Good read.
TUOMAS MALINEN
AUG 23, 2023
Almost a year ago, I published my first critical assessment, and a worst-case scenario, of the Russo-Ukrainian war. As expected, I received a swathe of criticism (which could also be labelled as ‘vile crap’) calling me a Putinist or a ‘vatnik’. As an analyst and a forecaster, I’ve grown to overlook the criticism, because I am simply a few months to a few years ahead of the vast majority of the populace, which are currently also bombarded with relentless propaganda.
Now, the main predictions of my article have become a reality:
Ukrainian losses are massive (passing Russian ones most likely 5-10 times).
During the much-touted counter-offensive, the high command of the AFU, combined with the highly effective Russian defenses, have created a ‘meat-grinder’, where seriously outnumbered AFU troops attack heavily fortified Russian lines with basically no air support. Military strategist have known, since at least the Napoelonic wars, that this type of attrition warfare leads to extreme losses in the offensive party, thus creating an opportunity for a devastating counter-attack.
It looks like the meat-grinder has been created in a desperate effort to gain some breakthroughs to support the narrative poured upon the willfully ignorant western populace to achieve victory in the ‘hearts and minds’ -battle with Russia. I am ashamed that our government and my country has taken part of this slaughter of Ukrainians. It’s a disgrace, but I am certain if most Europeans would have been told the truth about the devastating Ukrainian losses, we would have peace already. This is the power of propaganda. Unfortunately, much more may be in store, e.g. for Finland from the NATO -planners.
The toll for Europe participating in this war of attrition has also started to become visible. The economy of Germany is sinking and the deindustrialization of Europe, on which I warned a little less than a year ago, is progressing. Winter is approaching and European energy issues are also far from resolved. The ultimate price tag for Europe will be very high, regardless how the rest of the conflict plays out.
I will now continue mapping the worst-case scenario by two options for the war to reach its ‘climax’:
The U.S. has committed to supplying Ukraine with M1-A1 Abrams battle tanks, while, e.g. Denmark and the Netherlands have committed of supplying Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets. The war of attrition threatens to drag on for at least another year, and become more entrenched with the possibility of serious aerial battles. President Putin and the Russian MoD (Ministry of Defense) may want to avoid this by crushing Ukrainian resistance once and for all, after the current (third) Ukrainian army has been sufficiently weakened (effectively destroyed). This would be done in an effort to force Ukraine to surrender.
It is of course impossible to know, what the Russian leadership will decide. From a military strategy point of view they could benefit from learning first hand (but without top pilots) from one of the leading fighter jets of the NATO. From this point of view, supplying Ukraine with F-16 can be viewed as yet another strategical blunder from the West, adding to the blunders of letting Russians to learn NATO’s strategical and tactical capabilities, allowing them to learn how to destroy the main battle tank of Europe (Leopard) and providing Russians a critical edge on battlefield drone development. What’s one more mistake in this cluster****, right? Well, every one of these blunders flips the scales towards Russia, which is not a good strategy, no matter how you look at it.
Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the problems faced by the West.
In the case that Russia would start a major offensive, and be successful in it, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, would face two dire options:
The myth of NATO superiority is already gone and slowly but surely fear has started to creep up to the minds of Europeans. NATO is not the superior power we were told. Leopard tanks “burn like the rest of them” and the extensive NATO training of the AFU has not been able to overcome Russian military tactics. Thus, in the first option, the credibility and even unity of NATO may come under threat.
To bypass this, a major escalation drawing resources from all NATO countries could be needed. The collective defense Article 5 of NATO states that:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
So, it’s all about “assisting” the member of the NATO under attack. Effectively, enacting Article 5 does not automatically guarantee that NATO countries send troops to the attacked country, especially if the country is not in NATO, like Ukraine. For this to happen, it basically needs a massive media campaign to muster the support of the populace for sending their boys to fight in a foreign country. Such a media campaign has been run in Finland since the start of the conflict.
What NATO planners would still need would be a serious enough escalation to enact Article 5.
The Russo-Ukrainian War VI
From the war of attrition into peace or WWIII?
TUOMAS MALINEN
AUG 23, 2023
Almost a year ago, I published my first critical assessment, and a worst-case scenario, of the Russo-Ukrainian war. As expected, I received a swathe of criticism (which could also be labelled as ‘vile crap’) calling me a Putinist or a ‘vatnik’. As an analyst and a forecaster, I’ve grown to overlook the criticism, because I am simply a few months to a few years ahead of the vast majority of the populace, which are currently also bombarded with relentless propaganda.
Now, the main predictions of my article have become a reality:
Ukrainian losses are massive (passing Russian ones most likely 5-10 times).
- The Russian army has not collapsed, but it may have become the strongest it has been since WWII.
- The West (NATO) is fighting a ‘proxy-war’ in Ukraine with a possible aim of regime change in Russia.
- Russia has drawn out most of NATO’s ‘excess’ resources in Europe.
During the much-touted counter-offensive, the high command of the AFU, combined with the highly effective Russian defenses, have created a ‘meat-grinder’, where seriously outnumbered AFU troops attack heavily fortified Russian lines with basically no air support. Military strategist have known, since at least the Napoelonic wars, that this type of attrition warfare leads to extreme losses in the offensive party, thus creating an opportunity for a devastating counter-attack.
It looks like the meat-grinder has been created in a desperate effort to gain some breakthroughs to support the narrative poured upon the willfully ignorant western populace to achieve victory in the ‘hearts and minds’ -battle with Russia. I am ashamed that our government and my country has taken part of this slaughter of Ukrainians. It’s a disgrace, but I am certain if most Europeans would have been told the truth about the devastating Ukrainian losses, we would have peace already. This is the power of propaganda. Unfortunately, much more may be in store, e.g. for Finland from the NATO -planners.
The toll for Europe participating in this war of attrition has also started to become visible. The economy of Germany is sinking and the deindustrialization of Europe, on which I warned a little less than a year ago, is progressing. Winter is approaching and European energy issues are also far from resolved. The ultimate price tag for Europe will be very high, regardless how the rest of the conflict plays out.
I will now continue mapping the worst-case scenario by two options for the war to reach its ‘climax’:
- Major Russian offensive.
- A ‘false flag’ operation by NATO.
Finishing off Ukraine?
Russia seems to have fulfilled most of the stated aims of its ‘Special Military Operation’, but it does not control all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson regions (enshrined in the Russian constitution) and there’s also a threat of the the conflict becoming more and more costly. What would be the solution for the Russian side? Simply, ending the conflict with a major offensive.The U.S. has committed to supplying Ukraine with M1-A1 Abrams battle tanks, while, e.g. Denmark and the Netherlands have committed of supplying Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets. The war of attrition threatens to drag on for at least another year, and become more entrenched with the possibility of serious aerial battles. President Putin and the Russian MoD (Ministry of Defense) may want to avoid this by crushing Ukrainian resistance once and for all, after the current (third) Ukrainian army has been sufficiently weakened (effectively destroyed). This would be done in an effort to force Ukraine to surrender.
It is of course impossible to know, what the Russian leadership will decide. From a military strategy point of view they could benefit from learning first hand (but without top pilots) from one of the leading fighter jets of the NATO. From this point of view, supplying Ukraine with F-16 can be viewed as yet another strategical blunder from the West, adding to the blunders of letting Russians to learn NATO’s strategical and tactical capabilities, allowing them to learn how to destroy the main battle tank of Europe (Leopard) and providing Russians a critical edge on battlefield drone development. What’s one more mistake in this cluster****, right? Well, every one of these blunders flips the scales towards Russia, which is not a good strategy, no matter how you look at it.
Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the problems faced by the West.
NATO under threat
Major conflicts (wars) tend to come to be when mutual defensive clauses come into action (WWI) or when a humiliated party elects dictatorian leaders to form strong alliances (WWII). Like I explained in the last update to the Russo-Ukrainian war II, a threat of some kind of repetition of the path that led to the Great War is worryingly high.In the case that Russia would start a major offensive, and be successful in it, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, would face two dire options:
- Capitulation to peace on Russia’s terms.
- Escalation drawing NATO forces into the battle.
The myth of NATO superiority is already gone and slowly but surely fear has started to creep up to the minds of Europeans. NATO is not the superior power we were told. Leopard tanks “burn like the rest of them” and the extensive NATO training of the AFU has not been able to overcome Russian military tactics. Thus, in the first option, the credibility and even unity of NATO may come under threat.
To bypass this, a major escalation drawing resources from all NATO countries could be needed. The collective defense Article 5 of NATO states that:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
So, it’s all about “assisting” the member of the NATO under attack. Effectively, enacting Article 5 does not automatically guarantee that NATO countries send troops to the attacked country, especially if the country is not in NATO, like Ukraine. For this to happen, it basically needs a massive media campaign to muster the support of the populace for sending their boys to fight in a foreign country. Such a media campaign has been run in Finland since the start of the conflict.
What NATO planners would still need would be a serious enough escalation to enact Article 5.
