Back To The Future.

" The Russians stopped the counteroffensive with old-fashioned multi-layered physical defences that any WW1 warlord would recognise."

It's been a while since I've mulled over Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine as the war slipped into the background noise of the 24-hour news feed. The much-anticipated summer offensive was to drive the Russian invaders away or cut off their supply lines. That's not happened, as the gains made by the Ukrainians are small after two months of relentless fighting. 

Earlier this year, the Western media lauded the provision of tanks and other weapons as decisive. Many journalists uncritically swallowed assessments, citing 'intelligence sources'; was nothing learned from Iraq's' weapons of mass destruction' saga? 

Yet, back in February, a leaked Pentagon report was already warning that the offensive was likely to fall well short of its stated goals. Further, support for the war is waning in the U.S. 

CNN polling shows Republicans want to cut funding, with 71% saying that Congress should not authorise new funding. Republican candidates for the presidency mirror these attitudes.

Finding a way through the 'info war' to comprehend the reality on the battleground is not easy. Thus, I was somewhat surprised to hear the 'School of War' podcast interview with Professor David Betz of the Modern Warfare School at King's College, London. Professor Betz studies the intersection between technology and the practice of war. The 'School Of War', hosted by an ex-US Marine, generally takes a detached, non-aligned view.

Betz asserts that Ukraine's counteroffensive is faltering, while Western media portrayal of events is partisan and misleading. He advises his students to 'switch off' all media reports. The fog and friction of war, first highlighted by Carl von Clausewitz, is every bit as relevant today as it was two centuries ago.

Betz tracks events through his contacts and open-source material, including telegram channels. He then seeks to collate the data. Noting that this war is being filmed and watched by commercial satellites, he gets some clarity from these sources.

He acknowledges that both sides are manipulating the 'information space' to their ends, which I noticed early in the war. This narrative shaping is part of warfare, although, as we've seen, it can come back to bite. 

What Betz has to say about the practice of the war is significant, including that much of Western media coverage is deceptive in its focus. The output speaks of innovations: drones, sensors, electronic counter-measures and precision-guided weapons. All this creates the impression of a modern, dynamic, fast-moving conflict. Head-cam and drone footage reinforce that view. 

On the contrary, Betz concludes the Russians stopped the counteroffensive with old-fashioned multi-layered physical defences that any WW1 warlord would recognise. They've deployed many lines of interlinking trenches, minefields, wire and supporting fire positions. The layout seeks to funnel advancing forces into 'killing zones.' Betz notes, "All the fancy technology isn't making an impression on these fixed positions".

I'm reminded that a ragtag army of Taliban fighters, wearing cheap sports shoes, riding around in pick-up trucks, armed only with AK47s and RPG7s, which saw off the most sophisticated troops the West could field. 

The Russian fortifications constructed over the last year are massive — some 1500 km long. Tunnel boring machines made easy work of digging anti-tank ditches in the soft Ukrainian soil. The depth of the defences varies, but in the most threatened sectors, it measures over 10 km deep. 

Betz assesses the Ukrainians have only engaged the first line of the Russian defence at a significant loss of life and kit. He concludes that if— hypothetically — a NATO army deployed with all its battle tools, it would struggle to defeat these defences. 

It is a well-established military doctrine that an attacking force needs a three-to-one advantage to overcome fixed defence positions. Hence, the outlook looks bleak for the Ukrainians, forced to fight a war of attrition. The predicted outcomes are not optimistic unless they can find a weak point in the line, make a breakthrough, and switch to manoeuvre warfare. 

All this brings me to the conclusion that we have a stalemate. Sanctions have degraded Russia's access to high-tech weapons systems but have not derailed the economy as promised. Besides, the global south isn't buying Washington and NATO rhetoric about the war.

That NATO rejected Zelensky's pleas for immediate admission is also revealing. Such a move would surely risk a wider war with the weight of history at play here. In 1914, nations exploited the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand to unleash war on their opponents in an escalating conflict that brought catastrophe to Europe. 

Hence, having the Ukrainians 'officially' inside the NATO tent could trigger a similar rapid escalation with NATO and the Russians going head to head. Plus, of course, Ukraine's membership would affirm Putin's stance. He'd get a propaganda boost because membership confirms his narrative. 

Where do we go from here? Neither side, for now, has a convincing route to a military victory, still according to American political scientist John Mearsheimer, the West will continue to support a 'frozen war' by cynically providing enough kit and support to keep the Ukrainians in the fight. Yet, direct involvement will remain off the table. In many ways, this is starting to look like a proxy 'forever war' and an evolution of the hostilities that blighted the world order for decades. 

With the Russians dug in, and Zelensky's troops brought to a standstill, this begs the question, will momentum build for negotiation? That is unlikely, because what kind of lasting compromise with Putin is realistically possible is unclear. Whether intentionally or not, Putin has further clouded the outlook this week. 

Assuming he did have Prigozhin killed – and that must be the assumption for now – Putin has again affirmed his ruthless nature. Would you buy a second-hand car from him?

On the other side, the tale of Zelensky's steadfastness is a masterclass in modern leadership, which still awaits complete discovery by a narrator astute enough to comprehend all its elements. 

Undoubtedly, academics and military command courses will pick over his traits for decades, teasing and distilling the components, including his carefully crafted image and mastery of rhetoric. In this, he displays the enduring power of language to motivate — a discussion for another day.