A sideways look at Ukraine war news

Chris Johns

I write a (short) daily post for Powerscourt, a Strategic Communications company, based in London and Dublin. The idea is to summarise the news flow around the war in Ukraine - not so much the news that makes the front pages but more the stuff that we find interesting/relevant. News that may have not attracted the attention it deserves. Anyone interested in receiving the short email on a daily basis is welcome to contact Powerscourt here: insights@powerscourt-group.com.

If you haven’t listened already, please tune in to our podcasts:

23rd January

European and US officials say the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) - designated by the US as a terrorist organisation - is the most likely suspect behind a recent spate of letter bomb attacks in Spain. The New York Times says that Russia is sending signals that it might, via its proxies, carry out terrorist attacks on targets that are deemed to be assisting Ukraine’s war effort. One of the Spanish recipients of the letter bombs supplies grenade launchers to Ukraine. The NYT suggests that Russian intelligence organisations, particularly the GRU, are directing the terrorist operations. The US State Department says RIM has links to European white supremacy groups and has provided training and support to neo-Nazis across the Continent.

Oxford history professor Timothy Garton Ash is one part of the very loud chorus expressing dismay over Germany’s reluctance to supply Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. According to Ash, Chancellor Scholz’s dithering is ‘weak, contradictory, inconsistent, historically insensitive, morally problematic, disingenuous and counter-productive. Apart from that, it’s absolutely fine’. Two of the most often cited reasons for German hesitancy are, first, fear of escalation and, second, a belief that cheap Russian gas might still be on offer after the war is over.

The speaker of Russia’s lower house of parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, warned over the weekend that a ‘global catastrophe’ would result from any Western decision to supply Ukraine with heavy weapons. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev joined in, saying any defeat of Russia would be met with nuclear weapons. It wasn’t the first time he has made the nuclear threat, but it is the first time any Russian official has acknowledged the possibility of defeat. 

“We have to recognise that the old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over.” That was Boris Johnson speaking 3 months before the start of the war, mocking Tobias Ellwood,  Chair of the Defence Committee. Ellwood had asked the then Prime Minister for more tanks for the British Army. Yesterday, Johnson told an audience in Ukraine that he was proud of the decision to send a few spare Challenger tanks to Ukraine and that other Western governments should get on with it since ‘there is no chance of escalation’. 

24th January

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reckons that the power struggle between Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin and Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved into a new phase with the mercenary boss’s “star beginning to set’. Prigozhin’s mistake was to be to over promise and under deliver, particularly with respect to his undertaking to Putin to take Bakhmut without the help of the Russian army. The latter ultimately had to step in after repeated Wagner failed assaults. 

Putin reportedly decided to give Prigozhin and Army General Surovikin the opportunity to show what could be done with mobilised prisoners and an air campaign to try and the destroy Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. Both campaigns, say the ISW, have failed. The only results being civilian casualties and further depletion of Russia’s stock of precision missiles. Prigozhin’s route to the top was likely via a grab of the job of Defence Minister . ‘These hopes now seem to have been delusional’ says the ISW.

British intelligence this morning reports on yet another sacking within Russia’s military high command. The MoD says that ‘General Colonel Mikhail Teplinsky has likely been dismissed as one of Russia’s key operational commanders in Ukraine.’ It seems that Surovikin’s replacement, General Valery Gerasimov, is seeking to impose himself on the war with this latest shake-up.

American actor and director Sean Penn will premiere his documentary featuring President Zelensky at next month’s Berlin film festival. Al-Jazeera reports that Penn was in Kyiv when the Russian invasion began. 

Zelensky has been busy ‘reshuffling personnel’ within the Ukrainian government. Amidst lots of hints and rumours about an anti-corruption drive, Zelensky spoke about the upcoming changes in his Monday evening address. He also banned officials from travelling abroad for anything other than ‘official business reasons’.

The Kyiv Regional Military Administration reported on Monday that 86% of schools and kindergartens now have bomb shelters.

25th January

The joint decision by the US and Germany to send Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine dominates todays headlines. Analysis of Germany’s dithering has focused on the fact that this will be the first time a German tank has been on a European battlefield since World War 2: Germany, aware of its past, takes this very seriously. Escalation has also been a concern. Germany has no nuclear weapons and, fearing what Russia might do next, wanted to be seen acting jointly rather than going it alone. 

Despite the joint announcement it will be the Leopard rather than the Abrams that sees action first. Indeed, it might be quite a while before the US battle tanks are seen in action. That’s because they will be supplied under something called the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, rather than via the more usual Presidential Drawdown Authority. That means a longer lead time for delivery. Just why the Americans have done this is a bit of a mystery. There is speculation that there is some secret kit contained within an Abrams that the US is keen not to fall into foreign hands. Maybe it’s simply that the joint announcement gave the Germans the cover they wanted and the batt field conditions in Ukraine mean the Leopards are the best choice. The Ukrainians themselves have long hinted about which tank they prefer.

The New York Times today says it could be ‘years’ before the Abrams sees action in Ukraine. It quotes a General Abrams, son of the man who gave the tank its name, who, when asked about Russian tanks facing an Abrams, said ‘they will be shredded’. That said, the diesel powered Leopard is said to have the battlefield edge over the jet fuelled Abrams.

The Ministry of Defence reminds us today that Russia has its own advanced tank, the T14. A ‘small’ number of these have been sent to the frontline but, apparently, was rejected by the army. Speculation has focused on a less than reliable engine and problems with the tank’s thermal imaging system. 

26th January

Almost half a century ago, 35 countries came together and, over two years, negotiated an agreement that became known as the Helsinki Accords. It was an attempt to improve East-West detente during the Cold War. The Accords attracted lots of controversy, not least between then President Ford and his opponent, candidate Reagan, over what was seen as a consolidation of the Soviet Union’s geographic frontier. Nevertheless, the Accords did reduce tensions between Russia and the West.

The human rights aspects of the Accords became, according to some scholars, the ‘manual’ used by Russian dissidents. In 1976, something called The Moscow Helsinki Group was set up by Russian activists to monitor Soviet compliance with the human rights clauses contained in the Accords. Yesterday, a Moscow court granted the Russian government’s application to shut down the Group.

Military analysts suggest a pattern has emerged with respect to the Russian responses to the West’s arming of Ukraine. Warnings are issued, mostly using words like ‘beware escalation’ and ‘we have more more nuclear weapons than you do’. Once the latest ‘escalatory event’ takes place, Russian media then describes it as a nothingburger. That, so far, has been the response to the decision to send latest generation battle tanks to Ukraine. The Institute for the Study of War, stated earlier today that its monitoring of Kremlin information channels and Russian military bloggers has identified several attempts to play down the significance of the tanks.

A Swiss parliamentary committee yesterday recommended a small step away from that country’s long standing principles of neutrality. Switzerland has, for example, refused all requests from other European countries to allow re-export to Ukraine of Swiss-made ammunition. The committee proposed waving that re-export law in cases where at least two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly determines there has been an illegal use of force. CNN reports that the recommendation still requires formal parliamentary ratification.

27th January

The Kremlin is prepared for the war to last for years. Putin is driven by a belief that Russia’s tolerance of high casualty rates will be sufficient to counter any tanks or other weapons that the West sends to Ukraine. Bloomberg today quotes unnamed sources close to Putin who say he is planning a World War 1-style stalemate that will eventually bring Kyiv to the negotiating table. That isn’t inconsistent with the occasional Russian offensive, such as the one widely expected to start next month  around the first anniversary of the war’s start. Extra ground gained would be a bonus, but is not a strategic Russian imperative.

Russia’s overarching objectives are to hold onto their existing Ukrainian territory, accept whatever casualty rates are necessary, conduct an artillery-based war for the next few years and then rebuild their military behind a negotiated frontier that looks pretty much like today’s front line. Between now and then, at least one more mass mobilisation will be necessary. Andrey Kortunov, head of the Kremlin-founded Russia International Affairs Council, is quoted by Bloomberg saying  “Putin is sure either the West or Ukraine will grow tired.” The Russian President also hopes a change of administration in Washington DC in 2024 will elect more “flexibility”.

What could go wrong with Russia’s plans? One possible source of trouble could be money. So far, sanctions have had little effect on Putin’s cash flow. Russian oil trades below world benchmark prices, but it does trade - a lot - with China and India (in particular). New EU sanctions on refined products, including diesel, are due in 10 days time. European and US officials have noticed how Russian oil and refined products still reach the West, via countries like India. Expect increased efforts to try and squeeze Russian third-country oil exports. The problem remains the same: you can’t take Russian oil off the market without affecting the global price of energy.