BY MARK TAC

Some of my thoughts on the war in Ukraine…

The Ukrainians have been busy attacking Russian early warning radars with drones, a long way from the front. On 23rd May, a radar was attacked by drones at Baronowski, 600 km from the Ukraine-Russian front, near Armavir (east of Stavropol), in the region of Krasnodar. Five days later, on 28th May, another radar was attacked by drones, this time 1,800 km from the Ukraine-Russian front at Orsk, in the oblast of Orenburg, on the Kazakhstan frontier.

These radars are part of a larger system, apparently ten in all, which the Russians have established as an early warning system to defend Russia itself from attack, with the capacity to see missiles or aircraft 3,000+ km out. It may be convenient for NATO that two are damaged, but the US has been very careful about controlling the weaponry they give Kyiv to avoid direct attacks on Russia. For example, ATACM software is still run out of US bases in Germany to deny Kyiv the capability of striking Russia. However, Kyiv has now built its own weapons capable of striking Russia over which NATO has no control.

These latest attacks raise some important questions about just how proxy the Russians believe this war really is. Of course, after the basic facts of such events are known, everyone has their two-penny’s worth on what may be the implications. Basic truth is rather like a totem pole in a field, reported upon differently by everyone approaching it, each from their own directions with their own perspectives and purposes.

Many people are extremely sceptical of the official narrative and take the view that Putin will see little difference between these drones being American/British or aftermarket Ukrainian copies. This does not mean they support Putin. He is certainly guilty of not finding another solution to deal with Kyiv’s aggression against Russian Ukrainians along that border since 2014, complete with trenches and artillery. He ought to have found another way rather than war to halt the relentless push by NATO and the EU to absorb all former Soviet Union countries, including Ukraine.

Mark Twain observed, “If you find yourself on the side of the majority, then it is time to pause and reflect.”

Indeed, there are some obvious questions about the perspectives of various players which do not seem to enjoy the critical inches or prime time in the mainstream media that they deserve. For example, might Putin decide NATO is no longer playing a proxy game, and what will he do then? Which countries will be most at risk? Are those risks acceptable? Does America see itself in the firing line, or is it happy to see Europe diminished and at risk if the war spreads? Is China? Are Europe’s leaders doing the right things to manage and reduce those risks, or prepare for failure to do so? Arms manufacturers are making fortunes, like pharmaceutical companies made billions from COVID, but are NATO’s main participating members being sufficiently re-equipped to meet the potential for wider conflict? Are NATO’s member governments and the EU confident that the billions being paid to Ukraine are all put to good use fighting the Russians? What due diligence is being carried out to audit how that money is being spent? Is the current talk of conscription by some NATO governments—UK, France, Germany—just crude political posturing, or have these governments really decided they must increase their armed forces? Have they increased their budgeting to match? Have they really prepared their people for what this all means?

Emotion has no place in this discussion.

All conflict creates horrible and heart-wrenching circumstances for those caught up in it, but cool heads and a serious dose of realism are needed to resolve the outcome and bring about peace, which must be, or should be, the end purpose. Is this happening? It seems not. I’m sorry, but talk of defeating Putin is pie in the sky. What would defeating him look like? Invading Russia? The French and Germans tried that—not a howling success, even though they had Europe’s best armies at the time. There are no such armies these days. Indeed, Russian forces have 2+ years of battle experience ahead of all their potential opposition and, in reality, NATO’s armies are hopelessly out of shape (except Poland, possibly). God protect us from more cunning plans for another “regime change” debacle.

So, is the aim more limited, holding Russian forces to a standstill, or pushing them back over the border? At present, even these limited aims seem beyond Ukraine’s capacity, if not in equipment, then because they have run out of people. So, is talk of conscription real? Is the West really building up to commit ground forces into Ukraine because NATO has realized that Ukraine can’t achieve even these limited aims without this happening? If that is the case, then our leaders will be as guilty as Putin for invading Ukraine two years ago, and guilty of taking us all on another long road to a general war in Europe, just like the one which led Europe from an unprecedented period of peace in the late 1800s to the First World War and then, as night follows day, to the Second. If this is really what is happening, then Putin isn’t playing our leaders for dummies. They really are dummies.

Mark Tac is a Brit living in France.