Soldiers captured in Azovstal may be prosecuted for war crimes by the Russians. Russia is no stranger to show trials but likely there are atrocities on both sides, as Clint Eastwood tried to prove with his Iwo Jima films. The largest current problem is a Russian encirclement of 15-17k Ukrainians in the Severodonetsk-Lisichansk urban cluster. The cost of reconstruction is estimated at $98 billion USD. Below the fold, a brief discussion of the larger disinformation battle.
Key Takeaways
- The Ukrainian military command ordered the remaining defenders of Azovstal to surrender, likely conditionally, in hopes of returning them to Ukraine as part of yet-to-be-negotiated prisoner exchanges.
- The announcement of the likely conditional surrender generated outrage in the Russian information space and demands in the Russian Duma for laws prohibiting exchanging the surrendered defenders of Azovstal.
- Russian forces continued to make limited advances in Donbas, primarily focused on setting conditions for the Battle of Severodonetsk.
Immediate items to watch
-
Russian forces will likely complete their withdrawal from the vicinity of Kharkiv City but attempt to hold a line west of Vovchansk to defend their ground lines of communication (GLOCs) from Belgorod to Izyum. It is unclear if they will succeed.
-
The Russians will continue efforts to encircle Severodonetsk and Lysychansk at least from the south, possibly by focusing on cutting off the last highway connecting Severodonetsk-Lysychansk with the rest of Ukraine.
Main effort—Eastern Ukraine (comprised of one subordinate and three supporting efforts);
- Subordinate main effort- Encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the cauldron between Izyum and Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts
- Supporting effort 1—Mariupol;
- Supporting effort 2—Kharkiv City;
- Supporting effort 3—Southern axis.
www.understandingwar.org/...
Supporting Effort #2—Kharkiv City (Russian objective: Withdraw forces to the north and defend ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Izyum)
Ukrainian forces continued to push the remaining Russian forces northeast of Kharkiv City on May 17. Kharkiv Oblast Administration Head Oleg Synegubov reported that Russian forces are attempting to repel Ukrainian counteroffensives in the direction of Vovchansk, a border settlement approximately 90 km northeast of Kharkiv City.[26] Ukrainian forces are continuing to threaten Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Izyum via Vovchansk. Pentagon officials noted that Russia may still hold positions close to Kharkiv City, likely referring to occupied settlements along the Belgorod-Kharkiv highway in the north.[27] Ukrainian forces downed a Russian attack helicopter just east of Kharkiv City on May 16.[28]
Subordinate Main Effort—Southern Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk Oblasts (Russian objective: Encircle Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine and capture the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas)
Russian forces unsuccessfully attempted to improve their tactical positions south of Izyum to resume offensive operations in that sector. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces are replenishing troops and accumulating reserves to renew their drive on Slovyansk.[9] Russian forces likely did not secure the highway east of Dovhenke—a village approximately 30 km south of Izyum; that highway is necessary to continue the advance toward Slovyansk. Russian aviation attacked Ukrainian positions near Izyum, and Russian ground forces made limited territorial advances in the Lyman district.[10] Ukrainian artillery reportedly destroyed Russian equipment just 15 km north of Izyum on May 17.[11]
Russian forces continued their efforts to secure highways to Lysychansk from the south and Bahmut from the east with insignificant progress. Russian forces advanced a small distance north of Popasna in an effort to reach a major road connection to Severodonetsk.[12] The Luhansk People’s Republic claimed to have seized Novozvanivka just southwest of Popasna on the way to the Bahmut-Lysychansk highway but have likely not entered the settlement judging from reports of Russian shelling in the area, which suggest that Ukrainian defenders are still there.[13] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces conducted an unsuccessful assault on a settlement 6 km southeast of Severodonetsk on May 17.[14]
Russian forces may be pushing hard to win the Battle of Severodonetsk in part to forestall emerging criticism of the Russian military campaign in the domestic information space. Russian State Duma Deputy from the Communist Party Viktor Sobolev expressed surprise over the lack of significant victories in Donbas compared to a number of successful operations in 2014.[15] Sobolev said that Russian forces must finally finish up the “special military operation” in Donbas and at least create an effective cauldron (encirclement) in Severodonetsk. Sobolev also criticized the Russian command for initiating a large-scale offensive operation without destroying Ukrainian strike capabilities. Luhansk Oblast Head Serhiy Haidai claimed that Russian forces are committing most of their combat power to a shallow encirclement to reassure the Russian population of Russian successes in Ukraine.[16] Pro-Russian Telegram channels began celebrating the arrival of a BMPT “Terminator” urban warfare vehicle in Severodonetsk’s vicinity, portraying it as a Russian wonder weapon.[17]
Russian forces also conducted a series of unsuccessful ground assaults in western Donetsk Oblast on May 17. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces unsuccessfully attempted to seize a segment of the N20 highway to Slovyansk east of Avdiivka.[18] Russian forces also reportedly attempted to advance in settlements east of Avdiivka but did not make any territorial gains.[19] Russian forces attempted to break Ukrainian defenses and reach the N15 highway to Zaporizhia without success.[20]
www.understandingwar.org/...
The surrender agreement generated some outrage and confusion on pro-Russian social media, rather than the celebration of the full capitulation of Mariupol that the Kremlin likely expected—possibly undermining Russian information operations. Some Russian Telegram channels ridiculed the Russian Defense Ministry for negotiating with Ukrainian “terrorists” and “Nazis.”[4] Some bloggers criticized the Donetsk People’s Republic for organizing the evacuation proceedings and blamed negotiating authorities for creating conditions for Ukrainian martyrdom.[5] Several Russian bloggers also called for the imprisonment or murder of surrendered Ukrainian servicemen.[6] Russian audiences are likely dissatisfied with the surrender agreement because they expected Russian forces to destroy Ukrainian defenders at Azovstal. The Kremlin has created large amounts of propaganda that portrayed successful Russian assaults on Azovstal without clearly setting conditions for surrender negotiations. Some Russians may find it difficult to reconcile the triumphant messaging with the abrupt negotiations leading to a negotiated surrender.
www.understandingwar.org/...
Recently I have engaged in discourse with folks who follow a line of argument that favors an interpretation that the Maidan revolution was also a CIA-backed coup. I don’t agree with that interpretation because it needs a lot more investigation and scholarship. What remains is a persistent set of claims that NATO started the Ukraine-Russia War by provoking a Russian preemptive invasion, which is specious at best. In terms of US domestic politics, the pro-Russian GOP will make hay against the Biden administration in the mid-term elections as Ukraine aid continues. Below are some pieces that support that position.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict is now in its most dangerous phase since it began in 2014 after the Western-backed overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Statements by Russian leaders and the Russian military build-up along Ukraine’s borders suggest that the danger of a significant escalation in the Donbas is real. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky failed to fulfill his election promise to end the war and resolve the armed conflict in the breakaway eastern region peacefully. Talks between the United States and Russia following Russian government demands of written guarantees to stop NATO expansion and, in particular, reject Ukraine’s membership in the alliance (despite its extreme unlikelihood) are not anticipated to resolve the standoff.
US President Joe Biden, his top officials, Western media, and some military experts cited US intelligence reports and the Russian military build-up near Ukraine’s borders as evidence of Russian plans to invade Ukraine this winter. Journalists including David Sanger of the New York Times suggest the same. However, a full-scale Russian ground invasion and occupation of the entire territory of Ukraine appears to be less likely than a more limited use of military force. This could include Russian recognition of independence of the self-proclaimed separatist republics in the Donbas (the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics), an open deployment of Russian troops and advanced weapons in the separatist-controlled region, a seizure of the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, or missile and air strikes of Ukrainian military targets in the Donbas and other territories.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders have stated that NATO membership of Ukraine or the building of US and NATO military installations along Russia’s borders are uncrossable red lines. Such statements imply threats to use military force.
One way to solve peacefully the escalating conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, and the civil war in the Donbas, is an international agreement involving Ukraine, Russia, the US, and the European Union. Such an agreement could offer Ukraine a path to membership in the EU, provided it fulfills accession criteria—stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights—in exchange for agreeing not to seek NATO membership and to resolve the conflict in the Donbas based on the Minsk Protocol. However, such a scenario would be difficult to achieve due to the unwillingness to compromise and because of refusal by the EU to even acknowledge Ukraine as a potential member.
Various hawks care little about the potentially disastrous consequences of an escalation of armed hostilities for Ukraine and ordinary Ukrainians. They regard Ukraine only as a tool for geopolitical goals—in particular, the containment of Russia—and they are willing to sacrifice many lives in order to expand Western influence in the region. Of course, we should not expect any direct military involvement by US or NATO forces, because such intervention could easily result in a nuclear war.
canadiandimension.com/...
What becomes problematic for such arguments is applying it to the current political situation, making the aid packages and EU support for Ukraine a US-backed effort at “regime change” in Russia and “nation-building” a ‘neo-nazi’ government in Ukraine. Such arguments have been often over-generalized and need much more credible international discussion and investigation even before combat operations end. Peace still needs to be won. YMMV
Even without a proposed $20 billion military aid package the Senate is considering, the United States is already the largest donor of military aid to Ukraine as it defends itself against a Russian invasion.
A February 24, 2014, Washington Post editorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The “moves were democratic,” the Washington Post concluded, and “Kiev is now controlled by pro‐Western parties.”
It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland‐Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro‐Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance.
www.cato.org/…
In recent years, some Americans and Europeans drawn to various brands of far-right nationalism have looked to Ukraine as their field of dreams: a country with a well-established, trained, and equipped far-right militia—the Azov Regiment—that has been actively engaged in the conflict against Russian-backed separatists in Donbas. Most of these ‘foreign fighters’ appear to travel as individuals and at their own expense, according to the author’s review of many cases, but there is a broader relationship between the Ukrainian far-right, and especially its political flagship the National Corps,1 and a variety of far-right groups and individuals in the United States and Europe.
Far-right groups remain strong in Ukraine, with the ability to marshal thousands of supporters for protests and rallies, some of whom carry Nazi and white supremacist insignia. The author witnessed one such rally in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv in October 2019. These groups have bitterly opposed any suggestion of compromise with Russia over Donbas through the Normandy negotiating process and were prominent at another rally witnessed by the author in Kyiv in the fall of 2019 to oppose concessions floated by President Volodymyr Zelensky. However, the mobilization of far-right groups in Ukraine does not extend to political success; in the 2019 parliamentary elections, they received little over two percent of the vote.2
Analysis of social media communications, court documents, travel histories, and other connections shows that a number of prominent individuals among far-right extremist groups in the United States and Europe have actively sought out relationships with representatives of the far-right in Ukraine, specifically the National Corps and its associated militia, the Azov Regiment. In some instances, as this article will show, U.S.-based individuals have spoken or written about how the training available in Ukraine might assist them and others in their paramilitary-style activities at home.
ctc.westpoint.edu/…
In 2014, as unrest in Ukraine provoked one of the biggest confrontations between Russia and the United States since the Cold War, FRONTLINE documented the crisis up-close. (Aired 2014):
The US involvement in the so-called “color revolutions” in former Soviet-allied states is discussed in extensive detail in my 2010 book, Branding Democracy: U.S. Regime Change in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe and in a shorter version published in the UK.
The US found a second chance, starting in 2013, to rid the country of then president Yanukovych and played an active role in a coup against his government. This time around, apart from its other standard tactics, the US supported a much more violent section of the protest movement, involving neofascist organizations such as Svoboda and the Right Sector, which strongly identified with the pro-Nazi nationalist movement in that country during World War II. Vice President Biden’s relationship with Ukraine intensified at that time when he played a key role in the “Maidan” uprising and the coup that overthrew Yanukovych.
This opened up the opportunity for State Department to install their anti-Russia choices for the new president and prime minister, respectively Viktor Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) showed up in the Maidan (square), where they shared the stage with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, to cheer on the protesters. Once the neo-Nazi elements entered the Maidan and began to shoot police and throw gasoline bombs at government buildings, Yanukovych was forced to flee the country.
www.counterpunch.org/...