Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine War Updates, operation Belgorod, and ensuring the success of Papua New Guinea security deal.
Ukraine war updates.
a) Drone attack on Kyiv.
On the night of May 27-28. Kyiv became the target of the largest drone attack campaign since the outset of the war - and according to the Ukrainian General Staff, Ukraine’s air force shot down 58 of the 59 Shahed-131/136 drones targeting the city.
Although Ukraine is clearly getting extremely proficient in intercepting these swarm attacks, the goal for the Kremlin is to prevent the return to normalcy and stability in Ukraine’s capital - two prerequisites if the country is to attract foreign businesses and investment to rebuild the struggling economy (and according to the World Bank, the cost of reconstruction was estimated to be at an exorbitant $411bn as of March 2023).
b) Bakhmut lost - primed for recapture.
Although Ukraine claimed that it was engaging in the ‘‘encirclement’’ campaign around Bakhmut, the city itself was taken by Wagner forces and handed over to the regular Russian army.
Prigozhin announced full withdrawal of his Wagner forces by June 5.
This presents an opportunity for Kyiv - due to the ongoing fighting, the city is one of the few remaining targets that have not been heavily mined/fortified, and could therefore become an attractive target for a recapture - now that the main fighting force is leaving.
c) When the war criminal speaks the truth.
In response to widespread public discontent regarding the opulent lifestyles enjoyed by Russia's affluent and influential leaders of the Putin regime, Prigozhin issued a cautionary message, alluding to the potential for an incensed population to forcefully converge upon their lavish palaces armed with "pitchforks."
Specifically, his focus fell upon Ksenia Shoigu, the daughter of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, whose leisurely sojourn in Dubai was the highlight of Prigozhin’s rhetorical attack.
This is yet another evidence of Prigozhin either: a) acting independent of Putin’s approval/license, or b) exceeding his license by a very large margin.
For it is one thing to deflect the public anger from Putin and towards his number 2s, and quite another to warn of a 1917-style public uprising - implying political chaos and a total collapse of order: preservation of which, is Putin’s main value proposition.
And it is almost inconceivable that Putin would even tacitly approve a challenge to his main source of legitimacy.
d) Western support for Ukraine.
“Together with the entire G7, we have Ukraine’s back, and I promise we’re not going anywhere” said President Biden as he announced a new $375 million package of artillery, ammunition and other arms for Kyiv
In addition, Denmark’s Defense Minister announced that Ukrainian pilots will start their training on the F-16 fighter jets starting in July.
And the EU released a report outlining how 200,000 new artillery shells were delivered to Ukraine under a landmark union-wide scheme launched two months ago.
e) The “Global South” voices a legitimate objection.
The Foreign Minister of the UK, James Cleverly was one of the latest G7 diplomats to try his hand in swaying members of the Global South in Brazil.
Ahead of the visit, a Brazilian official ruled out any additional aid/increase in support for Ukraine.
And when asked if Britain could persuade Chile to provide military aid to Ukraine, a Chilean official responded with “Not gonna happen, not at all … It’s a topic that needs to be solved by the big powers, not something we can do from the end of the world.”
Well.. to be fair.. he is not wrong - at least for now: as long as the West has not pushed itself to the very limit in helping Ukraine, it really doesn’t have much political capital to ask struggling emerging markets to devote significant material resources to Ukraine.
Leaving major donors like the UK, US, France and Germany aside, most of the EU/NATO states (apart from those in Eastern Europe, and Turkey) have not really exerted themselves to help Ukraine - in most cases, the amount spent is well below the 0.25% of their respective GDPs (and even America is hovering around that number).
Until this situation changes, the most that the leaders of G7 can hope for is to persuade the countries of the Global South to refrain from overt diplomatic help or economic relief (in the form of sanctions-busting trade deals) offered to Russia.
Freedom For The People’s Republic Of Belgorod - Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare.
Big news of the last week was the incursion of militia (allegedly using US hardware/armored vehicles) into Russian towns in the Belgorod region bordering Ukraine.
Immediate (and direct) responsibility for these incursions lies with the two Ukraine-based groups: 1) the Russian Volunteer Corps, and 2) the Free Russia Legion.
Both are widely known for their opposition to the Kremlin's war in Ukraine, and have claimed responsibility for a daring attack within their native country.
The Free Russia Legion is a major Telegram user: spreading their propaganda on the platform and frequently declaring their (highly implausible) commitment to freeing Russia - the group's ambitions appear to be escalating.
The Kremlin initial response was semi-dismissive - with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov acknowledging the presence of Ukrainian saboteurs within Russian territory and emphasizing ongoing efforts to neutralize this alleged sabotage group.
Russia then declared ‘‘elimination’’ of all saboteurs - with minimal casualties too.
However, it is unclear whether all saboteurs have in fact left the region.
Ukraine’s highly effective psyop and propaganda machine was in full force on Twitter - and made the most of it: with hashtags demanding freedom to the People’s Republic Of Belgorod (turning the tables and using Russia’s absurd playbook for Donetsk and Luhansk against the Kremlin).
There are few things to note and emphasize here:
1) Russia blaming this on Ukraine was understandable (in a narrow technical sense, it is also true).
Admitting the alternative narrative of Russian fighters (even if based in Ukraine) fighting against Putin would have been unacceptable.
This leads us to the second point.
2) For Ukraine, the main objective was surely to crush the image of Putin in control.
(side note: there was naturally, also a tactical goal of diverting resources and attention from the defense of the frontlines - ahead of the upcoming counteroffensive)
For what is the point of an autocrat if he cannot even control what is happening within his own borders?
This is merely an escalation of previous campaigns: drone strike against legitimate targets within Russia, assassination of pro-Regime propaganda mouthpieces, and performative drone attack against the Kremlin itself.
But although it is part of the same narrative, this particular attack was qualitatively different and above all others: Putin’s claim on his own territory was put under question.
3) Saboteurs and ‘‘volunteers’’ are a mixed-bag.
Some of them, like those within the “Free Russia Legion” are closer to HUR (Ukraine’s military intelligence) and seem to be genuinely anti-Putin Russian fighters (if not delusional in their ability to spark an uprising against the Kremlin).
Others are a bunch of weirdo extremists - “The Russian Volunteer Corps” is led by a far-right Russian extremist and a former MMA fighter Denis Nikitin.
Although they are also clearly anti-Putin, their ranks are comprised of less pleasant individuals - there is good research by Bellingcat’s Michael Colborne on the far-right roots of “The Russian Volunteer Corps”.
Now, it is somewhat fair for Andrei Chernak (of Ukraine’s military intel/HUR) to say that survival is Ukraine’s only focus and that to accomplish this, they were “prepared to work with everyone”.
But there are also political realities to deal with.
The plague of whataboutism is not over.
Ukrainian leaders cannot afford to play into the confirmation bias of those seeking evidence (mainly in the Global South and Africa especially - but even many in the West are buying into this..) of Russia’s claims that the country hosted ‘‘neonazis’’ posing danger to Russia.
So yeah, go ahead and sponsor similar tactical ops to demonstrate the weakness of the Putin regime, but think twice before declaring willingness “to work with everyone”.
And even if you do indeed work with everyone, at least don’t say it out in the public…
What on earth was the point of that public admission (recruitment of unpalatable groups can be done in secret) - other than playing into the Kremlin’s talking points and supplying evidence for their propaganda machine?
(side note: and definitely do not publicly announce intent to assassinate Putin - something that Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine's military intelligence service, told Germany's Die Welt newspaper in an unnecessary interview)
“No limits” partnership spying continues.
What is one thing that allies, friends, and no limits partners do?
Well in the case of Russia and China, they spy on each other:
Alexander Shiplyuk, the head of Siberia's Khristianovich Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (ITAM), a prominent Russian scientist, has been accused of sharing classified information regarding Moscow's hypersonic missiles program with China.
Shiplyuk vehemently denies the charges, asserting that the information he allegedly passed on was publicly available online.
Shiplyuk's arrest in August marks the latest in a series of detentions conducted by Russian authorities, targeting individuals suspected of spying for China.
Concurrently, two other experts in hypersonic missile technology were also apprehended.
(side note: in April, Russia's parliament voted to enhance the penalty for treason to a life sentence, replacing the previous maximum of 20 years.)
Due to the sensitive nature of Shiplyuk's case, his trial will be conducted behind closed doors to maintain utmost secrecy.
Now.. we have previously discussed how both countries engaged in active espionage in relation to each other (targeting the most sensitive areas of national security), and that this was in fact incompatible with no limits partnership.
But that was before the war in Ukraine, before situation over Taiwan got very much acute, and finally, before the AUKUS and militarization of Japan.
This is a crucial contextual caveat: one could have plausibly expected the new US-Pacific allies teaming -up on Beijing, to induce a closer military partnership between Russia and China.
But that is not happening: China is not supplying Russia with weapons (well there were some report.. but still, at least not on a necessary scale needed to win the war) and crucially, Beijing is still treating Russia as a rival military power and a legitimate target for military-research espionage.
Now, naturally we will get some objections in the flavor of: hang on a second.. What about the US spying on its allies? Did you forget about Wikileaks? Phone tapping Angela Merkel? Didn’t we also spy on our military allies?
Yes, but the two are qualitatively different.
It is one thing to cross the line and listen into the conversation of the leadership of a country, and quite another to actively work on recruiting and converting the most senior scientists working in the most confidential spheres of the government.
Allies that were to fight shoulder-to-shoulder would not cross the line of actively converting key individuals/citizens of an allied state.
And not just from general spirit of goodwill - after all, we are talking about state interests here.
But there is also a pragmatic side to this: if you want a leader of an allied state to help out in a potential war with your enemy, you need to build trust - and nothing kills trust more than trying to recruit and turn key human assets of said allied state.
Here is a thought experiment to prove this point: the UK, Japan and Italy are engaged in the ‘‘Tempest” program to develop next generation stealth fighter jets.
Now, can you imagine American spies trying to recruit and convert senior scientists working on that project?
Even if there was a temptation to do that (state interests after all), the costs in the form of a damage to the alliance stemming from corrosion in trust would surely outweigh any potential benefits of doing so.
Even a layperson knows instinctively - if not analytically - that it is far more likely that China would attempt to convert Russian scientists vs US and allies doing the same in relation to each other.
And precisely because this is such an instinctive truth, the claims to “no limits” partnerships ring so hollow.
A win in the Pacific.
The Secretary of State, Antony Blinken has inked a fresh security agreement with the leaders of Papua New Guinea last Monday.
(side note: Blinken undertook the journey on behalf of President Biden, who had to cancel his own trip due to ridiculous debt ceiling
hostage-takingtalks. Way to diminish America’s global standing with domestic (and totally unnecessary) drama)This is part of efforts to bolster relations and counter the escalating Chinese sway in the vicinity.
The primary formal objective of the pact is the establishment of a comprehensive structure for augmenting security cooperation, fortifying the nation's defense capabilities, and fostering stability in the region.
Translation: establishing our own security base in response to China’s foothold in the Solomon Islands - with their bilateral security pact signed in 2022.
It is important to note that China’s own move to establish a base in the Solomons was a demonstration of great strategic judgment.
The move was part of Beijing’s plan to break free from the encirclement posed by the "first island chain," which consists mainly of US-aligned Asian nations.
Consequently, establishing a foothold in the scattered archipelagos beyond the first island chain was important for China.
A key aspect of this strategy is to apply diplomatic and military pressure from within the "second island chain," with the ultimate aim of gaining control over Taiwan.
Among the potential locations that serve Beijing's purposes, the Solomon Islands stood out as a prime choice.
Situated strategically, they offered an opportunity to assert dominance over the surrounding sea and airspace - allowing China to disrupt vital communication lines between the United States, its Pacific allies, and particularly Australia.
(side note: Solomons were also the easiest “acquisition target” for Beijing - given the history of economic aid from China and thus leverage over the country)
A Chinese naval base in the Solomon Islands would enable the interception of military reinforcements intended for Taiwan.
Even the presence of a solitary People's Liberation Army (PLA) facility in the Solomons, utilized for intelligence gathering and patrols, would complicate defense planning for Australia and, to some extent, the United States.
And Papua New Guinea was clearly going to be target #2 for Beijing - so in this instance, America beat China to it.
But the hard part is ahead - both countries now present an A/B test on strategic choice: is it better to align with the US or China?
To prove the wisdom of choosing the US, American strategists will need to work hard to produce concrete value for Papua New Guinea.
The island must now receive more security support, and access to capital/financing of infrastructure than the Solomons.
America must get its allies involved as well: a free trade deal offered to Papua New Guinea, and a preferential access to the US and allied markets (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Philippines and the UK) will come at a little cost, but could come as a game changer for the island.
At the end of the day, if America is to continue its success in turning Pacific islands against China, it must provide a definitive proof of concept: that aligning with the US leads to better material outcomes: from local security, public health, infrastructure development to measures of GDP growth, it must be crystal clear that choosing the US leads to security and prosperity.
Although it is unclear precisely how much China is investing into Solomons (a lot of it could be clandestine projects - funded indirectly), the latest figures on net inflows of foreign direct investment as % of GDP nonetheless show that Solomons are beating Papua New Guinea.
And this must change immediately - the US must invest as much as it takes to establish a clear contrast in prosperity: so that no other Pacific island nation hesitates about the right strategic choice.