Southern drawl, others speak with a British accent. Stop pretending already,” he said. The idea of being defeated by NATO, as opposed to this smaller neighboring country, seems to sweeten the pot for many of the Kremlin’s cheerleaders.
Shakhnazarov complained that the patriotic mood in the country is being negatively undermined from within by a continued obsession with the Western lifestyle and entertainment: “It starts with small things. Why are they showing American movies on our television? Eff me! I just want to say, eff me, why are you doing that? It’s humiliating!”
The filmmaker urged for clarity in the “political solution of the Ukrainian question.” While no one argued with Shakhnazarov about Russia’s defeat, the existence of the Ukrainian ethnicity was too much to bear for some of the Kremlin’s mouthpieces. Political analyst Dmitry Drobnitsky asserted: “The recognition of the existence of the Ukrainian people is the biggest mistake in our Soviet history.” Shakhnazarov followed up: “So there are no Ukrainian people?” Drobnitsky replied: “The Ukrainian people do not exist. Any historian will tell you that they don’t exist... You’re offering me to recognize their existence. Thanks, but no thanks.”
After objecting to arguments about the supposed non-existence of the Ukrainian ethnicity and the Ukrainian language, the Germany-based pundit Alexander Sosnovsky became visibly unsettled by what he was hearing. In a scene that resembled a Mitchell and Webb sketch, in which two Nazi officers come to the realization that they are the ‘baddies’ in WWII, he bitterly concluded: “I don’t want to go any further, because this smells of nationalism.”
Kremlin TV Airs Call for Russia to Admit ‘Serious Defeat’ (thedailybeast.com)
.
Another Putin Ally Dead After
‘Suffocating’ on Business Trip
“It happened absolutely suddenly,” one colleague who claimed to have witnessed the death of Vladimir Sungorkin said.
The Daily Beast
Noor Ibrahim
Deputy World Editor
Sep. 14, 2022
Another top ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin has died this week, this time of an alleged “stroke” while on a business trip in the village of Roshchino in Russia’s far east region.
Vladimir Nikolayevich Sungorkin, 68, was editor-in-chief of the Russian state newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda. According to the newspaper, Sungorkin died “suddenly” after showing signs of “suffocation” during the trip on Wednesday.
“It happened absolutely suddenly, nothing foreshadowed. We were in the village of Roshchino. We were driving, we were already making our way towards Khabarovsk, we planned to get there in the evening today, and from there to Moscow. All was good,” his colleague Leonid Zakharov, who had accompanied him on the business trip, wrote in a story for KP.
According to Zakharov, Sungorkin fell unconscious minutes after suggesting their group “find a beautiful place somewhere… for lunch.”
“Three minutes later, Vladimir began to suffocate. We took him out for fresh air, he was already unconscious… Nothing helped. The doctor who did the initial examination said that apparently, it was a stroke. But this is the initial conclusion,” his colleague wrote.
Sungorkin’s passing comes amid a string of mysterious deaths of top Putin allies this month. Most recently, Ivan Pechorin, aviation director for Russia’s Far East and Arctic Development Corporation, was reported dead after allegedly “falling from a boat” in Vladivostok, according to local Russian media outlets.
The Komsomolskaya Pravda has long been known as a staunch pro-Kremlin newspaper.
“The legendary Komsomolka has traveled a long creative path over these years and has written brilliant unforgettable pages in the history of the Russian media,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a statement congratulating the newspaper on the 95th anniversary of its first issue in 2020. “It is crucial that the current staff of the newspaper pass on these traditions from generation to generation and strive to retain the newspaper’s flagship position in the Russia media market.”
In an obituary for Sungorkin, the staff of Komsomolskaya Pravda wrote that the journalist had come from humble beginnings before building the newspaper up into “a mighty empire,” referring to him as “a symbol of the new national journalism.”
Vladimir Nikolayevich Sungorkin, Ally of Vladimir Putin, Dies of Apparent ‘Stroke’ on Business Trip (thedailybeast.com)
.
Last edited:
Putin’s Man in the Far East Dies in Bizarre Fall From Boat
Ivan Pechorin now joins a long list of Russian executives to die in strange and mysterious circumstances.
Putin’s Man in the Far East Dies in Bizarre Fall From Boat
Ivan Pechorin now joins a long list of Russian executives to die in strange and mysterious circumstances.www.thedailybeast.com
Pechorin is at least the ninth prominent Russian businessmen to have reportedly died by suicide or in unexplained accidents since late January, with six of them associated with Russia's two largest energy companies.
Four of those six were linked to the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom or one of its subsidiaries, while the other two were associated with Lukoil, Russia's largest privately owned oil and gas company.
Earlier this year, the company took the unusual public stance of speaking out against Russia's war in Ukraine, calling for sympathy for the victims, and for the end of the conflict.
Politics
Putin’s Options Narrow After
Ukraine Scores Battlefield Rout
Russian army bolsters defenses as Ukrainian advance presses on
Criticism of Kremlin’s handling of foundering invasion grow
Bloomberg News
September 14, 2022
Humiliated by lightning Ukrainian gains on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin faces narrowing options as he seeks to turn the tide in his struggling nearly seven-month-old invasion.
Criticism in Russia of the sudden retreat in the northeast Kharkiv region over the last week has spread from nationalist bloggers to mainstream political figures. But its forces are still holding key positions in Ukraine’s Donbas region and putting up a fierce fight against its troops near Kherson in the south. There are signs the Kremlin may also be redeploying forces to protect Crimea, which Russia annexed as the main prize of its 2014 campaign, in the event Ukraine is able to break through its lines.
In the Kremlin, the shock at the sudden and striking battlefield reversals is increasingly giving way to a grim resignation and a determination to continue escalating the fight, stepping up strikes on Ukraine’s infrastructure deep behind the lines, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential matters.
Publicly, Russia denies aiming at civilian targets, which would be a violation of international law.
But after strikes on power plants plunged large areas of Ukraine into darkness Sunday, Russia late Wednesday fired missiles at elements of the water system in Kryvyi Rih, causing severe damage and flooding in a city behind the front lines, Ukraine said.
Momentum Shift
Still, even with its more numerous weapons, Russia is still plagued by a shortage of troops and low morale and is unlikely to be able to reverse what the US calls a “shift in momentum” toward Kyiv with its steadily increasing supplies of arms from Washington and European allies. The Kremlin’s attempts to use disruptions of energy supplies to pressure Europe so far haven’t eroded support for Ukraine, while Moscow’s vague hints at possible nuclear escalation ring hollow.
“We are moving in only one direction -- forward and toward victory,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Wednesday during a surprise visit to the strategic city of Izyum, one of dozens of towns and villages that his forces recaptured last week.
MORE AT: Putin’s Options Narrow After Ukraine Scores Battlefield Rout - Bloomberg
.
Putin’s Options Narrow After
Ukraine Scores Battlefield Rout
Russian army bolsters defenses as Ukrainian advance presses on
Criticism of Kremlin’s handling of foundering invasion grow
Bloomberg News
September 14, 2022
Humiliated by lightning Ukrainian gains on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin faces narrowing options as he seeks to turn the tide in his struggling nearly seven-month-old invasion.
Criticism in Russia of the sudden retreat in the northeast Kharkiv region over the last week has spread from nationalist bloggers to mainstream political figures. But its forces are still holding key positions in Ukraine’s Donbas region and putting up a fierce fight against its troops near Kherson in the south. There are signs the Kremlin may also be redeploying forces to protect Crimea, which Russia annexed as the main prize of its 2014 campaign, in the event Ukraine is able to break through its lines.
In the Kremlin, the shock at the sudden and striking battlefield reversals is increasingly giving way to a grim resignation and a determination to continue escalating the fight, stepping up strikes on Ukraine’s infrastructure deep behind the lines, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential matters.
Publicly, Russia denies aiming at civilian targets, which would be a violation of international law.
But after strikes on power plants plunged large areas of Ukraine into darkness Sunday, Russia late Wednesday fired missiles at elements of the water system in Kryvyi Rih, causing severe damage and flooding in a city behind the front lines, Ukraine said.
Momentum Shift
Still, even with its more numerous weapons, Russia is still plagued by a shortage of troops and low morale and is unlikely to be able to reverse what the US calls a “shift in momentum” toward Kyiv with its steadily increasing supplies of arms from Washington and European allies. The Kremlin’s attempts to use disruptions of energy supplies to pressure Europe so far haven’t eroded support for Ukraine, while Moscow’s vague hints at possible nuclear escalation ring hollow.
“We are moving in only one direction -- forward and toward victory,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Wednesday during a surprise visit to the strategic city of Izyum, one of dozens of towns and villages that his forces recaptured last week.
MORE AT: Putin’s Options Narrow After Ukraine Scores Battlefield Rout - Bloomberg
.
This is a sensitive time to engage in provocation with the EU/Britain that could trigger a conflict easy. The smart thing to do is lay low than reengage later.
Russia is also viewing this conflict in a broader sense by cutting off natural gas and no longer sees this as a war with Ukraine. This could harm thousands of people that may freeze in the cold. By falsely showing the effectiveness of their military aid, it positions Putin as justified in doing this.
Russia is also viewing this conflict in a broader sense by cutting off natural gas and no longer sees this as a war with Ukraine. This could harm thousands of people that may freeze in the cold. By falsely showing the effectiveness of their military aid, it positions Putin as justified in doing this.
Last edited:
If they wanted to be evil, they could stop domestic production and import liquid natural gas into Russia further driving up prices. This is something we do with the strategic petroleum reserve.
The West is testing out a lot of shiny new military tech in Ukraine
How satellites, drones, and AI helped Ukraine’s counter-offensive.
By Jonathan Guyer@mideastXmidwestjonathan.guyer@vox.com
Sep 21, 2022, 9:00am EDT
A drone operator launches a quadcopter to monitor the operation of an evacuation robot during its field testing on September 9, 2022, in Kyiv, Ukraine. Mykhaylo Palinchak/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
As Ukraine turned a corner 10 days ago with a military offensive that retook territory from Russia, former Google CEO billionaire Eric Schmidt was meeting with senior Ukrainian officials. He was on a 36-hour visit to the country exploring technology’s role in the war.
“What I was interested in is what did the tech industry do to help?” he told a press conference organized by George Washington University, Zooming from a private jet flying back from an undisclosed European country.
Schmidt traveled to Ukraine not just as a former tech CEO, but as a billionaire investor in military technology startups who has served on influential federal boards advising the US government on adapting more artificial intelligence. He has prominently advocated for the US Department of Defense to integrate new tech, and his trip was a reminder of how integral advanced technologies and novel uses of existing technologies have been to Ukraine’s approach in this war.
Satellites, drones, artificial intelligence, and cyber capabilities have been central to the war since the first days of Russia’s invasion. New technologies have been working in concert with traditional military hardware, empowering Ukraine’s pushback against Russia. Little wonder that NATO has launched a 1 billion euro investment fund for innovation. A senior Ukrainian minister had appealed to Elon Musk via Twitter early on, to route Starlink satellites that provide high-speed internet over the country to keep the country connected even if infrastructure on the ground was destroyed. “Elon Musk is genuinely a hero here,” Schmidt said.
The most important factors in Ukraine’s advance likely relate to the unprecedented military aid packages that the United States has provided. That assistance puts Ukraine on par with the top 20 countries worldwide by military spending. The US alone has sent over $14 billion worth of security aid since Moscow invaded, according to senior US defense official Sasha Baker, who last week emphasized that Ukraine has been “creative in integrating capabilities” from the US and other allies.
A spokesperson for the Defense Department said that the US wouldn’t get ahead of the Ukrainians in detailing what tech they have. We do know that the US, for example, has sent 700 Switchblade drones made by the Virginia-based AeroVironment, and the cyber company BlackHorse has been contracted to provide for the Ukraine mission, but it’s not clear yet how much of US assistance writ large is going to cyber and AI. Tracking all those contracts “is an entire project that, in a just world, a team of people would be summarizing in real time,” says Jack Poulson, founder of the nonprofit watchdog Tech Inquiry.
But experts and former military officials said that there are several firsts in this conflict, and one of those has to do with the outsize role of relatively cheap commercial technologies like Musk’s satellites and small drones. For American experts, Ukraine is a case study for understanding how these new technologies operate in a conventional land war alongside all the other weapons the West is sending.
“There’s always this silly and, frankly, faux either/or narrative on technology in war,” says futurist Peter Singer, co-author of Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War. “It’s very clear that technology, and in particular, new technologies matter, and have been incredibly important, but are they the only important thing? Of course, not.”
Tech at war: satellites, drones, AI, and cyber
Former US defense officials told me that much of the advanced technology that Ukraine is using is commercial and off-the-shelf — in other words, useful innovations that you don’t need to be a military leader to purchase.
That might not sound revolutionary, but it stands in contrast to the Pentagon’s attempts to integrate already-developed products or technologies, which have at times been thwarted by the institution’s complex bureaucracy and tech workers’ protests against enabling the military. “We’re actually seeing that relationship happening in Ukraine and seeing it in real time, and so you’ve got commercial companies that are running to help,” says Jim Mitre, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Program at the RAND Corporation.
Satellites are not new, but small, commercial ones are a major emerging space for venture capital and new startups. And they have contributed to Ukraine’s ability to understand Russian troop movements and track potential war crimes through intensive open-source data collection.
Small commercial drones have been an important part of the Ukraine story too, and they’re doing everything from finding Russian forces, providing target-quality data for artillery strikes, and conducting battle-damage assessments. Both Ukraine and Russia are deploying loitering munitions — small armed drones that can hover in the air for hours and then drop explosives on a target — and in some cases have been used in swarms. And much has been made of the Ukrainians’ success in using the lightweight, armed Bayraktar TB2 drone; the Turkish company that makes it refuses to sell the unmanned aerial vehicle to Russia.
The use of artificial intelligence in war is incredibly controversial, but undeniably advancing. When Reuters reported that the facial-recognition company Clearview AI had provided its technology to Ukraine, critics of the company pointed to its dangers and potential misuse.
Though facial recognition had been used in limited ways in Afghanistan, now Ukraine is using it at scale. “This is the first major conventional conflict where you’re seeing face recognition deployed,” Singer, who co-manages the firm Useful Fiction that has advised the US Air Force and major military contractors, told me. “Start thinking with your sci-fi hat on.”
Another example of AI playing a role has been in the context of new apps that can be used in information operations, such as a tool from the company Primer that can do voice recognition, transcription and translation services, and may be being used to analyze intercepted Russian communications.
Many analysts predicted that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine would spell hard-core cyber attacks. The fact that nothing major has gone down, however, may be in large part due to the work of cyber defenders behind the scenes, at commercial companies and in Western governments. “There’s been an incredible amount of cyber activity, incredible,” says Singer. The example he cited was of Ukrainian hackers infiltrating electric-vehicle charging stations in Moscow and putting on the screen an anti-Putin slur. That was cute, says Singer, “However, what actually mattered is besides defacing the screen, they shut down the operations of the charging stations. They hit the internet of things. They used digital means to cause physical change in the world.” Countries have used that capability covertly before (such as in Israel’s Stuxnet attack in the mid-2000s on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure), but here is the first time perhaps it’s happened in a conventional conflict.
Large-scale military hardware endures as Ukraine’s not-so-secret weapon, but even that operates within a larger technological context. Candace Rondeaux, a researcher at the Washington think tank New America, points out, “It’s the combining of these technologies in certain ways that has been unique.” She acknowledges the centrality of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), the precision rocket-launcher made by Lockheed Martin that the US has sent to Ukraine to defend against Russia, but adds that in itself it’s insufficient. It’s a targeting system that requires good information and intelligence. “For that information to flow, you’ve got to have communications platforms, and the means by which to securely communicate where things are, when you want to strike them,” she said.
“It’s not HIMARS that’s winning the war for the Ukraine, nor is it traditional artillery duels,” according to Mitre, who worked as a senior Defense official until earlier this year. “It’s their ability to process information at a faster clip than the Russians that is having a big impact here.”
The breadth of information operations has led Brendan McCord, a hedge-fund manager who previously authored the Department of Defense’s first AI strategy, to describe this conflict as the first broadband war. “We fought networked wars for some time, but always in the narrowband sense,” he told me. Rather than depending on small bandwidth, low-speed data transmissions, Starlink has given Ukraine “this incredible advantage,” especially in terms of transmitting high-quality video.
“Ukraine feels like it’s a half a generation ahead on integrating the technologies that it’s using into novel war-fighting concepts,” he added.
What it means for the US
All the newly forged connections are between the US private sector and Ukraine. And the rallying of US companies is obviously not entirely altruistic.
“If you’re a defense company, what you’re hoping is that Ukrainian generals are going to be asking the US military to provide your capabilities to them,” Gregory Allen, a researcher with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me. “And that’s just a degree of intimacy between the supplier and the warfighter across nations, that is kind of unprecedented.”
That intimacy was on display in June, when the first business executive to visit Ukraine since Russia invaded was Alex Karp, the CEO of the data analytics military and intelligence-agency contractor Palantir. “There has always been a relationship between the defense-industrial complex and private companies, but it is possible that the visibility of CEOs is notable,” says Margarita Konaev, a researcher at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
Executives of major US defense contractors have bragged about how they’d profit from arming Ukraine. Silicon Valley companies are jumping into the mix. And, in an extraordinary move, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will keynote a US military contractor conference — speaking directly to US weapons makers.
Going forward, experts are watching how advanced technologies are being used in the battlefield to understand what lessons might apply to US policymakers. Lindsay Gorman, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund who recently served in the Biden administration on the National Security Council, says the focus of much of Washington is on how Russia’s invasion relates to China’s military power and potential scenarios for an attack on Taiwan. Others cited how quickly Ukraine has adapted new technologies and whether the US could follow suit.
For Schmidt, the lesson so far is the urgent need for government to make room for tech. The Ukrainian parliament, for instance, quickly changed a law at the onset of the war to put all of the Ukrainian government’s information in the cloud. “They should have done that before,” he said, “but the point is, the war gave everybody a political excuse to do the right thing.” Schmidt also emphasized the importance of engaging with the country’s crowd-sourced hackers.
But some experts were much more skeptical about tech’s prominence in the first major conventional war in Europe in more than a generation. “What is the role of tomorrow’s technology in today’s war?” asked Konaev. “To an extent it still remains quite limited.”
.
How satellites, drones, and AI helped Ukraine’s counter-offensive.
By Jonathan Guyer@mideastXmidwestjonathan.guyer@vox.com
Sep 21, 2022, 9:00am EDT
- Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
- Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)
- SHAREAll sharing options
As Ukraine turned a corner 10 days ago with a military offensive that retook territory from Russia, former Google CEO billionaire Eric Schmidt was meeting with senior Ukrainian officials. He was on a 36-hour visit to the country exploring technology’s role in the war.
“What I was interested in is what did the tech industry do to help?” he told a press conference organized by George Washington University, Zooming from a private jet flying back from an undisclosed European country.
Schmidt traveled to Ukraine not just as a former tech CEO, but as a billionaire investor in military technology startups who has served on influential federal boards advising the US government on adapting more artificial intelligence. He has prominently advocated for the US Department of Defense to integrate new tech, and his trip was a reminder of how integral advanced technologies and novel uses of existing technologies have been to Ukraine’s approach in this war.
Satellites, drones, artificial intelligence, and cyber capabilities have been central to the war since the first days of Russia’s invasion. New technologies have been working in concert with traditional military hardware, empowering Ukraine’s pushback against Russia. Little wonder that NATO has launched a 1 billion euro investment fund for innovation. A senior Ukrainian minister had appealed to Elon Musk via Twitter early on, to route Starlink satellites that provide high-speed internet over the country to keep the country connected even if infrastructure on the ground was destroyed. “Elon Musk is genuinely a hero here,” Schmidt said.
The most important factors in Ukraine’s advance likely relate to the unprecedented military aid packages that the United States has provided. That assistance puts Ukraine on par with the top 20 countries worldwide by military spending. The US alone has sent over $14 billion worth of security aid since Moscow invaded, according to senior US defense official Sasha Baker, who last week emphasized that Ukraine has been “creative in integrating capabilities” from the US and other allies.
A spokesperson for the Defense Department said that the US wouldn’t get ahead of the Ukrainians in detailing what tech they have. We do know that the US, for example, has sent 700 Switchblade drones made by the Virginia-based AeroVironment, and the cyber company BlackHorse has been contracted to provide for the Ukraine mission, but it’s not clear yet how much of US assistance writ large is going to cyber and AI. Tracking all those contracts “is an entire project that, in a just world, a team of people would be summarizing in real time,” says Jack Poulson, founder of the nonprofit watchdog Tech Inquiry.
But experts and former military officials said that there are several firsts in this conflict, and one of those has to do with the outsize role of relatively cheap commercial technologies like Musk’s satellites and small drones. For American experts, Ukraine is a case study for understanding how these new technologies operate in a conventional land war alongside all the other weapons the West is sending.
“There’s always this silly and, frankly, faux either/or narrative on technology in war,” says futurist Peter Singer, co-author of Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War. “It’s very clear that technology, and in particular, new technologies matter, and have been incredibly important, but are they the only important thing? Of course, not.”
Tech at war: satellites, drones, AI, and cyber
Former US defense officials told me that much of the advanced technology that Ukraine is using is commercial and off-the-shelf — in other words, useful innovations that you don’t need to be a military leader to purchase.
That might not sound revolutionary, but it stands in contrast to the Pentagon’s attempts to integrate already-developed products or technologies, which have at times been thwarted by the institution’s complex bureaucracy and tech workers’ protests against enabling the military. “We’re actually seeing that relationship happening in Ukraine and seeing it in real time, and so you’ve got commercial companies that are running to help,” says Jim Mitre, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Program at the RAND Corporation.
Satellites are not new, but small, commercial ones are a major emerging space for venture capital and new startups. And they have contributed to Ukraine’s ability to understand Russian troop movements and track potential war crimes through intensive open-source data collection.
Small commercial drones have been an important part of the Ukraine story too, and they’re doing everything from finding Russian forces, providing target-quality data for artillery strikes, and conducting battle-damage assessments. Both Ukraine and Russia are deploying loitering munitions — small armed drones that can hover in the air for hours and then drop explosives on a target — and in some cases have been used in swarms. And much has been made of the Ukrainians’ success in using the lightweight, armed Bayraktar TB2 drone; the Turkish company that makes it refuses to sell the unmanned aerial vehicle to Russia.
The use of artificial intelligence in war is incredibly controversial, but undeniably advancing. When Reuters reported that the facial-recognition company Clearview AI had provided its technology to Ukraine, critics of the company pointed to its dangers and potential misuse.
Though facial recognition had been used in limited ways in Afghanistan, now Ukraine is using it at scale. “This is the first major conventional conflict where you’re seeing face recognition deployed,” Singer, who co-manages the firm Useful Fiction that has advised the US Air Force and major military contractors, told me. “Start thinking with your sci-fi hat on.”
Another example of AI playing a role has been in the context of new apps that can be used in information operations, such as a tool from the company Primer that can do voice recognition, transcription and translation services, and may be being used to analyze intercepted Russian communications.
Many analysts predicted that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine would spell hard-core cyber attacks. The fact that nothing major has gone down, however, may be in large part due to the work of cyber defenders behind the scenes, at commercial companies and in Western governments. “There’s been an incredible amount of cyber activity, incredible,” says Singer. The example he cited was of Ukrainian hackers infiltrating electric-vehicle charging stations in Moscow and putting on the screen an anti-Putin slur. That was cute, says Singer, “However, what actually mattered is besides defacing the screen, they shut down the operations of the charging stations. They hit the internet of things. They used digital means to cause physical change in the world.” Countries have used that capability covertly before (such as in Israel’s Stuxnet attack in the mid-2000s on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure), but here is the first time perhaps it’s happened in a conventional conflict.
Large-scale military hardware endures as Ukraine’s not-so-secret weapon, but even that operates within a larger technological context. Candace Rondeaux, a researcher at the Washington think tank New America, points out, “It’s the combining of these technologies in certain ways that has been unique.” She acknowledges the centrality of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), the precision rocket-launcher made by Lockheed Martin that the US has sent to Ukraine to defend against Russia, but adds that in itself it’s insufficient. It’s a targeting system that requires good information and intelligence. “For that information to flow, you’ve got to have communications platforms, and the means by which to securely communicate where things are, when you want to strike them,” she said.
“It’s not HIMARS that’s winning the war for the Ukraine, nor is it traditional artillery duels,” according to Mitre, who worked as a senior Defense official until earlier this year. “It’s their ability to process information at a faster clip than the Russians that is having a big impact here.”
The breadth of information operations has led Brendan McCord, a hedge-fund manager who previously authored the Department of Defense’s first AI strategy, to describe this conflict as the first broadband war. “We fought networked wars for some time, but always in the narrowband sense,” he told me. Rather than depending on small bandwidth, low-speed data transmissions, Starlink has given Ukraine “this incredible advantage,” especially in terms of transmitting high-quality video.
“Ukraine feels like it’s a half a generation ahead on integrating the technologies that it’s using into novel war-fighting concepts,” he added.
What it means for the US
All the newly forged connections are between the US private sector and Ukraine. And the rallying of US companies is obviously not entirely altruistic.
“If you’re a defense company, what you’re hoping is that Ukrainian generals are going to be asking the US military to provide your capabilities to them,” Gregory Allen, a researcher with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me. “And that’s just a degree of intimacy between the supplier and the warfighter across nations, that is kind of unprecedented.”
That intimacy was on display in June, when the first business executive to visit Ukraine since Russia invaded was Alex Karp, the CEO of the data analytics military and intelligence-agency contractor Palantir. “There has always been a relationship between the defense-industrial complex and private companies, but it is possible that the visibility of CEOs is notable,” says Margarita Konaev, a researcher at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
Executives of major US defense contractors have bragged about how they’d profit from arming Ukraine. Silicon Valley companies are jumping into the mix. And, in an extraordinary move, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will keynote a US military contractor conference — speaking directly to US weapons makers.
Going forward, experts are watching how advanced technologies are being used in the battlefield to understand what lessons might apply to US policymakers. Lindsay Gorman, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund who recently served in the Biden administration on the National Security Council, says the focus of much of Washington is on how Russia’s invasion relates to China’s military power and potential scenarios for an attack on Taiwan. Others cited how quickly Ukraine has adapted new technologies and whether the US could follow suit.
For Schmidt, the lesson so far is the urgent need for government to make room for tech. The Ukrainian parliament, for instance, quickly changed a law at the onset of the war to put all of the Ukrainian government’s information in the cloud. “They should have done that before,” he said, “but the point is, the war gave everybody a political excuse to do the right thing.” Schmidt also emphasized the importance of engaging with the country’s crowd-sourced hackers.
But some experts were much more skeptical about tech’s prominence in the first major conventional war in Europe in more than a generation. “What is the role of tomorrow’s technology in today’s war?” asked Konaev. “To an extent it still remains quite limited.”
__________________________________________________________
Now is not the time for paywalls. Now is the time to point out what’s hidden in plain sight (for instance, the hundreds of election deniers on ballots across the country), clearly explain the answers to voters’ questions, and give people the tools they need to be active participants in America’s democracy.
Reader gifts help keep our well-sourced, research-driven explanatory journalism free for everyone. This ensures that we can produce ambitious journalism, cover unexpected news moments, and continue to add critical context to the news, like the removal of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and keep it free — no matter what the advertising market is doing. We’re committed to keeping our work available to all, and you can help. By the end of September, we’re aiming to add 5,000 new financial contributors to our community of Vox supporters. Will you help us reach our goal by making a gift today?
How satellites, drones, and AI helped Ukraine’s counter-offensive - Vox.
It is escalating out of control which I predicted. Russia tactically withdraws and uses this as justification to wipe out towns with long range weapons. The U.S. media pushes out this limited narrative that they were defeated.
They need to accept occupation, sacrifice themselves for the greater good which is nuclear war. This is what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban where they let the U.S. gain a Special Olympics style victory, and leave on its own terms after 20 years, rather than fight it out.
There are many countries occupied by another other for decades and gained their independence gradually mainly in Africa, India, and Asia. This is also to prove the white race is superior over inferior Slavs, any defeat would be blow to this theory they are trying to push.
They need to accept occupation, sacrifice themselves for the greater good which is nuclear war. This is what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban where they let the U.S. gain a Special Olympics style victory, and leave on its own terms after 20 years, rather than fight it out.
There are many countries occupied by another other for decades and gained their independence gradually mainly in Africa, India, and Asia. This is also to prove the white race is superior over inferior Slavs, any defeat would be blow to this theory they are trying to push.
Last edited:
IS WASHINGTON AT WAR WITH MOSCOW
www.counterpunch.org
‘Leading from Behind’: Is Washington at War with Moscow?
Though Washington insists that it is not interested in a direct military conflict with Moscow, the latter claims that the US is, in fact, directly involved. But who is telling the truth?
On September 8, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, appeared in Kyiv on an unannounced visit. He carried with him pledges of yet another military and financial package of nearly $3 billion, mostly to Ukraine but also other Eastern European countries. According to a report published by the New York Times last May, US financial support to Ukraine has exceeded $54 billion.
Devex’s Funding Platform states that “a relatively small percentage of that funding is humanitarian-focused”. The same source also indicates that the total amount of mostly military aid provided by the West to Ukraine between February 24 and August 16 has topped the $100 billion mark.
For such a massive military arsenal to operate, one can imagine the involvement of legions of military experts, trainers and engineers. Washington’s latest package includes hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, such as more High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).
And more is coming. According to Blinken, “President Biden … will support the people of Ukraine as long as it takes.”
The Russians, however, have no illusions that the US military support for Ukraine is confined to mere shipments of weapons or limited to financial transactions. On August 2, the Russian Defense Ministry accused the US of being “directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine”. The Ministry’s statement was citing an admission by Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence, Vadym Skibitsky, who told the British Telegraph newspaper that “Washington coordinates HIMARS missile strikes”.
This is not the first time that Russia accuses the US of direct involvement in the war. In fact, as early as March 25, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West has declared “total war” on Russia. In this instance, Moscow’s top diplomat was referencing every aspect of this “real hybrid war”, including unprecedented sanctions that were meant to break the back of Russia’s economy and the will of its military forces. Since then, US Western embargo on Russia has exceeded 10,000 sanctions, an unprecedented number in modern conflicts.
Also, since then, the nature of American involvement in the war has changed. The type of weapons that were first provided to Kyiv by Washington quickly transformed from weapons of defensive capabilities with limited outreach, to weapons of offensive capabilities with long-range artillery systems, including HIMARS and M270.
Much of the US involvement can be understood through common sense. Consider Politico’s report on August 29, alleging that “since the early days of the war, Kyiv has seized the initiative as missile strikes and mysterious explosions have wreaked havoc on the Russian fleet, sinking several vessels … and devastating its Crimea-based air wing in a dramatic attack this month”. If these details are accurate, it is hard to imagine that such success would have been carried out by, as described by Politico itself, a “small Ukrainian navy”.
When American weapons are provided and operated by American military experts, and when the movement of Russian forces is monitored by American satellite coordinates, one should easily conclude that the US is indeed at direct war with Russia. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the US is utilizing all of its expertise in economic warfare, used against Iraq, Cuba and others, to devastate the Russian economy.
But why does the US refuse to accept that it is engaged in direct war against Russia?
Successive US administrations have perfected the art of engaging in military conflicts without making such a declaration. As the US fought its protracted war in Vietnam starting in the mid-1950s, it engaged in many other military conflicts that were mostly kept secret. These undeclared wars included the Nixon Administration’s secret bombing campaigns of Cambodia, which resulted in the estimated death of 100,000 people.
To curtail the power of the president to conduct war without notifying Congress, the US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the War Powers Act. Despite a presidential veto, a two-third majority in Congress managed to pass the resolution into law. Still, successive administrations found ways around the law, including the US involvement in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and again, in the US war on Libya in 2011.
In fact, it was in Libya that the phrase “leading from behind” was used in abundance. Americans seemed to have found a brilliant way of engaging in war while avoiding its costly political consequences. This way, Obama could be involved in several wars all at once, without being called an interventionist or a war-mongering president.
To understand the extent of America’s ongoing, undeclared wars, marvel at this July 1 report by The Intercept, which obtained the data using the Freedom of Information Act. This was “the first official confirmation that at least 14” military operations – known as 127e programs – were active in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region in 2020 and that between 2017 and 2020, US commandos carried out 23 separate operations.
So, even if the US engages in direct combat against Russia, chances of war being declared are almost nil. Therefore, the extent of the US involvement can only be gleaned from evidence on the ground.
Call it ‘leading from behind’, ‘proxy war’ or ‘hybrid war’, Washington is very much a party in the devastating war in Ukraine, which is paying a heavy price for Washington’s desire to remain the world’s only superpower.
‘Leading from Behind’: Is Washington at War with Moscow?
The Russians, however, have no illusions that the US military support for Ukraine is confined to mere shipments of weapons or limited to financial transactions. On August 2, the Russian Defense Ministry accused the US of being “directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine”. The Ministry’s...
www.counterpunch.org
‘Leading from Behind’: Is Washington at War with Moscow?
Though Washington insists that it is not interested in a direct military conflict with Moscow, the latter claims that the US is, in fact, directly involved. But who is telling the truth?
On September 8, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, appeared in Kyiv on an unannounced visit. He carried with him pledges of yet another military and financial package of nearly $3 billion, mostly to Ukraine but also other Eastern European countries. According to a report published by the New York Times last May, US financial support to Ukraine has exceeded $54 billion.
Devex’s Funding Platform states that “a relatively small percentage of that funding is humanitarian-focused”. The same source also indicates that the total amount of mostly military aid provided by the West to Ukraine between February 24 and August 16 has topped the $100 billion mark.
For such a massive military arsenal to operate, one can imagine the involvement of legions of military experts, trainers and engineers. Washington’s latest package includes hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, such as more High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).
And more is coming. According to Blinken, “President Biden … will support the people of Ukraine as long as it takes.”
The Russians, however, have no illusions that the US military support for Ukraine is confined to mere shipments of weapons or limited to financial transactions. On August 2, the Russian Defense Ministry accused the US of being “directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine”. The Ministry’s statement was citing an admission by Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence, Vadym Skibitsky, who told the British Telegraph newspaper that “Washington coordinates HIMARS missile strikes”.
This is not the first time that Russia accuses the US of direct involvement in the war. In fact, as early as March 25, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West has declared “total war” on Russia. In this instance, Moscow’s top diplomat was referencing every aspect of this “real hybrid war”, including unprecedented sanctions that were meant to break the back of Russia’s economy and the will of its military forces. Since then, US Western embargo on Russia has exceeded 10,000 sanctions, an unprecedented number in modern conflicts.
Also, since then, the nature of American involvement in the war has changed. The type of weapons that were first provided to Kyiv by Washington quickly transformed from weapons of defensive capabilities with limited outreach, to weapons of offensive capabilities with long-range artillery systems, including HIMARS and M270.
Much of the US involvement can be understood through common sense. Consider Politico’s report on August 29, alleging that “since the early days of the war, Kyiv has seized the initiative as missile strikes and mysterious explosions have wreaked havoc on the Russian fleet, sinking several vessels … and devastating its Crimea-based air wing in a dramatic attack this month”. If these details are accurate, it is hard to imagine that such success would have been carried out by, as described by Politico itself, a “small Ukrainian navy”.
When American weapons are provided and operated by American military experts, and when the movement of Russian forces is monitored by American satellite coordinates, one should easily conclude that the US is indeed at direct war with Russia. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the US is utilizing all of its expertise in economic warfare, used against Iraq, Cuba and others, to devastate the Russian economy.
But why does the US refuse to accept that it is engaged in direct war against Russia?
Successive US administrations have perfected the art of engaging in military conflicts without making such a declaration. As the US fought its protracted war in Vietnam starting in the mid-1950s, it engaged in many other military conflicts that were mostly kept secret. These undeclared wars included the Nixon Administration’s secret bombing campaigns of Cambodia, which resulted in the estimated death of 100,000 people.
To curtail the power of the president to conduct war without notifying Congress, the US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the War Powers Act. Despite a presidential veto, a two-third majority in Congress managed to pass the resolution into law. Still, successive administrations found ways around the law, including the US involvement in the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and again, in the US war on Libya in 2011.
In fact, it was in Libya that the phrase “leading from behind” was used in abundance. Americans seemed to have found a brilliant way of engaging in war while avoiding its costly political consequences. This way, Obama could be involved in several wars all at once, without being called an interventionist or a war-mongering president.
To understand the extent of America’s ongoing, undeclared wars, marvel at this July 1 report by The Intercept, which obtained the data using the Freedom of Information Act. This was “the first official confirmation that at least 14” military operations – known as 127e programs – were active in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region in 2020 and that between 2017 and 2020, US commandos carried out 23 separate operations.
So, even if the US engages in direct combat against Russia, chances of war being declared are almost nil. Therefore, the extent of the US involvement can only be gleaned from evidence on the ground.
Call it ‘leading from behind’, ‘proxy war’ or ‘hybrid war’, Washington is very much a party in the devastating war in Ukraine, which is paying a heavy price for Washington’s desire to remain the world’s only superpower.
A former Russian official now working with an opposition leader says Putin could lose his grasp on power in a few months
Sarah Al-Arshani
7 hours ago
Russian opposition activists Ilya Yashin, right, and Vladimir Milov in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, March 14, 2018. AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin
Get a daily selection of our top stories based on your reading preferences.
- A former Russian official told CNN that Russia's elite will begin to question Putin's leadership.
- Vladimir Milov said officials are already concerned about Putin's aggression in Ukraine.
- Milov said officials are monitored and are afraid to communicate with each other about the policies.
Email address
By clicking ‘Sign up’, you agree to receive marketing emails from Insider as well as other partner offers and accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A former Russian deputy energy minister who is now an adviser to opposition leader Alexy Navalny said Russian President Vladimir Putin's time in office is numbered.
Vladimir Milov told CNN's Erin Burnett on Saturday that top officials in the Russian government are "personally devastated" by Putin's aggression in Ukraine.
"For the first time ever, we are moving in a backwards direction. We had a lot of difficulties in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s, but we were still somewhat opening to the world and the direction was very different," Milov said. "Now Russia is being disconnected from global markets, global financial architecture, technology, logistics, and so on."
Milov said this disconnection isn't something that's happened before and those in positions of power recognize that.
"So, when I say devastated, I mean it," Milov said.
In a March 18, op-ed in the Journal of Democracy, Milov wrote that Putin's "days are numbered."
He told Burnett on Saturday, that Putin still maintains a strong grip on power but most likely not for long.
"He can hang on for some time, but few weeks, months, down the road, many more people inside the system will begin questioning what he's doing, ordinary Russians will express discontent with deteriorating economic situation, huge losses in the war. This is something Putin never experienced," Milov said.
Milov said Russian elites will start questioning the direction of the country and if Putin is the right leader.
Right now, however, he said communication between government officials is monitored significantly, possibly even greater than surveillance of opposition. Opponents are afraid to speak up about Putin's policies in Ukraine.
"If like two people, three people, or more will start to discuss that Putin is taking the country in the wrong direction, this is with large certain going to be recorded and reported to Putin," Milov said.
The Dirty Little Secret That Could Kill This Putin Fugitive
He’s one of Russia’s most wanted men—and the one Putin fears the most.