Weekly Overview Cables - one year of war in Ukraine, F-16 fighter jets, and Biden vs Putin rhetorical standoff.
Ukraine war updates.
Ukraine’s counteroffensive & outlook.
Russia failed to make any substantial gains around Bakhmut or Vuhledar, let alone accomplish any major battlefield wins to ‘‘celebrate’’ the one-year anniversary of the Ukraine war.
In the meantime, the costs to Russia’s military continue to mount.
According to the UK defense intel agency, Russia has had 200k overall casualties to date - with 60,000 deaths: more than total US deaths in eight years in Vietnam, and four times what the Soviet Union lost in a decade of futile military intervention in Afghanistan.
In spite of all these failures, and Ukraine’s continuous success in repelling Russian attacks, these cables will forgo grandiose commentary on the ‘‘lessons” we can learn after a year of Ukraine war - a common format for numerous op-eds out there.
In truth, it is far too premature to draw any major ‘‘lessons’’ - especially since 17% of Ukrainian territory is still under a Russian occupation, and future success is contingent on the West remaining resolute and united against Putin.
(side note: there are however three, more limited observations that we can highlight with ‘‘high degree of confidence”: 1) Putin suffers from confirmation bias and decided to pull the trigger based on anecdotal evidence vs military counsel based on realities and available evidence; 2) Russia had very limited supplies of precision-guided missiles (PGMs) and microchips for its weapons; 3) But for external suppliers, Russia’s military-defense industrial complex will not be able to produce and replace all necessary 155mm artillery shells, tanks, armored vehicles, or PGMs in adequate time given the current consumption rates).
Western military aid.
This most recent package, supplied by the US, totals $2 billion, and includes additional ammo for HIMARS, more 155mm artillery rounds, Switchblade drones, and further advanced hardware and electronic warfare detection equipment.
In addition, Poland delivered the first batch of Leopard II tanks to Ukraine as part of the international/NATO "tank coalition”.
There were furthermore, new US Treasury and State Department sanctions targeting Russia’s defense and tech industry, its future energy capabilities, as well as metals and mining sector.
These are all great, but unfortunately, and on the one year anniversary of Russia’s invasion, there was also a thoroughly disappointing comment made by the National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan (who is usually on point).
Commenting on the possibility of the US supplying F-16 fighter jets to Russia, Mr Sullivan claimed (rather incredibly) that these fighter jets were not a ‘‘key capability” that Ukraine needed right now.
Now, there are two possibilities here. Either: 1) Sullivan claims that air power in itself is not a ‘‘key capability’’ needed for Ukraine - which would be an astonishing claim to make, or 2) That F-16s specifically aren’t the key.
If it is the former, then we are in big trouble - where do we even start if we need to explain the importance of air power advantage in a 21st century war to a National Security adviser?
If it is the latter, then Mr Sullivan better specify that - further elaborating which fighter jets would fit the bill if not the F-16s?
But regardless of particular claims made, it is crystal clear that F-16s are a key capability and they should be supplied to ensure Ukraine’s success in an upcoming counteroffensive later this year.
Regular readers are well aware of the specific issues at hand, but let us reiterate key points for the new readers as well.
According to a very thorough and credible report by RUSI (a premier UK defense think-tank) Ukrainian Air Force was outclassed by Russia’s Su-30SM and Su-35S aircrafts.
In aerial ‘‘dog fight’’ engagements, they had an overwhelming upper hand over Ukraine’s older Su-27s and Mig-29s.
This is primarily due to: 1) Russian fighter jets having more capable sensors (N011M Bars and N035 Irbis-E radars with potent look-down / shoot-down capabilities), and 2) Shooting R-77-1 beyond-visual-range missiles (vs Ukraine’s R-27 air-to-air missiles).
With F-16s Ukraine would benefit from AMRAAM beyond-visual-range missiles (eliminating the current gap that leads to hugely disparate outcomes) and GBU-10,-12 and -24 laser-guided precision bombs.
The F-16s would also be able to carry small diameter bombs - adding another launch avenue for Ukraine’s military.
As discussed in previous cables, although Typhoons, Swedish Gripen and French Rafale jets are all better than what Ukraine has right now, the F-16 is still the best option out there, since: 1) It is better to train Ukraine’s already limited stock of capable pilots on one system, and 2) That one system should be the one that is most widely available across the entire NATO alliance - both in terms of spare parts and actual number of aircrafts (and in this regard, F-16s clearly outclasses all other options. The Netherlands on its own can supply 28 F-16s. With US and entire NATO-wide involvement, Ukraine can receive these in hundreds - unlike all other aforementioned options, where there would be a significant ceiling on the number of jets that can be delivered to Kyiv).
So then, and once again, F-16s are a critical capability - one which the West should stop wasting time on debating and start supplying right now -without further unnecessary delay that would only harm Ukraine’s capacity to engage in a counterattack.
Biden’s Kyiv Trip - a watershed moment with significant implications
President Biden visiting Kyiv on the eve of the one year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a historic moment.
First off, the very fact that President Biden’s trip to Kyiv was even arranged was already a major message in itself.
Of course, Russians were warned ahead of time, and they know better than to attack Kyiv during Biden’s visit, but this is after all a city frequently targeted by missiles and drones.
It takes just one foolish mistake, or a deliberate provocation within Russia’s chain of command, to strike the city when Biden is there.
And that in turn would cause a major dilemma on US leadership: how would Washington respond?
It is a hypothetical that we (thankfully) don’t need to think through anymore, but suffice it to say, there are no good options and ways out from such a scenario - for there would either be a risk of 1) a major escalation, or 2) a major loss of face.
So taking this much risk to get the US President to Kyiv was perhaps a weightier message than what Biden ended up saying during the visit.
And when it comes to his actual remarks, Biden did not mince words and was crystal clear in his position:
“I am here to show unwavering support for the nation’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity…Russia’s aim was to wipe Ukraine off the map. Putin’s war of conquest is failing. Russia’s military has lost half [the] territory it once occupied. Young talented Russians are fleeing by the tens of thousands, not wanting to come back to Russia….Putin thought Ukraine was weak and the West was divided… [Putin] thought he could outlast us. I don’t think he’s thinking that right now.[emphasis added]”
Oh Putin is definitely still thinking that alright..
Biden’s statements were exceptionally powerful, and come at the time when domestic political support is unfortunately trending towards the wrong direction.
And a number of powerful implications follow from this statement.
1) Message to NATO and European allies: we are in this together, you can rest assured that the US will back Ukraine until the very end. Here is me placing America’s reputation and credibility on the line - demonstrating how serious I am. So quit internal bickering, don’t even think of pushing Ukraine into concessions, and get ready for a long war.
2) Message to Putin: one of your fundamental assumptions from the very outset was that you could outlast us in this war. You are wrong and here is me placing America’s reputation and credibility on the line - demonstrating how serious I am. In fact, by claiming that your ‘‘conquest is failing’’ and declaring that “Russia will never win in Ukraine”, I am now trapped into delivering on this assertion. I cannot let you reverse the tide of this war and actually prevail in Ukraine. You must understand this and prepare for a political way out to this war. Give up on escalation and start thinking about how you will backtrack without losing too much face.
The message to Putin is especially important, for it not only commits Biden to the course of defending Ukraine until the very end, it also commits the potential GOP successor to the Presidency: since by abandoning Ukraine, the next President wouldn’t just reverse policy, he/she would have to be responsible for a u-turn that tarnishes America’s prestige, credibility, and reputation for decades to come.
And the damage would go beyond symbolic to extremely practical: since such a course reversal would in effect be an end of America’s credibility, a number of geopolitical implications would necessarily follow: promises to defend Taiwan would be almost worthless - tempting China further and leading to potentially more escalation (given that America’s threat displays/deterrence attempts would amount to very little).
And then there is Iran - taking its chances, enriching Uranium beyond 90% (weapons-grade), and developing an actual bomb would look more appealing than ever.
Now who would want all this on his/her record?
And this is crucial since two GOP frontrunners - Trump and DeSantis - demonstrate reluctance to help Ukraine.
Now, granted Trump is liable to change his mind on a whim and act in complete contrast to his rhetoric (suggesting good relations with Putin and then imposing more sanctions than Obama admin, arming Ukraine with Javelins, and his Defense Sec Mattis ordering a justified strike on Russian Wagner mercenaries in Syria in 2018 -killing hundreds of Russians), the isolationist statements made by DeSantis are perhaps more worrying.
He is parroting Kevin McCarthy’s “blank-check policy” remarks: this is extremely damaging to the discourse on Ukraine - since the general (and largely uninformed) public will begin to associate Ukraine with ‘‘blank checks’’ - a mental association that benefits only Putin.
And perhaps for this reason, in some ways the Kyiv trip made by the Republican Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, Michael McCaul was more effective in rebutting Putin’s hopes.
Yes, a few GOP weirdos like Congressman Gaetz, and Senator Hawley, and frontrunner nominees pandering to the isolationist base, may continue to chat rubbish, but by and large, the GOP establishment remains committed to Ukraine.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed this establishment view with the following powerful comment:
“It is not enough to do the right things; we need to do the right things at the right speed. The Biden administration and our allies must act more decisively to ensure that both our collective assistance to Ukraine and the investments we each make in our own militaries take place at the speed of relevance. Every experience tells us it is weakness and hesitation that provoke Putin. The road to peace lies in speedily surging Ukraine the tools they need to achieve victory as they define it. [emphasis added]”
3) Message to China: think twice before engaging in a lengthy proxy war. We are in it for a very long-run. Do you really want to waste your resources on this? Do you really believe that you are in a position to outlast the entire united West? Do you want to supply Russia with weapons only to then compete with them for limited supply of microchips? Something that you are in a desperate need of /running out of yourself?
Biden’s visit and message of resolve and staying power could not have come at a better time, since there is credible US intel that China is seriously considering supplying Russia with weapons.
Chinese Chief Diplomat, Wang Yi’s Moscow trip and his remarks about US “hegemony” and “bullying” was a pretty clear sign that there is a very good chance that weapons transfer could very well take place.
(side note: President Biden later commented that he did not think that China was going to supply Russia. It is not clear why exactly would Biden make this comment.. for it is a no win and all lose statement: if he is proven wrong later on, then it is doubly embarrassing, and if he is proven right, it is still not a really powerful win either: since Biden did not claim certainty and confidence of clear knowledge/insight - only a prediction based on what he ‘‘thinks’’. And the leader of the free world should be leading and making decisions - not making predictions)
Warning China that they would be entering a lengthy proxy war that would cost a lot, was a good attempt to dissuade Beijing away from this folly.
(side note: we will analyze Beijing’s calculus and potential Western levers to prevent transfer of weapons on Thursday’s cables. Suffice it to say for now, their “12 point peace plan’’ is rather obvious rubbish.)
Putin’s radical comments are a signal of a long-term commitment to the war.
Putin’s response to Biden’s speeches in Kyiv and Poland (reiterating support for Ukraine, establishing a theme of democratic survival vs autocratic onslaught), was a mix of utterly delusional remarks delivered across a few public speeches (one of them to a stadium crowd in Moscow).
Putin claimed that the West was trying to dismember Russia (of course! Why wouldn’t the West desire complete chaos and power vacuum in a vast territory with thousand of nukes?) and that Russia was returning ‘‘ancestral lands’’ (precisely the #1 reason why you should not go to war in the 21st century) - here comes another attempt to liken himself to Peter the Great.
(side note: there was also yet another baseless and delusional claim that the West caused the war (yes the very West that for months warned the whole world that Russia was about to invade caused it..). This line was surely added for the specific consumption of the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and his thoroughly uninformed base)
First off, it is clear that Putin is nowhere near the point where he would revise his maximalist war aims - a necessary prerequisite for genuine negotiations and a political settlement to the conflict.
His speech was therefore a timely rebuttal to all cognitively deficient right-wing media pundits (and their lapdogs in Congress) that go on repeating the tired (and long debunked) lines that by arming Ukraine, the US is prolonging the war.
No, it is Putin’s imperial ambitions and outright delusions that prolong the war - the US is merely helping Ukraine to survive and inflict much more costs on Russia so that the Kremlin is finally convinced that its war aims are unrealistic and a political settlement is a necessary way out of a total humiliation.
Having said that, Putin’s remarks were made deliberately to signal his intent to three key constituencies: to the US/NATO, to China and to Russians at home.
He is signaling to the US/NATO that he is in it for a very long run, and he is still betting on his staying power vs those of his Western adversaries.
To Beijing, his message is simple: this war will go on whether you like it or not - you might as well help me win it and end it faster.
Finally, Russians are getting rhetorical prep for further sacrifice and a marked decline in quality of life - for if Putin is to genuinely back his words with action, then a lot more Russians would have to be mobilized.
New START withdrawal.
In addition to his one-year invasion anniversary remarks, Putin withdrew Russia from New START - an agreement which capped the number of deployed strategic missiles, as well as the number of warheads on said missiles.
It also allowed for nuclear site inspections.
The overall purpose was to add transparency to each side’s nuclear posture, and discourage further nuclear arms race between the US and Russia.
Withdrawing from this agreement was therefore part of Putin’s messaging and signaling efforts - adding ambiguity and worries around Russia’s “nuclear plans”.
(side note: Russia also tested its nuclear-capable “RS-28 Sarmat” intercontinental ballistic missile just before Biden arrived in Ukraine - the test failed…)
The main question here is what precisely Putin meant by suspension of this treaty.
If it is only an end to inspections of nuclear facilities, then not much is changed in terms of the status quo.
If on the other hand he intends to ramp up the number of deployed weapons and/or warheads - then that is a clear escalation.
This would then have a direct implication on America’s own choices - in terms of the US arsenal of warheads, launchers, deployed missiles etc.
(side note: and in fact, this could excuse a major increase in US missiles/warheads without making it too obvious that China is still the main reason for such a ramp up.)
For now however, this cannot be construed as a major and imminent escalation worthy of an immediate response.
The precise meaning of this escalation will be revealed through Russia’s later conduct and actions - something that the US intel will surely (and once again) pick up on.
Is it now accepted that F-16s could have a meaningful near-term impact on the battlefield? I thought the key thing was that modern western fighters and their significant logistical tails meant the aircraft provider was signing on to a multi-year commitment.