Ukraine: killing it slowly

By Richard North - June 30, 2022

Despite their heroic resistance, it looks very much as if the Ukrainian defenders of Lysychansk are being squeezed out of the city. According to Sky News reporter, Alex Crawford, the situation is grim and troops are already repositioning to more defensible locations. Views expressed on the support afforded by Nato are not complimentary.

Trudy Rubin, for the Philadelphia Inquirer, articulates the problem with perfect economy. “The West’s drip, drip, drip of heavy weapons – always too little and too late to prevent Putin’s war crimes from the air – is helping to kill Ukraine slowly”, she writes. “As Nato nations meet, they must decide whether they want to permit Putin’s terrorist attacks to continue – or whether they will finally accelerate the shipments of weapons that Ukraine needs to win”.

Those words evidently find a resonance with Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s permanent representative to the United Nations. He repeats them on Twitter for his own 80K followers. They need no further endorsement.

Separately, an ocean away on another continent, US director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, sets out her view of the situation. She too uses the word “grim”. Putin, she says, still wants to seize most of Ukraine, but his forces are so degraded by combat that they likely can only achieve incremental gains in the near term. Thus, the consensus of US spy agencies is that the war will grind on “for an extended period of time”.

Haines says the US intelligence agencies see two other possible scenarios, albeit less likely. One is a major Russian breakthrough; the other is that Ukraine succeeds in stabilising the frontlines while achieving small gains, perhaps near the Russian-held city of Kherson and other areas of southern Ukraine.

Her comments suggest, though, that the billions of dollars in “modern” arms being supplied by the United States and other countries to Zelinsky’s forces “may not give them the ability to turn the tide against Russia any time soon”.

As to the timing, we are told that her briefing was publicised after the Nato summit, where Nato leaders had branded Russia the most “direct threat” to alliance security and vowed to modernise Kiev’s forces, saying it stood behind their “heroic defence of their country”.

Thus, one might assume, all is well. The Nato leaders had doubtless been appraised of Haines’ views before they met, and measures are now being taken to ensure that Ukraine gets what it needs. Or not.

And “or not” seems to be the case. Norway had agreed to send three M-270 MLRS units to Ukraine. Italy has, apparently despatched five PzH 2000 howitzers to the front, although three of the transporters were pulled up by the police for traffic law infractions and the guns on them have been delayed.

But the Germans and Dutch have again come to the rescue, agreeing to send another six PzH 2000 guns. And that really is it, according to German defence minister Christine Lambrecht.

Germany has now exhausted its resources to provide artillery units of this type, she says, and is no longer able to transfer them to Ukraine without reducing the country’s own defence capabilities. “Thus”, she states, “I have reached the absolute limit of what is responsible. But it is responsible, indeed, because Ukraine must be supported now”.

One can really see Sergiy Kyslytsya’s point, although he will no doubt have been delighted with the small print of the Nato summit declaration. In addition to welcoming “efforts of all Allies engaged in providing support to Ukraine”, and pledging to “assist them adequately, recognising their specific situation”, there is so much more.

The Nato leaders have declared that “climate change is a defining challenge of our time with a profound impact on Allied security”. What’s more, they say, “It is a threat multiplier”.

Thus, they have decided on a goal to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions by the Nato political and military structures and facilities, while maintaining operational, military and cost effectiveness. And, in a move that will have Putin seriously worried, they will “integrate climate change considerations across all of Nato’s core tasks”.

But not content with that, they went on to emphasise “the centrality of human security” and are “ensuring that human security principles are integrated into our three core tasks”. With that in mind, they are “advancing a robust Women, Peace and Security agenda, and are incorporating gender perspectives across Nato”. Clearly, now, the Russians don’t have a chance and the defenders of Lysychansk can rest easily in their beds.

In actuality, what this boils down to is that Nato – or its component members – have just pledged to offer maximum assistance to Ukraine’s military, short of doing anything that will help them defeat the Russians.

Instead, as The Times makes clear, the US and the UK are to indulge in an orgy of toy soldier shuffling, together with an expanded game of “battleships” as the UK at last finds a use for one of its aircraft carriers – apart from providing target practice for the Chinese.

The US, we are told, will increase its military presence across Europe. A permanent army headquarters will be created in Poland, while new US warships will go to Spain, F-35s to the UK and ground troops to Romania. And the Nato rapid reaction force will increase from 40,000 to 300,000.

Without any of the Nato leaders admitting it openly, what this says is that they have abandoned any expectation that Ukraine will defeat Russia and thus neutralise its military power. This is not so much closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, as holding the door open for that horse to bolt, then to slam it shut as it disappears over the horizon.

Even that barely conveys the enormity of the situation as we see Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg confronting the prospect that the 300,000 troops that he wants to march up the hill is more of a paper army than a real force.

The number relies on pledges by Nato members, with no means of ensuring that the troops theoretically available are in a fighting condition, that they are in fact deployable and have the weapons and equipment that will enable them to function in a hostile environment against a real enemy.

Predictably, Zelensky is none too happy, warning that Nato would share in a “joint failure” if Moscow was not defeated in a year. Once again, he pleaded for more Western weapons and financial support, estimating the cost of prosecuting the war to be over £4 billion a month.

Without sufficient support, he says, Nato leaders risked the brutal conflict spilling over into the alliance – precisely the point General Sanders has been making, although he seems to think that that will happen anyway, after Russia “replenishes its capabilities”,

Zelensky, in particular, repeats that he needs more weapons to break Russia’s artillery advantage in the brutal battle over the Donbass, but he must know by now that these are not going to materialise in the quantities his military needs.

As it becomes more evident that the US and Nato partners simply do not have the capability to support Ukraine in today’s battles, we now see Nato leaders duck the issue, pretending to get ready to fight tomorrow’s battles – which they hope will never come.

This combination of hypocrisy and delusion saves them having to step up to the plate with Ukraine, while the illusion of purposeful activity simply defers the unwelcome task of having to create real armies that have the resources to fight real battles.

Meanwhile, for want of the equipment to fight the battles in the here and now, Ukraine must gradually cede ground that it could otherwise have defended. It cannot be long now before the Ukrainians realise that, apart from the token gestures of support and the steady flow of obsolete equipment, they are very much on their own.