Ukraine war updates.
1) Russia launches a huge wave of drone and missile attacks against Ukraine over the weekend.
This weekend barrage resulted in 10 missiles breaching through Ukrainian air defense systems.
Separately, President Zelensky praised Ukraine’s air force, highlighting how the country destroyed 2,000 “Russian unmanned aerial vehicles” - thanks in large part to American Patriot and German IRIS-T systems.
2) Crimea bridges under Ukrainian attack.
Ukraine has targeted two pivotal road bridges that serve as crucial components of Russia's ground lines of communication (GLOCs).
The two bridges in question link the occupied regions of Crimea and Kherson Oblast.
This deliberate strike will now force Russians to reroute their supply routes from more direct eastern paths to longer western alternatives - slowing down their logistics and communications lines.
3) Ukraine targets Russian ships with maritime drones.
The attacks against a Russian warship and an oil tanker are exactly what Ukraine should be doing right now.
As discussed in last week’s post, Putin must see mounting costs of a Black Sea blockade before he is to resume the grain deal - the deal/no deal calculus must shift decisively for the Kremlin to be persuaded back to the negotiation table.
Russia must confront a new reality: that either it resumes the grain deal and agrees to further concessions in the Black Sea basin, or Ukraine will continue to inflict military and economic costs on Russia: that if Ukraine is not to benefit from Black Sea, neither will Russia.
Medvedev’s yet another nuke threat.
Russia’s former President and the current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev strikes again with yet another (largely) uncredible threat - announcing (with no room for ambiguity) Russia’s willingness to resort to nuclear weapons if Ukraine was to succeed in its ongoing counteroffensive.
That is because “there simply wouldn’t be any other solution”
At this point, two quick observations are in order:
1) Note the timing of the threat.
Medvedev was all too quiet mere two weeks ago when Putin was proudly repeating the premature claim that Ukraine’s counteroffensive was failing.
So what happened?
The tables have turned as soon as Ukraine has gained some very minor breakthrough against the first layer of Russia’s defense?
Or is this a preemptive threat aimed to stall further Ukrainian offensive - and in turn, amounting to an implicit admission that the future is indeed bleak for Russia’s defensive posture?
Is he aware of certain facts that are (thus far) unavailable to the general observing public?
Is he worried about another Kharkiv style rout? Why else resort to nuclear threats?
If as your President claims, Ukraine is indeed failing in its counteroffensive, then why escalate with these threats? (Reducing their already limited potency to when Russia may actually face a total battlefield collapse - unless once again, you believe that such a collapse is indeed coming soon?)
2) Implicit admission of conventional military weakness.
Medvedev’s rationale for this warning is that Russia would not have any other options left.
Really? So you admit that Russia isn’t a conventional military superpower as Putin constantly claims?
What happened? Why is Russia losing a conventional war to a country much poorer and smaller than itself?
To a country that Putin claimed is not a nation state?
Is it not a pretty open admission that Russia cannot deal with Ukraine using only conventional military means?
(side note: instead of focusing on the uncredible nuclear threats, this is the part that Western doom and gloom “analysts” arguing that there is no way to defeat Russia in Ukraine should focus on. Russia’s own regime figurehead is admitting that Ukraine is in fact pretty close to accomplishing this and driving out the occupying force. Now, this too may also be an erroneous assessment. But the point still stands: there is at least a belief of potential Russian military collapse in eastern Ukraine. And if Russians themselves can believe this, there is no reason not to take this scenario very seriously and continue with full support of this counteroffensive)
Ultimately, Medvedev’s nuclear threat is aimed at isolationists and Russia doves in the west.
For example, candidates like Trump and DeSantis (and many others - including those that who have been Putin appeasers from the very start) can now point at the ostensible risk of nuclear escalation and argue that further support for Ukraine’s counteroffensive is futile - that there needs to be a ‘‘deal” (in other words: let Putin occupy 15% of Ukraine - since that is literally the only thing preventing a genuine end to this war. This war ends if Russia withdraws its occupying troops from Ukraine).
And if/when Ukraine succeeds in recapture of lost territories, Russia can still save some face when they fail to deploy these weapons - since after all, it was only a lunatic like Medvedev (and not Putin himself - who is now more measured in his threat display rhetoric) throwing around these threats.
Overall however, a sudden collapse of Russia’s defensive lines is still very unlikely - Putin will have plenty of warning of an impending defeat (whenever that happens) - allowing him to negotiate some face saving deal.
The ongoing “Ukraine gratitude” drama: pathetic, petty and harmful to all Western allies involved.
First, there was the British Defense Minister Ben Wallace - who suggested that Ukraine should show more gratitude to its allies, instead of complaining about slow deliveries of weapons - since the West was ‘‘not Amazon" for Ukraine.
(side note: indeed, the West is not Amazon - since Amazon does not benefit from another country fighting for the security of the entire Europe. If someone needs to be grateful here, it should be the West - in return for weapons, you have Ukrainian soldiers dying in an attempt to stop a major imperialistic invasion on a European continent..)
In response to Wallace’s comment, Zelenskyy retorted brilliantly: “He can write to me about how he wants to be thanked, so we can fully express our gratitude. We can make a point to wake up (every) morning and thank him.”
Drama then escalated when the Ukrainian Ambassador to UK Vadym Prystaiko was interviewed by the British Sky News.
When asked whether there was a hint of sarcasm in Zelensky’s retort (a hint? too polite..sarcasm was all of it), responded in a suboptimal way: “I don’t believe that this sarcasm is healthy. We don’t have to show Russians that we have something between us. They have to know we are working together.”
Now, it was suboptimal not because what Prystaiko said was necessarily untrue (one could very well argue that sarcasm was indeed unnecessary), but because he was an ambassador of Ukraine, and should have stuck to the tone set by his President.
And in fact, openly questioning the tone of his President was not his job - a major faux pas which naturally led to Zelensky firing him.
This is rather unfortunate - since Prystaiko was known to be a very capable diplomat.
But Zelensky could not have allowed for such open (even if not too threatening) revolt against his rhetoric to persist.
Leaving this unfortunate incident aside however, was Zelensky right to respond with ridicule?
Absolutely, and for two good reasons:
1) In evaluating Zelensky’s response, a lot of media pundits seemed to ignore one crucial signaling pressure on Zelensky: he needs to convince Putin that not only is the West solidly behind him, but that this support does not turn Zelensky into a pliable agent of NATO.
In other words, Zelensky must absolutely demonstrate that he has confidence to shut down any undue rhetoric coming from the West - in spite of the reality that Ukraine very much depends on continuous support from the West.
Without this demonstration of agency and confidence to deal with Ukraine’s western allies as equals (where Kyiv can and indeed should on occasion demonstrate impatience and irritability) Putin’s belief in limited Ukrainian agency will only be reinforced.
Zelensky simply cannot afford for Putin to believe that - a belief system which would lead the Kremlin to ignore Kyiv as an equal interlocutor in genuine diplomatic negotiations (whenever they happen).
Since if Putin was to proceed from that belief, his policies would be aimed at swaying the minds in the West - constantly trying to convince those in major NATO state capitals that a continuous support of Ukraine is futile - a scenario that creates massive headaches for Kyiv (which now has to fight on multiple diplomatic fronts).
Consequently, Zelensky’s robust tactic of shutting down Wallace with sarcasm was a good move for two reasons:
1) It warned the UK and any other ally of unpleasant consequences of the rhetoric of ingratitude: you come after us, we will respond vigorously and make an example of you for others to see. So shutting down this nonsense is in your interest first and foremost.
2) As a method of delivery, sarcasm itself implied sheer confidence in Ukraine’s status as an equal - rebutting the Kremlin-fueled narrative of an agent/principal relationship vis-à-vis the West.
All of this said, Ben Wallace himself has done a ton for Ukraine - his actual conduct and leadership in rallying the West behind Kyiv has been incredible.
The whole thing is unfortunate, but Wallace did resort to unnecessary petty bickering.
Luckily, and before the spat could escalate any further, the British PM quickly intervened and shut down Wallace.
But unfortunately, the gratitude drama was not over, and it was now the turn of another Western ally to resort to this petty rhetoric.
Poland.
Now finds its relations with Ukraine strained due to a recent decision by Warsaw to ban select Ukrainian agricultural exports - deemed detrimental to the interests of domestic farmers.
Initially centering on grain, the disagreement has now shifted towards soft fruits like raspberries and currants.
Polish farmers, a crucial constituency in the upcoming October general elections, have expressed concerns over the competitive advantage enjoyed by lower-priced Ukrainian imports, which undermines their livelihoods.
Tensions escalated when Ukraine summoned the Polish ambassador to Kyiv, citing "unacceptable" comments made by a senior Polish official.
This is because, in an interview with the Polish media, Marcin Przydacz, head of Poland's international policy office, emphasized Poland's pivotal role in supporting Ukraine over the past months and years and suggested that Kyiv should be more grateful for this support.
Ukraine summoned the Polish ambassador in protest, and the Polish Prime Minister demonstrated much less wisdom than the British PM, and poured more oil into fire by criticizing Ukraine for their diplomatic protest.
Now, at the time when Putin (most recently) is openly challenging Poland’s own territorial integrity, it is not in the interests of Poland itself first and foremost to demonstrate any potential friction with Ukraine (especially when this is triggered over a trade in agricultural products…the level of pettiness is astounding).
But whenever Ukraine’s Western allies engage in such rhetoric, wider damaging geopolitical consequences do also take place.
Harmful implications of this unnecessary spat.
There are many, but let’s focus on the most pressing ones:
1) Message to the Global South: yup, you were right it was always about pure national interests.
So what happened? The prosperous and liberal-democratic ‘‘advanced’’ western powers could not prioritize ‘‘principles’’ and ‘‘global rules-based world order” over some grain and raspberry?
How can we demand that countries like India (on average 6x poorer than Poland on per capita basis) forego their national interests, and avoid buying up cheaper Russian oil (or any other exports from Moscow) if major EU powers (significantly richer than all those countries of the ‘‘Global South”) cannot even bite the bullet when it comes to agricultural products?
How can we demand that countries like Armenia and Kazakhstan forego profits from trade arbitrage and refuse to re-export consumer products to Russia at a higher than usual rate (so that those can later be dis-assembled and used for their semiconductors) if we cannot prevent the ‘‘concerns’’ of Polish farmers from escalating into a major diplomatic row with an important ally fighting for the security of all eastern European states?
(side note: naturally, the Polish state and the EU must both intervene to soften the blow to the farmers involved. This could be a direct compensation in the form of monetary transfers or further additional subsidies (for the duration of the war) to level the playing field, but at some point, the relevant political leaders must be courageous enough to tell the bitter truth: supporting Ukraine will not be cost-free, it will require sacrifices, but that these sacrifices are worth it - it will be much better for Polish farmers if the war is contained in Ukraine, without spilling over into Poland. And in return, they need to accept a temporary constraint on their living standards)
2) Message to Putin: cracks are opening up in Western alliance - you were right to opt in for a lengthy war of attrition. You were right to bet on outlasting the ‘‘decadent’’ west with little staying power. Continue as planned.
Not only is Putin rewarded for his strategy, but he can now see what is effective in causing major rupture between allies: misaligned economic interests.
This is a direct signal for Russia to intensify its campaign to divide & conquer by inflicting further economic pain and blockade on Ukraine - forcing them to sell even more to its Western neighbors (and causing even more spats with local constituents).
3) Opt-out for isolationists in the US: this is a European matter, and even then they cannot put aside their own economic interests to focus on what matters, so why should we sacrifice so much in defense of a continent that clearly doesn’t see how this petty spat is damaging to their own national security?
All around damaging and terrible - Washington must lead in warning European allies that their pettiness will hurt NATO and only serve to further embolden Putin..
Powerful stuff