Kagan is the husband of Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative architect of the Ukraine policies of Obama and Biden. She is almost certainly responsible for goading Biden to do everything possible to instigate an attack by Putin. This doesn’t mean Kagan is wrong. It does mean he’s not objective and his analysis should be viewed with some skepticism.
As for the defeat of the Ukrainian army by the Wagner Group, while the captured territory may or may not be strategically important, the Ukrainian defeat is telling. Everyone acknowledges that at Zelensky’s direction, Ukraine expended major resources to emerge victorious in that battle. Not only did Ukraine fail, it succumbed to a group of mercenaries recruited in large part from the dregs of Russian society including Russian prisoners.
If anything this suggests that like the Russian army and the American army (defeated by the Taliban), the Ukrainian combatants have serious problems of their own.
What, he’s not objective because of his wife? Seriously? What, specifically, in his analysis suggests that?
Regarding the Wagner Group, what did it achieve? The capture of a tiny patch of territory, heaped with rubble, at great cost—while meanwhile the larger Russian offensive was going nowhere.
The Russian Army has shot its bolt, and the question now is to hat extent Ukraine can profit from that.
Thomas, there’s nothing particularly revolutionary or even unusual in suggesting that when a partisan makes an argument that they are likely to emphasize points that affirm their point of view while deemphasizing points that call their point of view into question. There’s no doubt that Kagan is a partisan on this issue. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong but it does mean readers should read what he writes with a critical eye.
As for the recent defeat of Ukraine by Wagner, given the resources Ukraine devoted to the effort, they seemed to think that patch of land was more important than you think it is.
Whatever the strategic value of the territory in question, it’s a bad look for Ukraine. It’s natural to wonder if, like the American defeat in Afghanistan and the Russian defeat elsewhere in Ukraine, Wagner’s defeat of Ukraine says anything about the competence of Ukraine’s armed forces.
The forces that defeated Ukraine in this battle were not regular forces; they consisted of mercenaries recruited from prisons and other questionable places. Yet, they emerged victorious.
I read that Zelensky wanted to hold Bakhmut even at great expense, to exhaust Russia before the counteroffensive and to give themselves time to acquire new Western weapons and train to use them. So what Thomas says was a pyrhhic victory for Russia was also a real underrated victory for Ukraine in that they acquired the high ground so to speak by attritional strategy. Now Wagner is exhausted, Prigozhin’s quarreling with Russian leadership demonstrates that, and Russia is on its heels. Ukraine has the momentum and the munitions and it looks like Russia is spread thin and underprepared for what should hopefully be a major assault
I don't find this line of argument very compelling when it's unaccompanied by concrete examples of bias. In this case, we have the record of more than a year of war against which to evaluate Fred Kagan's (and the Institute for the Study of War's) analysis. That record more than bears him out. The performance of the Russian armed forces has been dismal, and there's no reason to think it will improve.
As for Bakhmut, it was, as I said, a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians. They paid a high price for the possession of the ruins of a not particularly important city. V. Putin was probably happy to spend the blood of his Wagner mercenaries to get some kind of victory, and the Ukrainians were happy to oblige. While that battle was going on, the larger Russian offensive in Donbas flopped, as I noted. I would add that in 1942 the German Army did in fact capture the city of Stalingrad—for all the good it did them in the long run. Victories not knitted into the larger strategic picture tend to cause more harm than good. Take a look at the map and you'll see what I mean.
Kagan is the husband of Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative architect of the Ukraine policies of Obama and Biden. She is almost certainly responsible for goading Biden to do everything possible to instigate an attack by Putin. This doesn’t mean Kagan is wrong. It does mean he’s not objective and his analysis should be viewed with some skepticism.
As for the defeat of the Ukrainian army by the Wagner Group, while the captured territory may or may not be strategically important, the Ukrainian defeat is telling. Everyone acknowledges that at Zelensky’s direction, Ukraine expended major resources to emerge victorious in that battle. Not only did Ukraine fail, it succumbed to a group of mercenaries recruited in large part from the dregs of Russian society including Russian prisoners.
If anything this suggests that like the Russian army and the American army (defeated by the Taliban), the Ukrainian combatants have serious problems of their own.
What, he’s not objective because of his wife? Seriously? What, specifically, in his analysis suggests that?
Regarding the Wagner Group, what did it achieve? The capture of a tiny patch of territory, heaped with rubble, at great cost—while meanwhile the larger Russian offensive was going nowhere.
The Russian Army has shot its bolt, and the question now is to hat extent Ukraine can profit from that.
Thomas, there’s nothing particularly revolutionary or even unusual in suggesting that when a partisan makes an argument that they are likely to emphasize points that affirm their point of view while deemphasizing points that call their point of view into question. There’s no doubt that Kagan is a partisan on this issue. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong but it does mean readers should read what he writes with a critical eye.
As for the recent defeat of Ukraine by Wagner, given the resources Ukraine devoted to the effort, they seemed to think that patch of land was more important than you think it is.
Whatever the strategic value of the territory in question, it’s a bad look for Ukraine. It’s natural to wonder if, like the American defeat in Afghanistan and the Russian defeat elsewhere in Ukraine, Wagner’s defeat of Ukraine says anything about the competence of Ukraine’s armed forces.
The forces that defeated Ukraine in this battle were not regular forces; they consisted of mercenaries recruited from prisons and other questionable places. Yet, they emerged victorious.
Why?
I read that Zelensky wanted to hold Bakhmut even at great expense, to exhaust Russia before the counteroffensive and to give themselves time to acquire new Western weapons and train to use them. So what Thomas says was a pyrhhic victory for Russia was also a real underrated victory for Ukraine in that they acquired the high ground so to speak by attritional strategy. Now Wagner is exhausted, Prigozhin’s quarreling with Russian leadership demonstrates that, and Russia is on its heels. Ukraine has the momentum and the munitions and it looks like Russia is spread thin and underprepared for what should hopefully be a major assault
I don't find this line of argument very compelling when it's unaccompanied by concrete examples of bias. In this case, we have the record of more than a year of war against which to evaluate Fred Kagan's (and the Institute for the Study of War's) analysis. That record more than bears him out. The performance of the Russian armed forces has been dismal, and there's no reason to think it will improve.
As for Bakhmut, it was, as I said, a Pyrrhic victory for the Russians. They paid a high price for the possession of the ruins of a not particularly important city. V. Putin was probably happy to spend the blood of his Wagner mercenaries to get some kind of victory, and the Ukrainians were happy to oblige. While that battle was going on, the larger Russian offensive in Donbas flopped, as I noted. I would add that in 1942 the German Army did in fact capture the city of Stalingrad—for all the good it did them in the long run. Victories not knitted into the larger strategic picture tend to cause more harm than good. Take a look at the map and you'll see what I mean.