Let the Proxy War blame-shifting begin: It’s NATO’s fault! From this week’s Newsweek:
The article begins by recycling the new narrative, which is that the much-hyped Glorious Spring CounterOffensive™ never really had a chance anyway. But Newsweek added a new twist — it’s not Ukraine’s fault, it was NATO:
Don’t bother answering that. Newsweek must pretend that Ukraine is running the war, which makes its war reporting incomprehensible.
Newsweek reported that in the first two weeks of Ukraine's counteroffensive, up to one fifth of its battlefield equipment was damaged or destroyed. But western officials are carefully dancing around directly criticizing the war, preferring oblique euphemisms to accuracy. One American official told CNN on June 23rd that the offensive was "not meeting expectations" on any of the three fronts.
“Not meeting expectations” is what you tell the new employee who isn’t working fast enough. The term seems a little mild to describe dead and dying Ukrainians making useless charges against entrenched, battle-hardened Russians.
That’s where blaming NATO shifts into gear. "The timing of the summer action was driven by arbitrary NATO timelines, not Ukrainian," military analyst Allan Orr told Newsweek. Orr bitterly complained about everything: that NATO hasn’t given Ukraine enough weaponry, and the paltry weaponry it has given Ukraine isn’t advanced enough.
You just can’t please some warmongers.
This type of thinking suffers from at least two unstated, incorrect assumptions: first, that NATO has some kind of duty to provide weapons for Ukraine’s war. Ukraine isn’t a NATO member. Second is the faulty assumption Ukraine can’t say “no” to weapons that are too old, underpowered, or ineffective. NATO doesn’t have to give weapons, and Ukraine doesn’t have to take the weapons if it doesn’t like them.
Another war analyst quoted for the story got closer to the truth when he admitted to Newsweek that, "I think we pushed too much on the technological side of strategy hoping that just by giving Ukraine advanced Western weaponry, that would be sufficient for them to overcome Russian forces which have lesser equipment.”
That’s probably right. U.S. generals (and their corporate media lapdogs) are head over heels in love with technology. Our entire war strategy is built on having better, more advanced weapons and defenses than our enemies. Call it the “new and improved” battle strategy. But that strategy has never been successfully proven. Apart from deposing Saddam Hussein, we haven’t clearly won much lately. Just look at Afghanistan.
So … what happens if the core, untested assumption is wrong that the higher-tech army automatically wins any conflict? Then what?
The article begins by recycling the new narrative, which is that the much-hyped Glorious Spring CounterOffensive™ never really had a chance anyway. But Newsweek added a new twist — it’s not Ukraine’s fault, it was NATO:
Reading that paragraph, you could be forgiving for thinking it was NATO’s war, and Ukraine is just providing a few troops to help out. After all, why would NATO set war deadlines instead of Ukrainian generals? And why should NATO prepare Ukrainian forces to “carry out” the Ukrainian counterattack? I mean, if it’s Ukraine’s battle plan, shouldn’t Ukraine prepare its own troops?While there are numerous reasons for this relative lack of success, including the strength of Russian defenses, some experts are pointing towards a less obvious influence: NATO. The alliance pushed an arbitrary deadline for the counterattack, they say, and then failed to fully prepare Ukrainian forces to carry it out.
Don’t bother answering that. Newsweek must pretend that Ukraine is running the war, which makes its war reporting incomprehensible.
Newsweek reported that in the first two weeks of Ukraine's counteroffensive, up to one fifth of its battlefield equipment was damaged or destroyed. But western officials are carefully dancing around directly criticizing the war, preferring oblique euphemisms to accuracy. One American official told CNN on June 23rd that the offensive was "not meeting expectations" on any of the three fronts.
“Not meeting expectations” is what you tell the new employee who isn’t working fast enough. The term seems a little mild to describe dead and dying Ukrainians making useless charges against entrenched, battle-hardened Russians.
That’s where blaming NATO shifts into gear. "The timing of the summer action was driven by arbitrary NATO timelines, not Ukrainian," military analyst Allan Orr told Newsweek. Orr bitterly complained about everything: that NATO hasn’t given Ukraine enough weaponry, and the paltry weaponry it has given Ukraine isn’t advanced enough.
You just can’t please some warmongers.
This type of thinking suffers from at least two unstated, incorrect assumptions: first, that NATO has some kind of duty to provide weapons for Ukraine’s war. Ukraine isn’t a NATO member. Second is the faulty assumption Ukraine can’t say “no” to weapons that are too old, underpowered, or ineffective. NATO doesn’t have to give weapons, and Ukraine doesn’t have to take the weapons if it doesn’t like them.
Another war analyst quoted for the story got closer to the truth when he admitted to Newsweek that, "I think we pushed too much on the technological side of strategy hoping that just by giving Ukraine advanced Western weaponry, that would be sufficient for them to overcome Russian forces which have lesser equipment.”
That’s probably right. U.S. generals (and their corporate media lapdogs) are head over heels in love with technology. Our entire war strategy is built on having better, more advanced weapons and defenses than our enemies. Call it the “new and improved” battle strategy. But that strategy has never been successfully proven. Apart from deposing Saddam Hussein, we haven’t clearly won much lately. Just look at Afghanistan.
So … what happens if the core, untested assumption is wrong that the higher-tech army automatically wins any conflict? Then what?
☕️ MANMADE ☙ Saturday, July 29, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Corporate media prefers certain types of manmade disaster over others; Greek wildfire arsonists; NATO blamed for Ukraine's failing war; secret Chinese bioweapons lab pops up in California; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com