The last two issues of the Wall Street Journal have refused to headline news from the Ukrainian counteroffensive, contributing to a near media blackout. On the front page of neither the June 20th nor the June 21st editions of the newspaper did a story on Ukraine’s counteroffensive run.
This is in stark contrast, however, with previous reporting, especially on the seizure of the inconsequential village of Blahodatne, about which the WSJ published daily celebrations. These celebrations, it would seem, were short lived, if not for Ukrainians, then most certainly for the editorial board of the newspaper.
The silence comes amid reports in the major Middle Eastern dailies published in Hebrew and Arabic about a potential halt to the counteroffensive. The popular, Maariv, for instance, published an article, detailing how both British intelligence briefings, as well as reports from the Institute for the Study of War, have begun to promote the view that Ukraine has internally acknowledged it cannot serve successfully as NATO’s proxy force against Russia for the expansion of it’s alliance.
In an article entitled, “הערכה ״מתקפת הנגד״ האוקראינית עלולה להיעצר,” Maariv published on June 19th, 2023, the author explains how “British intelligence assessed that the Russian military has transferred large forces to the area of Zaporizhzhia because of the Ukraine counteroffensive.” Nonetheless, “Kyiv appears to be ready,” the author states, “to halt the counteroffensive.”
“It is possible that Kyiv may halt the counteroffensive temporarily,” the author states, paraphrasing the Institute for the Study of War’s assessment, “so as to rethink tactics and its future actions on the battlefield.”
In the article, “هل اوقفت هجومها المضاد؟,” AlArabiya published on 6/19/23, the authors raise a rhetorical question about why Ukraine’s inability to achieve its strategic goals. It suggests that perhaps the Ukrainians prepared the lull in advance. It would correlate with Ukraine’s decision to release a video with Ukrainians holding a finger before their lips.
If so, the attempt to revert to a degree of psychology, however, is extremely ill founded. It is unlikely to lead to a reversal of Kyiv’s fortunes. These psychological operations, about which the Financial Times recently published a story, are unlikely to overcome Russia’s defenses.
“The idea is to create a lot of dilemmas for the Russian command structure,” said Mike Martin, a former British army officer and author of How to Fight a War. “Problems—such as a breakthrough of the front line—focus attention,” the officer said. “Dilemmas, by contrast, paralyze action.”
It is unclear however, how Russians, who have emerged from the battle of Bakhmut after more than two thirds of a year, with fortifications military analysts have described as being among the most elaborate since World War II, might suffer defeat by way of psychology. The Ukrainians, who may create ‘problems’ or ‘dilemmas,’ would still need to confront Russian armed forces at a point along the more than 1,000 mile long front lines. The confrontations thus far have secured nothing more than the capture of nameless villages such as Blahodatne.
The attempt to revert to ‘psychologism’ rather than sound military doctrine is reflection of a much wider trend within the Ukrainian counteroffensive. It is delusion.
It is unrealistic to pretend that after Zelensky sent Ukrainians troops to their death in the pocket resistance at Bakhmut that NATO’s nine brigades are all of a sudden capable of a breakthrough Ukrainians were never able to achieve in the city.
The degree to which the military planners for Ukraine’s counteroffensive are detached from reality is measurable, to a certain extent, by the degree from which major members of the American military establishment have jettisoned ordinary military standards for the ‘great Ukrainian victory.” General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, for instance, is quoted as declaring how “with the efforts of many countries worldwide, over 6,000 Ukrainians are being trained right now in 40 different places under 65 training programs in 33 countries of the world on three continents” for the ‘great Ukrainian victory.” How training in 40 different places under 65 training programs in 33 countries on three continents prepares these 6,000 Ukrainians for the ‘great Ukrainian victory,” however, is likely even beyond Milley himself. Not a single aspect of Milley’s proclamation on Ukrainian readiness, however, accords with laws in the United States on training combat troops for war.
It is unlikely, as Maariv or AlArabiya are reporting, that Ukraine, is planning on stopping the counteroffensive. These reports, which are based on British intelligence briefings, as well as reports from the Institute for the Study of War, both of which fulfill an important role in the propaganda effort in bolstering support for Zelensky, are an attempt to account for the staggering speed with which the Ukrainian counteroffensive has recently ground to a halt.
Volodymyr Zelensky, whose continued existence is completely reliant upon his conscious decision to fulfill NATO’s plans “Towards a New World Order” on the backs of the last Ukrainians, continues to defend the Ukrainian counteroffensive, indicating its continuation.
Saying that it would take time for Ukraine to achieve results in its counteroffensive, Zelensky is quoted as saying, “Some people believe this is a Hollywood move and expect results now.”
“It’s not,” he said. “What’s at stake is people’s lives.” At the end of the day, Zelensky’s right. It is not his life but “people’s lives.” Acting as a mass murderer, Zelensky’s remarks about “people’s lives,” especially those of Ukrainians, is nothing short of hyperbole.
It is suspicious that Zelensky remains alive. Apart from Zaluzhny and Budanov, Zelensky is the one of the remaining members of the Ukrainian government whose life Russia’s attacks of Ukraine’s military decision making centers has not shortened. The explanations for both Zaluzhny’s and Budanov’s allegedly targeted assassinations do not appear to be verifiable within an extensive examination of Russian sources.
Although Russian news media reported extensively on Zaluzhny’s disappearance, no proof has yet emerged of his death. After a short lived campaign declaring Zaluzhny’s inability to recover from life threatening injuries, at least one Russian news media outlet reported a Russian warrant for his arrest. It is beguiling to read the prior reports against the latter. The reports on Budanov’s assassination, for instance, cannot be correlated directly to information on Russian attack.
This is so even though existing information corroborates the death of more than 22 members of NATO, 8 members of the German foreign intelligence service BND, 4 representatives of the Pentagon, and two French officers.
These reports come from an article, access to which appeared to have been subject to a redirect, entitled, “МК рассказал о количестве погибших офицеров НАТО в результате ударов по обьектам ВСУ,” the aggregator infosmi.net published on June 2nd, 2023. Although the report does not mention Budanov, Budanov could have been one of those targeted during the attack.
The attack resulting in the death of these individuals allegedly occurred at night during June 1st and June 2nd, 2023. At the end of the article the authors note how these deaths “are a tragic reminder of the seriousness of this conflict and its international consequences.”