The Russian disinformation offensive
Ukrainians and the West should not fall for Russian information operations portraying the Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson Oblast as having failed almost instantly or that depict Ukraine as a helpless puppet of Western masters for launching it at this time. The Russian Ministry of Defense began conducting an information operation to present Ukraine’s counteroffensive as decisively failed almost as soon as it was announced on August 29.[1] Several prominent military bloggers—even bloggers who have historically been critical of the Kremlin—are promoting this message.[2] Other milbloggers are additionally promoting the narrative that Ukraine’s Western handlers pushed Ukraine to launch the counteroffensive prematurely and/or too late for “political” reasons and because the West expected a counteroffensive.[3] Kremlin media outlets have also centrally amplified allegations of civil-military conflict between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi to bolster the narrative that Zelensky sought to conduct a counteroffensive for inappropriate political reasons whereas Zaluzhnyi assessed Ukrainian forces were not militarily prepared to do so.[4]
Military operations on the scale of this counteroffensive do not succeed or fail in a day or a week. Ukrainian officials have long acknowledged that they do not have the sheer mass of mechanized forces that would have been needed to conduct a blitzkrieg-like drive to destroy the Russian defenses in Kherson Oblast or anywhere. They have instead been setting conditions for months by attacking and disrupting Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs), Russian command and control, and Russian logistics systems throughout southwestern occupied Ukraine. The timing of the start of the counteroffensive is consistent with the observed degradation of Russian capabilities in western Kherson Oblast balanced against the need to start liberating occupied Ukrainian lands and people as soon as possible. There is no reason to suspect that the timing has been materially influenced by inappropriate considerations or tensions. Counteroffensive operations now underway will very likely unfold over the coming weeks and possibly months as Ukrainian forces take advantage of the conditions they have set to defeat particular sectors of the line they have identified as vulnerable while working to retake their cities and towns without destroying them in the process.
Military forces that must conduct offensive operations without the numerical advantages normally required for success in such operations often rely on misdirections and feints to draw the defender away from the sectors of the line on which breakthrough and exploitation efforts will focus. The art of such feints is two-fold. First, they must be conducted with sufficient force to be believable. Since they are feints, however, rather than deliberate attacks expected to succeed, they often look like failures—the attacking units will fall back when they feel they have persuaded the defender of their seriousness. Second, they take time to have an effect. When the purpose of the feint is to draw the defender’s forces away from the intended breakthrough sectors, the attacker must wait until the defender has actually moved forces. There will thus likely be a delay between the initial feint operations and the start of decisive operations. The situation during that delay may well look like the attack has failed.
The Ukrainian military and government are repeating requests to avoid any reporting or forecasting of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, a measure that is essential if the counteroffensive includes feints or misdirections.[5] It is of course possible that the counteroffensive will fail, that any particular breakthrough attempt that fails was not a feint, or that the Ukrainian military has made some error in planning, timing, or execution that will undermine the success of its operations. But the situation in which Ukraine finds itself calls for a shrewd and nuanced counteroffensive operation with considerable misdirection and careful and controlled advances. It is far more likely in these very early days, therefore, that a successful counteroffensive would appear to be stalling or unsuccessful for some time before its success became manifest.
...
Russian authorities are additionally using the start of the new school year to escalate efforts to institutionalize the elimination of Ukrainian identity. Russian authorities continued to disseminate Russian educational materials in schools in occupied areas of Ukraine. Russian-backed authorities from Sevastopol arrived in Starobilsk, Luhansk Oblast, to deliver backpacks and official state symbols of the Russian Federation to local schools.[9] The Russian-appointed head of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, similarly called on educators in Crimea to intensify patriotic programming in Crimean schools, notably to teach children about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to conduct a “special military operation” in Ukraine.[10] Ukrainian outlet Strana reported that the first lesson that will be taught in schools in occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts is oriented on a lesson outline that pulls from Putin’s article on “The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, his speeches on the recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR and LNR), and the commencement of the "special military operation.”[11] In these speeches, Putin rejected the legitimacy of Ukrainian identity, declaring that it “is entirely the product of the Soviet era... shaped on the lands of historical Russia.”[12] He also repeatedly declared that Ukraine is part of Russia and cannot be a state in its own right. The explicit link between Russian-imposed curricula in Ukrainian schools and these speeches and writings is part of an effort to erase the Ukrainian identity in Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine through educational control.[13]
...
Ukrainian military officials maintained operational silence and have not revealed any additional details about the counteroffensive as of August 31. The Ukrainian Southern Operational Command stated that Ukrainian forces are continuing to disrupt Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) and are targeting strongholds and ammunition depots throughout Kherson Oblast.[17] The Ukrainian Southern Operational Command reported that Ukrainian forces have destroyed two unspecified command posts, two ammunition depots, an anti-aircraft system, a radar station, and other areas of Russian manpower concentration.[18] Ukrainian aviation continues to support counteroffensive measures and reportedly carried out 16 airstrikes on Russian strongholds.[19] Ukrainian officials confirmed striking four ammunition depots in Bashtanskyi, Beryslavskyi, Kakhovskyi, and Khersonskyi Raions (Districts) on August 30, and ISW previously reported social media footage of explosions in some of these areas.[20]
Ukrainian forces continued to strike Russian military equipment and infrastructure northwest and south of Kherson City on August 31. Ukrainian Telegram channels reported that Ukrainian forces struck a Russian convoy in Oleshky (about 9km southeast of Kherson City on the left bank of the Dnipro River) that was going to reinforce Russian forces operating on the right bank of the Dnipro River.[21] Ukrainian officials have previously reported that Russian forces have accumulated large quantities of military equipment in Oleshky.[22] Previously observed satellite imagery has shown Russian convoys consistently concentrate in one area on the bank of the Dnipro River to wait in lines to cross the river on a pontoon ferry—a mode of transportation vulnerable to Ukrainian strikes.[23] Ukrainian forces also likely struck Russian positions in Chornobaivka, located around the Kherson City International Airport northwest of Kherson City, as they have multiple times before.[24] Social media footage shows a large smoke plume in the area of a furniture factory in Nova Kakhovka and witnesses reported hearing strikes in Kakhovka (approximately 12km northeast of Nova Kakhovka).[25] The persistence of Ukrainian strikes in central Kherson Oblast indicates that Ukrainian forces seek to deny Russian resupply in upper Kherson Oblast to support expelling Russian forces to the left bank of the Dnipro River.
...
There is more.
Operations against the Russian logistic scheme continue as part of the effort to limit and disrupt Russia's response to the offensive. Those operations do not appear limited to the area of the offensive.
Both sides are probably suffering from a lack of troops. Biden's energy policies have funded the Russian war effort from the beginning. By restricting the US production and driving up the price of oil Biden has provided the Russians with sufficient resources to offer troops monetary incentives to fill the ranks after it has suffered losses of combat power. At the same time, Biden has increased US expenditures to bolster Ukraine operations while diminishing US stockpiles of weapons. The Russian losses of conventional weapons have been much more significant and sanctions have limited its ability to produce certain weapons.
US allies in Europe are also paying a price for their foolish reliance on Russian energy. Biden would have been wiser to stay with the Trump energy policy which would have continued to deny price increases to Russian and would also have provided more LNG to Europe to replace Russian oil and gas. The strategic consequences of Biden's energy policies are being felt in the US and Europe. There has been remarkably little discussion of that in the US media.
See, also:
Experts blame green energy for Europe's full-scale energy crisis: 'A warning to the US'
'There's been under-investment in fossil fuels in Europe,' an analyst from research firm Rystad Energy tells FOX Business
And:
And:
Russian Federation will run out of shells, artillery and armoured vehicles by year end
Comments
Post a Comment