Alexander Rojavin ’20, Law and Public Policy Scholar
Alexander Rojavin is a multilingual intelligence, media, and policy analyst specializing in information warfare. He is currently working on a book on modern Russian cinema as a key battlefield in the Kremlin’s information war. He is also co-chair of the Symposium on Disinformation Studies. In his spare time, he moonlights as a published literary translator (Routledge, Slavica Publishers, forthcoming Academic Studies Press).
What follows is a chronicle of key events and trends on the information battlefield from day 97 through day 113 of the Russian-Ukrainian war for democracy.
As previously, this report will bring readers’ attention to some of the key moments and issues from this period of the war, during which Russian forces have still failed to take Severodonetsk despite an overwhelming numerical advantage, while Ukrainian forces have steadily begun advancing in the south in Zaporizhzhia Oblast’ and Kherson Oblast’, where Ukrainian forces are now 15-20 kilometers away from Kherson itself.
Russian media, meanwhile are committed to peddling whatever lies they must in order to (1) rhetorically prop up the economy, (2) convince readers that the West is hurtling into the abyss, and (3) downplay the significance of Western weapon supplies. All of which is to say that the Kremlin regime understands perfectly well the danger posed to it by Western heavy weaponry and sanctions.
Contours of the West’s Win Condition
In recent days, there has been a series of headlines in U.S. news outlets making it seem like the tides of war are turning against Ukraine. (I will link to none of them to deprive them of what little oxygen I can).
CNN published an article in which it reported on three possible scenarios of how the war would play out: (1) Russia makes incremental gains in east Ukraine; (2) a stalemate lasting months or years; (3) Russia declares “victory” and declares an end to the “special operation.” Glaringly missing from the three scenarios is the one that is most realistic and obvious to anyone who has been following the situation on the ground and who is aware of Ukraine’s political willpower: (4) Ukraine eventually receives enough military aid from the West to liberate all of its territories, including—as Defense Minister Reznikov repeated today—all of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. As mentioned above, Ukraine is already advancing in two of five operational vectors.
In all three scenarios, CNN, of course, only frames the Kremlin as the primary agent in the situation. CNN (and most other Western media) is addicted to making the Putin regime—often literally, sometimes figuratively—the subject of a sentence, and especially a headline.
In another headline, CNN explains “why Ukraine’s longshot bid to join the EU is likely to enrage Putin.” Here we go again: headlines like this are harmful. We do not care what Putin thinks about things. Trying to discern what dictators and authoritarian wannabes think or say about the actions of democratic nations is a waste of time, partly because the dictator’s playbook and mindset are painfully predictable, and partly because their opinions about us should have no bearing on our values-based worldview and strategy. Yes, our geopolitical strategy must take into account what bothers dictators, what causes them disquiet, and we must leverage that effectively to weaken them. But anxiously wringing our hands about what Daddy Putin might think about one thing that we do or another is ludicrously self-defeating.
Even articles arguing for correct outcomes, like David Ignatius’s In Ukraine, Is the Balance Tipping in Moscow’s Favor? Not Yet, peddle harmful headlines. While Ignatius correctly argues that the West must more decisively supply Ukraine with the weapons for which the Zelensky administration has been asking, the op-ed’s headline makes it sound like the balance could realistically tip in Moscow’s favor at some point soon—which is a framework that facts on the ground simply do not support.
Earlier today, NBC reported that President Biden admonished Secretaries Austin and Blinken for their vehement rhetoric supportive of Ukraine’s victory in the war. Unsurprisingly, Russian media gleefully jumped on the instance—and they are right to be gleeful, as such an admonishment represents a marked departure from the United States’ previously set goal of a total defeat for the Putin regime, with President Biden correctly, if accidentally, saying that regime change in Russia is desirable.
This war represents a civilizational clash between past and future, ossification and progress, unity and entropy, democracy and authoritarianism. The West is still being shaken awake after decades of slumber. But the Western democratic world now faces an opportunity to overcome its identity crisis. Authoritarian regimes around the world have chosen their course. Their identities are not novel, not complex, and not effective—or, at least, they shouldn’t be. But when the West struggles to position itself in direct opposition to authoritarianism, with which it cannot accept coexistence, then authoritarianism has a much easier time of things. When the West fails to accept that its objective should be the geopolitical defeat of authoritarianism and economic, political, and cultural independence from authoritarianism, we wind up in the current situation: a war that could have ended rather quickly if only the West provided Ukraine with weapons or implemented crippling sanctions ahead of time, if only the West closed the sky over Ukraine, if only the West supplied heavy artillery at least two months ago, if only, if only, if only.
A democracy is already forced to fight with one hand behind its back—there is no reason why it should be toothless to boot.
Military Aid
With Ramstein-3 having concluded, a new list of equipment has been promised Ukraine. While it is welcome, it is still markedly short of what Ukrainian officials have been asking for.
Media have been reporting that some Western officials are beginning to be concerned that Russian forces are slowly achieving their objectives as Ukraine’s military is pushed to the limit. There are multiple distasteful factors at work here. First among them is such an assessment’s detachment from reality; as stated before, Ukrainian forces have been advancing in two of five operational directions—and this is before most of the heavy Western artillery arrived. In the other three, Russian forces are barely making any headway, resulting in a tactical back-and-forth that has now lasted weeks.
A second factor is a function of the West’s inability to overcome its identity crisis. After failing to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs, instead providing only a fraction, some in the West now worry that Ukraine’s military has only a fraction of the weapons that it actually needs, which prevents Ukraine’s forces from orchestrating a coordinated counter-offensive along the entire front. It is like seeing a fire threaten to engulf the neighbor’s house at the end of the street, giving the neighbor a little water gun, then being shocked that the fire is slowly chewing away at the garage while ignoring the fact that the neighbor is using sandbags to successfully drive the fire back away from the porch. Maybe the one water gun isn’t sufficient.
In their daily chat on June 14th, Oleksiy Arestovych and Mark Feygin vented their frustration with the tempo at which the West is supplying weapons. Arestovych in particular let loose:
«If we had weapons, weapons, weapons and accompanying munitions, munitions, munitions, we’d be able to solve the problem, solve the problem, solve the problem. I’m laughing to tears over the West. Can you imagine if I told you, “Mark, I’m in mortal danger, I need 200 dollars.” And you’d say, “Aleksei, not a problem. Of course I’ll help you. I confirm everything you’re saying, I’ll even grant you candidate status to become a member of the Feygin Creditees Club.” And I’d say, “To fix things, I need $200.” And you’d reply, “Of course! We’ve already organized a third conference. Three conferences! We’re not just sitting on our asses! We’ve already organized a third conference, AND we’ve gotten together three dollars to give to you. And we’ll give you another dollar and a half.” I’d say, “Mark, you see, children are dying. And soldiers, to the tune of 100 people a day.” “WHAT?! Alyosha, what are you saying!? I didn’t know! If I knew, I’d have reacted completely differently—here, have another twenty dollars. I’m sure you’ll make do with this.” “But Mark, what about the full $200 that we need? Our civilization, our culture is being destroyed, etc. etc.” “Yes, you’re right. Here, have another two cents, and be off with you.”
And this tug of war has been dragging on and on. Oh, and then, people come to you and say, “You know what? What if you guys just made up? What if you just made peace?” “What are you talking about? You yourselves said that we need to defend our nation’s very soul!” “Don’t worry about it—just sign Minsk-III, and it’ll all be better. And things will be better for us too—we’ll get gas, oil again.” “And what’ll happen when he attacks again?” “Well, that’ll be later. Remember, Alyosha: we have to give him a chance to save face.”
Mark, I simply cannot imagine a cheaper and worse comedy than this show with the West giving us heavy weaponry».
Arestovych ended the stream by showing a photo of a U.S. base with thousands of units of equipment standing immobile beneath the sky.
The West’s insufficient willpower in providing Ukraine the requisite equipment on time and in appropriate numbers is a consequence of Western society’s identity crisis. The West still has not voiced cogently enough what it represents, as a result of which Ukraine will need to keep dividing its attention between defending itself from the criminal Russian forces and inspiring the West to finally, decades later, dot its i’s and cross its t’s.
The West must wake up. Even if for now Western leaders are still hesitant to look at the situation with a clear gaze, Ukraine’s forces will stop only when its lands and people are free from the occupier’s presence. In several weeks’ time, when Kherson is liberated, the cost and waste of the West’s hesitation and the incompetence of the Russian forces will again be on display.
Concluding Thoughts
Legally speaking, a genocide is occurring in Ukraine. At least 318 children have been slaughtered since February 24th. Countless more have been maimed or traumatized for life. Over 200,000 Ukrainian children have been forcedly deported. On battlefields where Ukrainian forces already have a critical mass of Western weaponry, they are advancing. Kherson will be liberated before summer’s end.
If the West acts faster, Kherson will not be alone.
You must be logged in to post a comment.