Yes, it is a subject that we all face and no one (including me) is happy about it. We all face it in one form or another. I saw an event that could play out later this year, somewhere optionally between July and September and I was not happy on how I showed myself. How I responded, no matter how honest I was, at that moment, I saw something I never felt happy about, but no matter how valid the response was, it does not mean that I am happy that I responded in that way. It was not about finding another way to say it, it merely went on about something that does not matter now. It applies to some degree to what this is about, because it made me check news sources and in this I decided on the article (at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-director-bill-burns-china-russia-lethal-aid/). The CBS News article gives us ‘CIA confirms possibility of Chinese lethal aid to Russia’ and when I read it, I saw something different, it was not related to the earlier part, but it changed the way I looked at that news. We are given “In an exclusive interview with CBS News, CIA Director Bill Burns confirmed the possibility that China may send lethal aid to Russia in its war against Ukraine. “We’re confident that the Chinese leadership is considering the provision of lethal equipment,” Burns told “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan on Friday.” We are also given “I think the Chinese are also trying to weigh the consequences of, you know, what the concerns we’ve expressed are, you know, about providing lethal equipment”, this comes from CIA Director William Burn and that is fine. I am not debating that part, but when you consider what is behind it, it is a different stage. You see Russia is close the broke on a few levels and the only way that Russia can pay for this (as China would prefer it) is via massively reduced oil. Oil China needs and Russia cannot sell it to their former largest buyers. Yet behind all this is more. The logistics of the Russian armed forces are a mess. Their soldiers are ineffective, their hardware is failing on many levels and their supply systems are (from my point of view) broken in many ways. Russia has a problem. It needs drones, it needs missiles and it needs hardware that soldiers can use, Russia is falling short on several fronts and it is losing against the 21st largest army in the world. We all have seen Ukrainian achievement reports in several languages on several sources and they seemingly align. Russia could mobilise its armies, but the hardware issues remain and that could push the Russian armed forces in a direction it does not want to go, not in this stage. To give some slight reference. Russia lost more people in this war in one year than the UK and France combined lost in WW2 over the entirety of the war. In one year lost more soldiers than the UK and France lost over the entire world war, they are doing THAT bad. So now they need upgrades in hardware and that is what Russia is seemingly angling for. But I reckon that China is only considering a limited list and the payments are due in oil and upfront. Which would give them millions of barrels in extra oil, oil they need and I reckon they will get it for an apple and an egg.
But when you think this through we could optionally deduce a lot more. You see that oil can then not be used to heat Russian houses, fuel power and fuel mobility. In addition it would be a first direct proof that the Russian Army has no place to go, or at least not operational. If it was merely missiles the issue would be small (except for the Ukraine), I am speculating that it is about a lot more, even if we accept that Russia is sending troops with 40 year old ammunition.
The fact that they cannot do this with a renewed offensive is up on the wall and now we see how deployment and supply lines are on the front issues. If they cannot get supplies they will need to acquire them and China is nearly the only option and that is merely the beginning of the issue. Thee news has shown enough issues with soldiers personal gear and debatable mobile hardware (tanks and other things requiring wheels). This is not the stage of some new tanks, this is about the refurbished T-72 tanks that are almost 50 years old, implying that whatever anti tank comes their way will slice through their armour like a hot knife through butter and that is if the refurbishments were properly done, which in light of several issues is now a matter for debate. If Russia stages this war with its regular armies (if they can find them) Those armies will be ill equipped and ill prepared. A lesson France learned in 1812 the hard way and now Russia gets to learn that very same lesson. But is it all true? I am speculating, but I believe that I am in a stage of presumption because I do know how in parts this field is set. And the lesson is not over, not for the Russians and not for me either. Because there are many debates on what was real, I need to wonder how reliable the information I have is. I believe that I made enough sidesteps to alternate sources of information so that I believe that I am on the right track, but that too is not properly vetted information, so there could be gaps. Yet overall the news is still valid. If Russia needs China it means that they were never ready for any real combat and they were never prepared with the hardware they had, or they wouldn’t need China’s hardware. It could be a Russian ploy, but I do not think so, if that was the case the CIA would have come with a very different presentation, of that I am very certain.
One response to “On the subject of failure”
Pingback: Words of a feather | Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be