Saturday 25 February 2023

At last some solid information about how Putin planned to invade Ukraine and what he expected to happen

SHARE
A very interesting article in the FT confirms what we all assumed. A number of confidantes of President Vladimir Putin and former senior officials have told the FT that they are privately opposed to the war in Ukraine. I imagine that they all are. Like most wars, it is not just a crime but a blunder. 

It's the result of a series of terrible blunders by Vladimir Putin and by others. 

The Americans and Ukrainians also blundered very badly in the way they handled this dangerous man of blood. This does not reduce his personal responsibility for the war.

"It's really a unique war in world history, when all the elite is against it," said one former senior official to the FT.

Putin trusted only a tiny group with his plans for invasion. Even the  foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, only learnt about it hours before it happened.

'Later that day, several dozen oligarchs gathered at the Kremlin for a meeting arranged only the day before, aware that the invasion would trigger western sanctions that could destroy their empires. “Everyone was completely losing it,” says a person who attended the event. While they waited, one of the oligarchs spied Lavrov exiting another meeting and pressed him for an explanation about why Putin had decided to invade. Lavrov had no answer: the officials he was there to see in the Kremlin had known less about it than he did. Stunned, the oligarch asked Lavrov how Putin could have planned such an enormous invasion in such a tiny circle — so much so that most of the senior officials at the Kremlin, Russia’s economic cabinet and its business elite had not believed it was even possible. “He has three advisers,” Lavrov replied, according to the oligarch. “Ivan the Terrible. Peter the Great. And Catherine the Great.” Under Putin’s invasion plan, Russia’s troops were to seize Kyiv within a matter of days in a brilliant, comparatively bloodless blitzkrieg. Instead, the war has proved to be a quagmire of historic proportions for Russia.



'“....The idea was never for hundreds of thousands of people to die. It’s all gone horribly wrong,” a former senior Russian official says. With the initial plan in tatters, Putin is searching for new rationales to justify the war effort, insisting he had no choice but to pursue the invasion by any means necessary, current and former officials say. “He tells people close to him, ‘It turns out we were completely unprepared. The army is a mess. Our industry is a mess. But it’s good that we found out about it this way, rather than when Nato invades us,’” the former official adds.


'....One of Zelenskyy’s early moves was to curb the influence of Viktor Medvedchuk, a close friend of Putin’s who headed the largest opposition party in parliament. Whereas former president Petro Poroshenko had used Medvedchuk as a crucial go-between with Moscow, Zelenskyy’s team sought other intermediaries in the belief that his influence on Putin had begun to wane. But as Putin began drawing up plans for a possible invasion, Medvedchuk insisted that Ukrainians would greet Russia’s forces with open arms. One part of the plan involved Viktor Yanukovych, a former president who has been in Russian exile since fleeing the 2014 revolution against him. He was to deliver a video message conferring legitimacy on Medvedchuk — and anointing him to rule Ukraine with Russia’s backing. The vision was starkly at odds with political realities in Ukraine, where the pro-Russian minority that Medvedchuk represented was vastly outnumbered by those who despised him for his ties to Moscow. But it proved seductive for Putin, who authorised payments through Medvedchuk’s party to pay off local collaborators.


'The invasion began to unravel almost immediately after Putin set it into motion. Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff, had drawn up a plan to seize the Hostomel airfield outside Kyiv, giving Russian elite paratrooper squadrons a platform from which to attack Zelenskyy’s government headquarters. Some of Medvedchuk’s collaborators worked as spotters for the advancing Russian forces, painting markings on buildings and highways to direct the invaders to key locations. Others joined in the attack on the government quarter. In southern Ukraine, they helped Russia capture a large swath of territory including Kherson with little to no resistance.


'Most of Medvedchuk’s network, however, simply took the money and ran, refusing to join in the invasion — or went straight to Ukrainian authorities and warned them of the instructions they had been given, according to a senior Ukrainian official and former US and Russian officials.'

The New York Times, in a pull-out in December that I blogged about, interviewed another man whom it said Putin would have made Ukrainian president, Oleg Tsaryov. 

What happens next?

It seems to me that Russia cannot win this war and Ukraine is not going to get back much of the territory Russia now occupies. I suspect that the EU and US see this war in terms of the accepted understanding of the Second World War and think a real peace cannot come while Putin remains in office. 

They see an analogy with the requirement for unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan. 

All Hitler analogies are misleading, of course. Even the general public's understanding of the origins of the Second World War is badly wrong.

I think that Viktor Orban is right in calling for a ceasefire. I hope but do not expect it will happen and hardens into a solution, as armistices did in Korea and Kashmir, but as they did not do in Vietman or, so far, Palestine. 

Tom McTugh in Unherd writes that he has spoken to senior British officials and thinks London, Berlin and Paris hope for a solution that enables a viable Ukraine to continue and to trade. That's sensible. I suspect that the Western public underestimates the Russian army, though no-one knows how strong it will prove.


'The fear in London and Paris is that Gerasimov’s appointment, combined with Putin’s mobilisation, will allow Russia to bring to bear its two most important advantages: numbers and the ability to escalate. Over time, Russia’s numerical supremacy will begin to show on the battlefield. To some extent, the effect has already been felt. Ukraine is already being forced to sacrifice its “good” soldiers for Russia’s “bad” ones — conscripts and convicts — who the Kremlin has no qualms about sending into the meat grinder. The second advantage is escalatory dominance. In short, Russia can bomb Ukraine in a way Ukraine cannot bomb Russia. As long as this remains the case, Ukraine cannot emerge as a free state.'

The good news is that most defence analysts to whom Mr McTugh has spoken think Russia cannot overrun the whole of Ukraine.

Many analysts whom I read think Ukraine can see off the coming Russian offensive. The wish is father to the thought, I suspect.

Unfortunately what I think may well happen is endless war. 

If Ukraine escapes this then the next best thing is a new cold war. Russia is not a threat to the countries of the European Union, in my view, but then I didn't think she would invade the Ukraine. 

The original cold war achieved nothing against the Communist threat and another one would be completely pointless. 

As Gibbon said, history is the catalogue of the crimes and follies of mankind. It always was and always will be.


19 comments:

  1. Yes a crime nad a blunder by Mr Putin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly. Putin has been very foolish (and criminal) and Russia has been humiliated. But the Anglo-Americans are forcing Russia and China into being partners, by our inflammatory talk (including about Taiwan).This is not in our interests or that of our Far Eastern friends.

      Delete
  2. Paul all of this has been public domain since at least last March, only the “NATO pushed him into it” apologists ignored it. It has pretty much been the accepted rational that Putin’s bunkerization of his presidency led to him believing his own narrative whispered back to him by sycophants tied to his mast and this led not only to the invasion , but also doubling down

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know who you are or whether we are on Christian name terms, but the details here about Putin's intentions and Medvedchuk's complicity are new to me. Some have argued that Putin did not intend to take all of Ukraine. I assumed he did and wanted to instal a puppet government but did not know why he thought he would succeed. There is no doubt that Putin does see himself as reacting to American aggression and the fact that he does is because of the grave folly of the Anglo-Americans. I do not buy the idea that the neo-cons wanted a war with Russia. Some do.

      Delete
    2. The New York Times, in a pull-out in December that I blogged about, interviewed another man whom it said Putin would have made Ukrainian president.

      'Before the invasion, American intelligence agencies identified Oleg Tsaryov as a puppet leader the Kremlin could install once it took over Ukraine. His faith in the war has since slipped away.

      '“I was there. I participated” in the invasion, Mr. Tsaryov told The Times during a phone interview. But, he said, he was never told the final details and “the Russian Army didn’t understand” the Ukrainians would fight back, thinking “everything would be easy.”'

      Delete
    3. I blogged in April about what senior Russians were saying here. https://pvewood.blogspot.com/2022/04/russians-rally-to-flag.html. Based on this article. https://faridaily.substack.com/p/now-were-going-to-fck-them-all-whats?s=r
      The FT tells us more than I knew for sure about how very few people were involved in this decision. It helps answer the question - how could he have been so stupid?

      How could Biden have been so stupid is another question. Why did Trump give Ukraine lethal arms is a third question. He said it was to create American jobs. It was probably also to persuade people that the media/deep state story about his being an agent of the Kremlin was false.

      Delete

  3. Excellent entry. Thanks for posting the FT article. I too imagine a Forever War. I cannot see Putin yielding an inch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the Gibbon quotation. The influence of folly is much underestimated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apart from Lavrov and others being kept in the dark about the actual decision to invade, there’s nothing substantially new in this material, except for conjectures and thoughts relayed by FT based on what “six (?! six?!) longtime Putin confidants” told FT. What if this is also Russian propaganda?:))), which was injected by those anonymous sources into the FT reporting? How come FT TRUST those guys on these issues? Also, FT speaks about << Russian independent media [that] reported that tens of thousands of state employees and students were paid small sums or forced to attend [the rally at Luzhniki Stadium].>> So, according to FT, there is indeed some ‘independent’ media in Russia, which is interesting and should be celebrated. Thus, we would have appreciated a link by FT authors to materials published by such ‘independent media’.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Biden has rejected peace deals. He will gaffe his way into WWIII

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no peace deal with these animals. My nation has known them firsthand throughout history. The ONLY way to deal with them is from a position of force. If anything, it was one of the few good things the Biden admin did.
      "It seems to me that Russia cannot win this war and Ukraine is not going to get back much of the territory Russia now occupies." -> oooh but they will; Russia will be broken in pieces and will pay war reparations. They are through.

      Delete
  7. After the spectacular failure of the Russian march on Kiev and increasing Western material support, the war seems unwinnable for Putin. Unless, of course, he's satisfied with a pyrrhic victory..

    ReplyDelete
  8. No mention whatsoever of the events that led to the military operation: the 2014 coup aided and funded by the US (see Victoria Nuland), 8 years of relentless bombing of the Donbass, etc. As if everything happened on February 24th 2022 for no reason other than Putin being in a bad mood. Utterly ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The information was already there, including about the small circle (basically Putin making decisions on his own), but this is further confirmation.

    Makes sense. Lately Putin had been relatively successful in expanding Russian influence - his Syria campaign worked out, Russian political influence in the West was at an all-time high (and would have guaranteed very little sanctions). He probably bribed half the officials in Ukraine and did not expect resistance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russian subversion in the West was much greater in the Cold War and achieved nothing - it achieved nothing in the last 20 years. Western attempts at subversion have achieved little in or nothing in Russia. There were anti Putin riots but I have no evidence the CIA played a role in them. The revolution in Kiev is another matter and we don't know all the facts, but America should have kept well out of it, as is obvious today.

      Delete
  10. What the FT says is frankly inconsequential. Putin made mistakes in planning the invasion? Possibly. And the point is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the point is to draw attention to important news behind FT paywall. I changed the title of the blog post because of your objection. I think this story is interesting - I trust the unnamed sources are genuine. I think one point is that Putin did intend to take Kiev and instal a new government and he was told there would be popular support for a new regime. I think the Russian elite who think this is a horrible disaster for Russia are right.

      Delete
  11. Obviously failed to learn anything from the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and the pitfalls of groupthink.

    ReplyDelete