Since the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk, the Russian army has advanced at frightening speeds in the Donbass region, especially on the Donetsk front. An assault on a vital city; the strategic stronghold of Pokrovsk, is imminent. This signals a catastrophe for Ukraine on the war’s main front. Western media coverage of Ukraine’s Kursk gamble has focused on the morale boost it provided to a fighting force that has been on the brink of collapse at various points throughout 2024. It required a truly remarkable level of spin to portray these developments as anything other than detrimental to Ukraine’s defense. Little attention has been paid to the fact that this was always going to be a short-lived PR boost, not a substantive change in the outcome of the conflict. Before discussing the implications of Russian forces taking Pokrovsk, which could be a coup de grâce for Ukrainian defenses in Donetsk, it is important to revisit the discouraging lack of transparency that overwhelms the mainstream discourse of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It is also essential to interrogate the depiction of front line developments in both Russian and Western media.
Since the war began, the disparity in manpower and artillery between Russia and Ukraine meant that there was little chance, if any, that Ukraine could withstand a Russian invasion, nevermind emerge from the conflict victorious. Western policymakers, especially the U.S. foreign policy establishment, viewed Russia as a weak power, one that could be defeated with adequate Western military support. However, the West was never going to send NATO troops to defend Ukraine. Furthermore, rather than negotiating a peace settlement that entails Ukraine’s neutrality, NATO members have encouraged Ukraine to simply fight a war they can’t win. The result is the death of untold thousands of Ukrainians and what will likely be a dysfunctional rump state in the aftermath of the conflict. Critics of the war and NATO enlargement had envisaged this reality, which is why they supported a neutral Ukraine that would have retained nearly all of its territorial integrity. Soon after the war broke out, peace negotiations in April 2022 even involved Russia opening a dialogue to diplomatically address the dispute over Crimea in return for Ukraine’s neutrality. Fast forward to today; the idea that in September 2024, Crimea would even be mentioned in peace negotiations seems inconceivable. This has been the trajectory of the conflict even prior to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. The more that the US and NATO flout Russia’s security concerns regarding NATO enlargement, the more Ukraine suffers, and the less of it there is.
Those who voiced this specific and nuanced criticism regarding NATO enlargement include some of the wisest minds in the history of US foreign policy, whether it be the venerated American diplomat George Kennan or renowned international relations scholars like Professor John Mearsheimer Yet, the latter of which has been alluded to as a “Putin apologist” in mainstream Western print like the Financial Times and the Atlantic. This has become an often used slur against anti-war voices who advocate for conciliatory negotiations grounded in realist concerns for security interests. Of course, this isn’t shocking. A key part of fighting a war is information warfare. A dominant discourse must be maintained, and any dissidents must be defamed and delegitimized to achieve that. Most anti-war voices are generally treated with similar disdain, particularly in U.S. media.
Russian media coverage of the war, including their coverage of Ukraine’s Kursk offensive, has been largely based on propaganda and obfuscation as well. Ria Novosti, Tass, and other corporate media outlets in Russia have not done anything new in this regard. They are designed to legitimize Moscow’s policy decisions and Putin’s authority. Unfortunately, Western media coverage has been comparably deceptive at every step of the way. A glaring issue with the coverage from both sides is that citing either Ukrainian or Russian sources for casualty numbers or artillery losses doesn't work, because gains are massively exaggerated and losses are minimized. This is the case whether coming from their respective defense ministries or from partisan military bloggers. It’s only through synthesizing reports that some degree of truth will be revealed, and this level of methodological rigor is confined to the alternative media space. Defense Politics Asia, WIlly OAM, and other independent analysts track developments by superimposing Ukrainian mapping of front line changes onto that of Russian mapping. This technique, along with other accurate geolocation and OSINT (open-source intelligence) techniques, are the only way to obtain a general idea of territorial changes in such a muddled information space. The fact that this information is only available on Youtube, Telegram, and other alternative mediums is an indictment of traditional media publications in the West, and it highlights their compulsive commitment to serving the policy orthodoxies of Washington and Brussels, just as their Russian counterparts do for Moscow.
This has done a disservice not only to Western citizens, but most of all to the Ukrainian people. If the reality of this conflict was made clear to them in February 2022, I’m inclined to think that a negotiated peace would have been achieved earlier. Gradually, polling data is indicating that this inclination is correct. Polls conducted by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology show there is a growing readiness to concede territory if that would end the war – 32% of respondents voiced support in May, up from 26% in February. Following recent Russian advances, one can assume that figure has risen again, especially after the evacuation of Pokrovsk, a city of over 60,000 inhabitants.
While Western publications were running op-eds on how Russian President Vladimir Putin was “rattled” by the surprise invasion of Kursk; in the real world, Russian forces accelerated their offensive on the Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk, a vital operational stronghold. Pokrovsk is located on a crucial international highway running east-west that connects Donetsk with the nearby x region, in addition to other regional highways running north-south. Taking control of these roads will allow Russia to seal off and connect their forces across various sectors of the front line. The city is also home to a key railway station which splinters off into multiple directions, making it a vital logistical hub for the Ukrainian military. Since the August 4 invasion of Kursk, Russian forces have captured villages and towns in this area at a rate that would have taken weeks, if not months, during previous stages of the war. When Russia took the Ukrainian town of Novohrodivka last week, Ukrainian MP Marina Bezhula said on Facebook – “The trenches in front of Novohrodivka were empty. There was practically no Ukrainian army in the once 20,000-strong city”. The lack of defenses has been a common theme in the Donbass since Ukraine’s Kursk invasion, as an already depleted and demoralized eastern infantry was suddenly stripped of a significant amount of its manpower and resources.
In a war of attrition such as this, the rapid front line changes were only possible due to Ukraine’s transfer of thousands of troops, including many of its elite airborne forces and mechanized brigades, from Donetsk and Kharkiv, the epicentres of the war. This has led to a virtual collapse of the already dire defensive situation on the eastern front. High-profile Ukrainian military journalist Yuriy Butusov said regarding the Pokrovsk sector, “the situation is already catastrophic. Despite Zelensky’s promise, no decent fortifications were built there. Now there is a complete loss of control on the operational and tactical levels.”
Reports from Ukrainian soldiers in Donetsk demonstrate the consequences of shifting already limited resources to the Kursk offensive, as they’ve essentially been left for dead. This reality is what publications like the New York Times had deemed an early success? Somehow, it is even worse than it appears. A Washington Post exclusive from August 18 revealed that secret ceasefire negotiations were taking place between Russia and Ukraine in Qatar prior to Ukraine’s surprise Kursk offensive. The partial ceasefire agreement would have established a moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. The significance of this cannot be overstated.
Russian shelling has systematically targeted Ukraine’s electrical substations for years, with at least half of Ukraine's power generation taken out so far. Power outages and rolling blackouts continue to impact military operations and civilian populations. Ukraine has targeted Russian oil refineries with great success, having already impacted over 30 Russian refineries according to reports in June. They have also been successful, though to a lesser degree, in damaging power substations in Russia, most recently in Kursk. However, the most troubling aspect of these failed ceasefire negotiations relates to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), the largest nuclear power plant in Europe which is currently situated in Russian-occupied Ukraine. Last month, Ukraine and Russia traded blame over a large fire that broke out at the plant. Several days later, a Ukrainian drone struck a road next to the facility, prompting an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). The impact was roughly 100 meters from the Dnipro power line — the sole 750-kilovolt line supplying power to the plant. IAEA Director General, Rafael Grossi, is visiting the plant this week as part of the organization's efforts to “help prevent a nuclear accident”.
If the Washington Post reporting is true, then once Ukraine invaded Russia, the negotiations were scrapped. Had the ceasefire talks been successful, a Ukrainian power grid that has required controlled blackouts and power cuts for years now would have received a much needed respite from Russian shelling. Additionally, the Kursk gamble might have been avoided, meaning Pokrovsk would not be approaching the end of its tenure as a Ukrainian city. Whether the Kursk invasion was a rogue strategy from the Ukrainian leadership or a decision encouraged by the West, it was another suicidal judgement that derailed ceasefire talks, which once again, only hurts Ukrainians. Following recent developments, it’s possible no satisfactory agreement can be reached for both sides. Perhaps the fall of Pokrovsk will be the long awaited wakeup call for Washington and Brussels to accept Russia’s stance on Ukrainian neutrality. However, this is wishful thinking. Only one thing remains clear, Ukraine in NATO is Russia’s gravest security concern, and until Western policymakers appease this position, Ukraine will continue to wither into a shell of its former self.
Image: Flickr/President of Ukraine
No image changes made.
Comments