Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine war, what appeasers don't get, Putin's latest signaling and cultural divide & conquer messaging.
Ukraine War Updates.
Ukraine’s counteroffensive & outlook.
Ukraine’s military strategists keep Russians on their toes - constantly expanding the surface area of the conflict, and attacking from multiple new angles.
Case in point: unmanned surface vehicles hit at least one of Russia’s Grigorovich-class frigates (Admiral Makarov Project 11356) in Sevastopol Crimea, on October 29.
In the meantime, and as Russia’s “evacuation” of Kherson continues at a rapid rate (and ahead of an expected Ukrainian assault) the Chechen President, and Colonel-General Ramzan Kadyrov, called for a “great jihad” after a Ukrainian strike in Kherson killed and/or injured approximately 100 Chechen troops:
“We will not be taking these devils prisoner. We will burn them alive. We will not stop. Odessa, Kyiv, Kharkiv, all of Ukraine is Russian territory.”
The ‘‘great jihad’’ eh?
So much for Putin’s endless assertions of slavic unity vs the West.
What happened to claims that a Ukrainian state does not exist because all Russian slavs are one?
How did Jihad come into this picture? Jihad against fellow Slavs?
How can Putin, the “great patriarch of all Russians”, and a leader of an
“orthodox christian traditional society” tolerate such appeals from one of his most outspoken generals?This is yet another indicator to help us track the Kremlin’s grip on power, and its own perception on this control.
Here is why: tolerating Kadyrov’s outbursts that undermine the right-wing talking points is increasingly costly: damaging Putin’s standing with the far right pro-war nationalists in Russia.
And with the general population’s apathy, indifference and outright resistance to Putin’s now well escalated war, it is precisely the fervent pro-war intense support of Russian nationalists that Putin needs to maintain some momentum in the national narrative.
Clearly, calls for Jihad undermine this narrative, and alienate the nationalist base.
But the Kremlin needs to (or so they perceive) tolerate such outbursts to secure any manpower they can get in this war.
And thus the existence of an indicator: the more outrageous rhetoric that Kadyrov can get away with, the weaker is the hand that the Kremlin perceives it has: forcing them to tolerate such ridiculous statements (that have enormous costs with their base) due to perceived lack of options.
House progressive caucus fiasco reveals inability to grasp core strategic concepts.
After facing a ton of pressure from the statesmen of the GOP, Kevin McCathy was forced to walk back his comments - pretending that his remarks were taken out of context and that he only meant to ensure proper accountability of the hitherto provided funds, and that this did not in any way signal his lack of support for Ukraine.
(side note: whatever helps to save him some face - as long as these comments are indeed ‘‘clarified away’’)
A good rebuttal to this “we need to ensure accountability in funding” nonsense came from a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, Senator Lindsey Graham:
“To my Republican colleagues who don’t want a blank check, that’s fine, I’ll be glad to sit down with you to make sure the money goes where it should go”
And after predicting another “robust” aid package for Ukraine by the end of the year, Graham added an essential reassurance:
“But I promise you the majority of Republican senators are fully committed to seeing this through”.
Good, for this is exactly what Putin needed to hear.
Unfortunately however, the clown show from the far right met its close cousin when the clueless radical left wing of the congressional Democrats attempted to dabble in foreign policy.
The “defund the police” crowd now wanted to defund Ukraine and crush its ability to resist an unjust invasion that has caused so much human suffering.
(side note: and luckily, withdrew their original letter after the embarrassment and the pressure from fellow Dems got too unbearable. And on this point, Democrat Senator Blumenthal’s powerful warning that if Ukraine was to fall “there goes Taiwan, and the war continues in Europe” was particularly timely. And yet another quote to reaffirm what these cables have been saying for a very long time: “When it comes to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, you either pay now, or you pay later” ).
Naturally, the idea that genuine negotiations can only take place when the opposite party is sincere in its desire for peace, goes over the head of these radicals.
It is hard for them to understand that Putin has declared an annexation of large swathes of Ukrainian territory, and that any freeze to military operations when he is on his back foot, will only grant him more time to recoup and solidify his control over these territories - securing himself a stable launching point for future invasion.
A peace deal that lacks the essential element of justice, will only carry seeds of further military conflict - such a ‘‘peace deal’’ only helps the aggressor to recover and attack with more power and vigor.
But let us back up a bit, and analyze the calls for the “urgent diplomacy” on its face value: what precisely can be negotiated at this stage?
Territorial concessions from Ukraine?
That is a no non-starter.
As discussed in prior cables, genuine negotiations can only take place when Putin signals his desire for a face-saving ‘‘political’’ agreement only: some high level commitments that do not include territorial grants.
The full withdrawal of Russian troops to their pre-February position is a must have for any meaningful negotiation to take place.
And it is clear that Putin is nowhere near ready for that.
In fact, from his perspective, the tide is once again turning in his favor: Europe is reeling from an energy crisis, and domestic political pressures across the Western world (like here in the US) give him hope that a weaker support for Ukraine could be achieved in the next 6-12 month.
And from his perspective, this period of a (relative) breathing space would be enough to throw bodies at the problem, and regain the lost territories after Ukraine’s September counter-offensive.
Watching these events from the Kremlin and seeing how the GOP is likely to retake at least Congress, and that Dems have this far left fringe group pressuring the Biden admin as well, why would he negotiate with sincerity now?
Why would he not hunker down and delay any actual negotiations until his hand gets stronger?
Indeed, that is exactly what he is doing: he is throwing more bodies at the problem and attempting to crush Ukraine’s civilian and power generation infrastructure.
(side note: although, some of his latest moves are of questionable political utility. For example, Russia’s abandonment of the grain deal is going to hurt many countries in the ‘‘global south” - those (at least in relative terms) sympathetic to Moscow. Since to date, almost half of all grain exports have gone to middle-or low-income countries in Africa and Asia: Russia’s political base against the West)
And from the perspective of a ruthless autocrat, this is quite rational: the current context and the level of Western support is not sufficiently detrimental to affect his calculus.
The US/NATO is still hesitating about the provision of modern M1 Abrams and Leopard tanks (that if supplied much sooner in the summer, would have come in handy right at this moment: with upcoming intra-city fights in Donbas/Kherson), and still worried about the supply of long-range ATACMS missiles, and modern fighter jets (Gripen / F-16s).
Putin may consequently arrive at a conclusion that his potemkin village of an army, might be just enough to slow the advance of Ukrainians, and earn Russia a crucial period to recoup over the winter - when the offensive operations will be much more difficult.
The congressional dems calling for premature negotiations do not get this fundamental point: they misunderstand the fundamental logic of confrontation, and overlook the crucial impact of the correlation of forces on the ground.
But being a strong progressive liberal need not mean being soft when will is required, and clueless when strategic insight is essential.
Case in point: Estonia.
Arguably a bastion of progressive liberalism in the EU, consider how its PM speaks about Russia’s current predicament:
“The breaking point might be close: the people around Putin are also feeling the consequences of this war, and they are not happy with the results…I encourage other leaders to send all the military [equipment] that they have”.
And this is how PM Kallas addressed those worried about inflation, energy insecurity, and the refugee influx:
“ The only response, or the way out of these other worries that we have in internal politics, is to put all the pressure on Russia to end this war”.
This is spot on, and precisely what these cables have been advocating for.
The only way to pressure Putin into genuine negotiations - ones where he might consider some political commitments and give up on his territorial demands (very subtly & indirectly, as previously discussed) is to affect his calculus by making it clear that the war will continue at an unfavorable trajectory which will only increase the humiliation of his army on the battlefield.
And for this to happen, three things need to take place with urgency:
1) Weapons: Ukraine must continue receiving advanced air defense systems - its electrical grid and other civilian infrastructure must be fully covered and well-protected to deny Putin this specific leverage over the country.
2) Money: America’s reassurances (latest from the House Speaker Pelosi) of long-term financial support until Ukraine wins play an essential role in causing dents in Putin’s perceptions that time is on his side.
The EU is yet to join the US in providing unconditional grants - their loans (although offered at very low interest rate) still add to Ukraine’s national debt and affect the country’s standing with international investors.
If the value of Ukrainian bonds is to be preserved, the whole world must see that Ukraine is receiving unconditional financial support without any increases in its debt burden.
3) Sanctions on Russia.
Price caps on oil are in their final discussion phase.
But these must become more biting - with Iran-style sanctions on Russian oil introduced by Congress (discussed in depth in the previous cables).
In addition, with America’s oil exports booming, Washington could subsidize the sale of domestic oil to India and help its competitiveness vs Russian oil.
The sale of Russian oil to India (in combination with the Rubles/Rupees scheme) provides an essential source of revenue for the Russian treasury.
Just as the US is attempting to replace Russia as a provider of weapons, so too should the American oil exporters receive subsidies and incentives to supply India at a lower price point - pushing out Russia (or at the minimum, forcing Moscow to lower its own prices - placing a major dent into its crucial revenue stream).
If Putin is to come to the table to negotiate with sincerity, then his perceptions around the fundamental realities of this conflict must be altered, and he must be convinced that time is working against him: and that the longer this war drags on, the higher the costs in blood, treasure and reputation that Russia and his regime will have to pay.
Putin’s Valdai speech: shrewd political communication underneath pure fiction.
Putin was once again at the podium - and on this occasion, with a three and a half hour speech delivered at the Valdai Discussion Club (Russia’s wannabe alternative to the Davos Forum).
Naturally, there was a lot of outright lies and a ton of gibberish in the speech.
But Putin’s speeches do not aim to inform.
Like all players of realpolitik (questions around his recent capabilities aside), he aims to persuade, recruit supporters to his vision, and signal: whether that is to threat display, express willingness for a potential compromise, or to underline weighty (to the Kremlin) issues.
And this speech was no exception: amidst a pile of fluff, one could find at least two messages and signals of note:
1) Denial of intent around potential nuclear use.
Putin ruled out the possibility that the Russian military would use nukes in its war against Ukraine, maintaining that there was “no point in that, neither political, nor military”.
There is a purpose to this message, and here is the translation of the intended signaling:
a) I am de-escalating - so you should do the same and refuse to arm Ukraine with long-range missiles, and advanced tanks/fighter jets.
b) I am a rational man - so when I next threaten to use nukes, you have a reason to take it seriously: clearly, something new has happened to change my calculus to convince me now that it does make military sense to resort to nukes.
c) Look, I have no intentions to use nukes, so when I warn about Ukraine’s dirty bombs (which have now been thoroughly debunked. Even Russia’s own ‘‘evidence” was fabricated - with older photos from an entirely different location (Slovenian Radioactive Waste Management Authority used as ‘‘evidence”) you should take these seriously and waste time on ‘‘investigating’’ these claims instead of arming Kyiv.
2) Ammo for Western appeasers.
Putin provided rhetorical & talking point material for all those in the West that are calling for premature and unconditional (meaning, without withdrawal of Russian troops to pre-Feb invasion contact lines) ‘‘peace talks’’.
He criticized the “Western elites” for attempts to dominate the world.
This was aimed at those in the West that blame ‘‘NATO expansion’’ for Russia’s invasion.
He then added that the US was ‘‘fanning the flames of war in Ukraine” and that Moscow’s attempts to ‘‘build trust’’ have been ‘‘cast aside’’.
(side note: presumably, Putin must be extremely confused why his “trust building” activities in the form of illegal annexation, war crimes and massacre of civilians, forced deportations, targeting of energy infrastructure that could lead to deaths of thousands from winter cold, and endless threats to annihilate Ukraine with nuclear weapons, go unanswered)
Again, these are word by word Tucker Carlson talking points.
3) Cultural divide & conquer.
This is where the recruitment part of his speech comes in.
Cultural issues: where Putin shines.
Appealing to traditional conservatives in Europe and the US, Putin maintained that he was not opposed to the West per se: only to the “Western elites’’ that seek to impose their ‘‘pretty strange’’ value on others.
He then advanced this argument by saying that there were at least two Wests: one holds “traditional, mainly Christian values” whilst the other promotes “cosmopolitan, neocolonial” principles.
Admittedly, this message does resonate with a lot of Western conservatives that are sick of extreme woke ideology shoved down their throats at every opportunity.
But these individuals must surely remember that no matter how sick of cosmopolitan values you get (and there are good reasons for this moral exhaustion), no one in the West will poison your tea or throw you off the balcony for criticizing the president on TV: suddenly, Putin’s proposed system becomes less appealing.
Of course all of this messaging is a facade to appeal to Western conservatives and divide European and American society along cultural lines.
Putin’s traditional virtues are all but a Potemkin village.
Owning private strip clubs in massive resorts is quite far from traditional christian virtues.
Unfortunately, the blame for the effortless resonance of Putin’s cultural message with the Western conservatives, lies at least in part with the Western elites.
We make it too easy for him.
For example, what on earth is the point of State Department funding drag shows in Ecuador?
How does this advance America’s interests? How does this not make America a laughing stock in the eyes of millions?
How does this not help Putin to advance his own messaging?
Not a single US agency (let alone a serious department in charge of advancing America’s economic, diplomatic and national security interests) should spend even a cent of American taxpayer’s money on promoting drag shows, or other extreme ‘‘diversity and inclusion’’ events in other countries.
Let any society who wants to host these do them on their own.
“Promoting” such events generates nothing but ridicule and resentment.
How out of touch and tone deaf must these “policymakers’’ be to even think of promoting such events in countries with traditional values? (and any society that is not traditional, does not need American taxpayer money to host these).
We should stop making it easy for our adversaries to divide our societies along cultural lines.
On the other hand, there is a lot that Western statesmen can learn from Putin’s messaging tactics.
We don’t often hear Western leaders appeal to Russia’s middle class and educated westernized youth (escaping in droves from Putin’s forced mobilization).
We don’t often hear them say that Russians are not the enemy, that educated Russian citizens who share universal values of political liberty, should not have to live under a kleptocratic authoritarian system.
We don’t often hear Western leaders appeal to Chinese youth and middle class by supporting their protests against corrupt local government officials, and against a political system that leaves them with debt but no homes.
We didn’t see Biden support Chinese citizens refusing to pay their mortgages and demanding political accountability from the government officials.
All of this must change: the West must stop making unnecessary and unprompted messaging errors, and instead focus on appealing to millions of citizens that share Western values of liberty and accountable, representative government whilst being forced to live under corrupt authoritarian and freedom killing regimes.
Many good points. But even if our leaders addressed them, would “middle class educated” Russians and Chinese even be able to hear that message?