Korybko To CNN: The Ukrainian Conflict’s Outcome Is Still Far From Decided
One of their leading foreign affairs commentators argued that an inflection point has already supposedly been reached whereby Russia’s strategic defeat is predestined, but upon scrutinizing the claims that they presented in support of that conclusion, it’s clear that this isn’t the case at all.
CNN recently published an article by Brett McGurk, who was the Biden Administration’s National Security Council Coordinator on the Middle East-North Africa, declaring that “Russia is losing in Ukraine. Xi has noticed — Trump should too”. The gist is that shifting on-the-ground dynamics, speculative casualty counts, and Ukrainian deep strikes inside Russia have already predestined Russia’s “strategic defeat”. Xi is thus supposedly biding his time on Taiwan and Trump should put more pressure on Putin.
In the order that McGurk made his case, the on-the-ground dynamics first shifted after Russia’s pullback from Kiev shortly after the special operation began as part of the British- and Polish-sabotaged Istanbul peace process, so there’s nothing new in principle about the battlelines moving back and forth. As for his second point, neither side’s estimates of their own and the other’s casualty counts should be taken at face value as is the case in any conflict, nor should their respective partners’ tallies be either.
And finally, Ukraine’s deep strikes inside Russia are a predictable outcome of this protracted conflict after Ukraine received unprecedented levels of military-technical, logistics, and intelligence support from NATO, thus making the gradual evolution of its respective capabilities unsurprising. Taken together, his claim that “Russia is losing in Ukraine” is premised on giving the arguments that he made the benefit of the doubt, which will only be done by those whose preexisting assumptions were confirmed by his piece.
To be fair, similar counterarguments from the Russian side will only be given the benefit of the doubt by those whose preexisting assumptions are also confirmed by them, but there are three objectively existing points for supporters of both sides to keep in mind. The first is that each side, Russia and NATO (which is fighting Russia by proxy via Ukraine), has kept pace with the other’s military-technical advances in an outcome that has thus far maintained their military-strategic balance.
Second, this in turn raises the chances (absent a breakthrough on either side) that the conflict will end through a series of mutual compromises that falls short of each’s respective maximalist goals, especially NATO’s initial one of forcibly expelling Russia by proxy from all of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory. And lastly, the global processes that were catalyzed by the special operation accelerated multipolarity in ways that are extremely difficult for the US-led West to reverse, thus weakening its antebellum hegemony.
The preceding fact-check and clarification of reality establish the context for assessing whether Trump 2.0 will take him up on his advice to put more pressure on Putin. Judging by the recent scaling down of US forces in Germany and Poland, which follows the National Security and Defense Strategies’ prioritization of the Western Hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific, it’ll likely go unheeded. The US can’t risk a European imbroglio, let alone during its ongoing West Asian one, so McGurk is likely to be disappointed.
All in all, the purpose of his piece was to seed the narrative that Russia is already supposedly defeated so it’s time for the US to “escalate to de-escalate” to finish it off with a strategic victory for Ukraine, while debunking his piece serves to show that the exact outcome of the conflict is far from decided. As was argued, the most likely one is a series of mutual compromises that institutionalizes the new European security architecture that has emerged throughout the conflict, but some surprises might still be in store.
Without flattery, here is a brilliant article. Brilliant in both substance and form. Impressive — one of the ten best articles by Andrew that I have read in all these years as a reader.
Excellent reminder of the specious biases of both parties to the conflict, a necessary reminder that since the spring of 2022, this is no longer a war of Russia against Ukraine but against all of NATO. It puts into perspective the scale of Russia's successful resistance against the Western giant, which was still considered invincible just four years ago by the NAFOs with their compulsive vision of Russian failure. And it also puts into perspective the scale of the challenge for 145 million Russians against more than a billion Westerners, for the PRNR hotheads.
And finally, a salutary reminder of the three objective points that allow for a real assessment of the situation. Without Potemkinism, whether Russian or Western. Bravo. A very fine exercise.
The problem we have is that the USA have pulled off the masterstroke of transforming this conflict — which THEY FABRICATED FROM SCRATCH — into an existential question for both Russia and... for Europe (to the point that those Yankee idiots with their goldfish brains end up believing their own lies as if they were ironclad truth and claim that it was the Europeans who created this mess). But not for the USA. They have succeeded in creating two layers of enemies for Russia. Bravo, artist.
Russia may perhaps lose, but if it gives in now, it loses everything. So perhaps the Russian 'elites' are rubbing their hands, thinking that this will mean the return of plunder for businessmen and lucrative Western honors and positions for academics. And perhaps even the common Russian people think that there is no reason the Yeltsin years and their miseries will return, and that they too can live like peaceful little Western porkers. Perhaps they think that. If so, they are wrong. Seriously wrong. But they are the masters of their own destiny. That is Putin's immense legacy. They can squander it, just as the French squandered de Gaulle's legacy and the English squandered Keynes's (after the Churchill disaster and before the Thatcher disaster). They have a choice. A rare gift before history for a people.
Russia will never give up Ukraine. They are identical people, same DNA, same Othodox religion, same alpha bet, every day words are identical with slight variation here & there.