In my essay on the death of Alexei Navalny this past weekend I remarked on the timing of the event, noting initially how it duplicated the timing of the poisoning of the Skripals in the United Kingdom six years ago one month before Russia’s presidential elections at that time. The effect today would similarly be to smear the name of Russia’s leading candidate in the elections, Vladimir Putin, and cast him as a bloody murderer of his political enemies. I also noted that the shocking death of Navalny could have been intended to counteract the worldwide Soft Power coup of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin a week earlier.
In my second essay dealing with the Navalny case, I called attention to the coincidence of his death with the proceedings of the Munich Security Conference where the assembled senior representatives of the Collective West were gathered for the purpose of condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine and applying pressure on the U.S. Congress to approve Biden’s bill appropriating a further $60 billion in assistance to Kiev.
Lest one assume that the Russians are incapable of timing critical events to achieve maximal political and PR value, I point out now that the final capture by Russian armed forces of the key Ukrainian fortified city of Avdeevka was announced this past Saturday, when the Munich Conference was still ongoing. For those with an eye for detail, for those with an interest in and ability to read body language, it is clear that the Russians got what they sought in the timing. Televised coverage of the Conference on Saturday and Sunday by mainstream showed on many faces of participants a somber look and restrained demeanor. Enthusiasm for further appropriations to fuel the war was being overtaken by hesitation to throw good money after bad, given the beating the Ukrainians had just been dealt.
Indeed, the BBC, Euronews and other broadcasters put on air experts who were finally talking truth, namely that the capture of Avdeevka was the biggest Russian victory since they took the city of Bakhmut last year. There was no pretending that this was an insignificant town, that it had no strategic value, as had been said by Western journalists back then about Bakhmut. No, the talking heads of our think tanks were saying that Avdeevka was the main fortified point standing between the Russians and the flat, obstacle-less plains leading straight to Kiev and the Dniepr river which divides Ukraine in two. Russian commentary added the useful further reminder that at just 20 km from the capital of the Russian held portion of Donetsk oblast, Avdeevka was where the artillery shells daily bombarding residential districts of Donetsk have been coming from.
In his comments on the fall of Avdeevka, President Biden put the blame on Congress for delaying provision of further military supplies to Ukraine. For their part, Western journalists were saying on air that Avdeevka fell because the Russians enjoyed a 10:1 numerical advantage in firepower, as if that were a recent development due to supply shortages from the West. However, exactly that ratio was given by military experts a year ago. Perhaps the Russian superiority in artillery shells was now 50:1. These figures are important since the kill ratio tracks them very closely.
On the last day of the Ukrainian evacuation from Avdeevka, the Russians say they killed or seriously wounded well over a thousand Ukrainian soldiers and officers in that part of the front. This would put Russian losses at between 20 and 100. Given that the Russians also brought in air attacks on the withdrawing Ukrainian troops who had shed much of their armor in their flight, this calculation may just be right. On the other hand, despite their artillery shell shortages, the Ukrainians do have many more drones than they did a year ago and it is drone attacks as much as or more than artillery counter fire that threatens the lives of Russian soldiers at the front today.
Russia’s leading talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov last night spent some time discussing Avdeevka. Most attention was given precisely to Western reactions to the Ukrainian defeat.
Otherwise, I detected an interesting new vector of discussion. The host has for months enjoyed speculating on how and when Russian tanks will cross Europe through to Lisbon to touch the Atlantic. Now that unrealizable dream of revenge has been replaced by talk of taking a page from the playbook of American and NATO military and foreign policy: if the West can play at proxy war, so can we. Yes, the Houthis have just scored a serious attack on a Qatari oil tanker that was passing through the Red Sea on its way to Bulgaria. The Houthis also are said to be deploying surface and submarine drones in their waters with the objective of sinking U.S. and U.K. naval vessels. Per Solovyov, the Russians are not saying that they are supplying the Houthis with such weapons, but ‘you never know.’
In my essay on the death of Alexei Navalny this past weekend I remarked on the timing of the event, noting initially how it duplicated the timing of the poisoning of the Skripals in the United Kingdom six years ago one month before Russia’s presidential elections at that time. The effect today would similarly be to smear the name of Russia’s leading candidate in the elections, Vladimir Putin, and cast him as a bloody murderer of his political enemies. I also noted that the shocking death of Navalny could have been intended to counteract the worldwide Soft Power coup of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin a week earlier.
In my second essay dealing with the Navalny case, I called attention to the coincidence of his death with the proceedings of the Munich Security Conference where the assembled senior representatives of the Collective West were gathered for the purpose of condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine and applying pressure on the U.S. Congress to approve Biden’s bill appropriating a further $60 billion in assistance to Kiev.
Lest one assume that the Russians are incapable of timing critical events to achieve maximal political and PR value, I point out now that the final capture by Russian armed forces of the key Ukrainian fortified city of Avdeevka was announced this past Saturday, when the Munich Conference was still ongoing. For those with an eye for detail, for those with an interest in and ability to read body language, it is clear that the Russians got what they sought in the timing. Televised coverage of the Conference on Saturday and Sunday by mainstream showed on many faces of participants a somber look and restrained demeanor. Enthusiasm for further appropriations to fuel the war was being overtaken by hesitation to throw good money after bad, given the beating the Ukrainians had just been dealt.
Indeed, the BBC, Euronews and other broadcasters put on air experts who were finally talking truth, namely that the capture of Avdeevka was the biggest Russian victory since they took the city of Bakhmut last year. There was no pretending that this was an insignificant town, that it had no strategic value, as had been said by Western journalists back then about Bakhmut. No, the talking heads of our think tanks were saying that Avdeevka was the main fortified point standing between the Russians and the flat, obstacle-less plains leading straight to Kiev and the Dniepr river which divides Ukraine in two. Russian commentary added the useful further reminder that at just 20 km from the capital of the Russian held portion of Donetsk oblast, Avdeevka was where the artillery shells daily bombarding residential districts of Donetsk have been coming from.
In his comments on the fall of Avdeevka, President Biden put the blame on Congress for delaying provision of further military supplies to Ukraine. For their part, Western journalists were saying on air that Avdeevka fell because the Russians enjoyed a 10:1 numerical advantage in firepower, as if that were a recent development due to supply shortages from the West. However, exactly that ratio was given by military experts a year ago. Perhaps the Russian superiority in artillery shells was now 50:1. These figures are important since the kill ratio tracks them very closely.
On the last day of the Ukrainian evacuation from Avdeevka, the Russians say they killed or seriously wounded well over a thousand Ukrainian soldiers and officers in that part of the front. This would put Russian losses at between 20 and 100. Given that the Russians also brought in air attacks on the withdrawing Ukrainian troops who had shed much of their armor in their flight, this calculation may just be right. On the other hand, despite their artillery shell shortages, the Ukrainians do have many more drones than they did a year ago and it is drone attacks as much as or more than artillery counter fire that threatens the lives of Russian soldiers at the front today.
Russia’s leading talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov last night spent some time discussing Avdeevka. Most attention was given precisely to Western reactions to the Ukrainian defeat.
Otherwise, I detected an interesting new vector of discussion. The host has for months enjoyed speculating on how and when Russian tanks will cross Europe through to Lisbon to touch the Atlantic. Now that unrealizable dream of revenge has been replaced by talk of taking a page from the playbook of American and NATO military and foreign policy: if the West can play at proxy war, so can we. Yes, the Houthis have just scored a serious attack on a Qatari oil tanker that was passing through the Red Sea on its way to Bulgaria. The Houthis also are said to be deploying surface and submarine drones in their waters with the objective of sinking U.S. and U.K. naval vessels. Per Solovyov, the Russians are not saying that they are supplying the Houthis with such weapons, but ‘you never know.’
In my essay on the death of Alexei Navalny this past weekend I remarked on the timing of the event, noting initially how it duplicated the timing of the poisoning of the Skripals in the United Kingdom six years ago one month before Russia’s presidential elections at that time. The effect today would similarly be to smear the name of Russia’s leading candidate in the elections, Vladimir Putin, and cast him as a bloody murderer of his political enemies. I also noted that the shocking death of Navalny could have been intended to counteract the worldwide Soft Power coup of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin a week earlier.
In my second essay dealing with the Navalny case, I called attention to the coincidence of his death with the proceedings of the Munich Security Conference where the assembled senior representatives of the Collective West were gathered for the purpose of condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine and applying pressure on the U.S. Congress to approve Biden’s bill appropriating a further $60 billion in assistance to Kiev.
Lest one assume that the Russians are incapable of timing critical events to achieve maximal political and PR value, I point out now that the final capture by Russian armed forces of the key Ukrainian fortified city of Avdeevka was announced this past Saturday, when the Munich Conference was still ongoing. For those with an eye for detail, for those with an interest in and ability to read body language, it is clear that the Russians got what they sought in the timing. Televised coverage of the Conference on Saturday and Sunday by mainstream showed on many faces of participants a somber look and restrained demeanor. Enthusiasm for further appropriations to fuel the war was being overtaken by hesitation to throw good money after bad, given the beating the Ukrainians had just been dealt.
Indeed, the BBC, Euronews and other broadcasters put on air experts who were finally talking truth, namely that the capture of Avdeevka was the biggest Russian victory since they took the city of Bakhmut last year. There was no pretending that this was an insignificant town, that it had no strategic value, as had been said by Western journalists back then about Bakhmut. No, the talking heads of our think tanks were saying that Avdeevka was the main fortified point standing between the Russians and the flat, obstacle-less plains leading straight to Kiev and the Dniepr river which divides Ukraine in two. Russian commentary added the useful further reminder that at just 20 km from the capital of the Russian held portion of Donetsk oblast, Avdeevka was where the artillery shells daily bombarding residential districts of Donetsk have been coming from.
In his comments on the fall of Avdeevka, President Biden put the blame on Congress for delaying provision of further military supplies to Ukraine. For their part, Western journalists were saying on air that Avdeevka fell because the Russians enjoyed a 10:1 numerical advantage in firepower, as if that were a recent development due to supply shortages from the West. However, exactly that ratio was given by military experts a year ago. Perhaps the Russian superiority in artillery shells was now 50:1. These figures are important since the kill ratio tracks them very closely.
On the last day of the Ukrainian evacuation from Avdeevka, the Russians say they killed or seriously wounded well over a thousand Ukrainian soldiers and officers in that part of the front. This would put Russian losses at between 20 and 100. Given that the Russians also brought in air attacks on the withdrawing Ukrainian troops who had shed much of their armor in their flight, this calculation may just be right. On the other hand, despite their artillery shell shortages, the Ukrainians do have many more drones than they did a year ago and it is drone attacks as much as or more than artillery counter fire that threatens the lives of Russian soldiers at the front today.
Russia’s leading talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov last night spent some time discussing Avdeevka. Most attention was given precisely to Western reactions to the Ukrainian defeat.
Otherwise, I detected an interesting new vector of discussion. The host has for months enjoyed speculating on how and when Russian tanks will cross Europe through to Lisbon to touch the Atlantic. Now that unrealizable dream of revenge has been replaced by talk of taking a page from the playbook of American and NATO military and foreign policy: if the West can play at proxy war, so can we. Yes, the Houthis have just scored a serious attack on a Qatari oil tanker that was passing through the Red Sea on its way to Bulgaria. The Houthis also are said to be deploying surface and submarine drones in their waters with the objective of sinking U.S. and U.K. naval vessels. Per Solovyov, the Russians are not saying that they are supplying the Houthis with such weapons, but ‘you never know.’
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024