Retired Swiss Military-Intelligence Officer: 'Is it Possible to Actually Know What Has Been And is Going on in Ukraine?'

The Unz Review ^ | Sat, 02 Apr 2022 | Jacques Baud

[Honest Nigerian]

We can never spell KusterFluck without “U”.
Putin was really smart to give his speech about all of this.
But it was longer than the attention span of many people.
And I doubt Joe Biden could summarize it.

[kabar]

That is why, since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded the implementation of the Minsk Agreements while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of Ukraine. On the other side, the West — led by France — systematically tried to replace Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass before then. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.

In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in Ukraine today.

The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, the chief Ukrainian military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, stated that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from illnesses, 318 from road accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisonings (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of security regulations, 228 from murders and 615 from suicides.

In fact, the Ukrainian army was undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoyed the support of the population. According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help make its armed forces more “attractive.” Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But this is a long-term process and the Ukrainians wanted to move quickly.

So, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. In 2020, they constituted about 40 percent of the Ukrainian forces and numbered about 102,000 men, according to Reuters. They were armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There were more than 19 nationalities.

These militias had been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if one can argue about the term “Nazi,” the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic...[and] are composed of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov Regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division, which is revered in the Ukraine for liberating Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before carrying out the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France.

The characterization of the Ukrainian paramilitaries as “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” is considered Russian propaganda. But that’s not the view of the Times of Israel, or the West Point Academy’s Center for Counterterrorism. In 2014, Newsweek magazine seemed to associate them more with... the Islamic State. Take your pick!

So, the West supported and continued to arm militias that have been guilty of numerous crimes against civilian populations since 2014: rape, torture and massacres...

The integration of these paramilitary forces into the Ukrainian National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim.

[Navy Patriot]

Skimmed entire article.

Impression that it is solid.

Will reread in complete detail, and check what I can.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Reads like it was written by Putin himself.

[Reaganez]

Swiss Military Intelligence?

The Swiss military have not done shit in 200 years.

Putin fluffers would do well to get out of the Russian-FSB echo chamber.

[throwthebumsout]

I read the article. I’m still not convinced.

[kabar]

How do you know that? Do you know the extent of Ukrainian losses? We are only receiving one side of the war, i.e., Ukrainian propaganda amplified by the MSM.

The Russian offensive was carried out in a very "classic" manner. Initially — as the Israelis had done in 1967 — with the destruction on the ground of the air force in the very first hours. Then, we witnessed a simultaneous progression along several axes according to the principle of "flowing water": advance everywhere where resistance was weak and leave the cities (very demanding in terms of troops) for later. In the north, the Chernobyl power plant was occupied immediately to prevent acts of sabotage. The images of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers guarding the plant together are of course not shown.

The idea that Russia is trying to take over Kiev, the capital, to eliminate Zelensky, comes typically from the West. But Vladimir Putin never intended to shoot or topple Zelensky. Instead, Russia seeks to keep him in power by pushing him to negotiate, by surrounding Kiev. The Russians want to obtain the neutrality of Ukraine.

Many Western commentators were surprised that the Russians continued to seek a negotiated solution while conducting military operations. The explanation lies in the Russian strategic outlook since the Soviet era. For the West, war begins when politics ends. However, the Russian approach follows a Clausewitzian inspiration: war is the continuity of politics and one can move fluidly from one to the other, even during combat. This allows one to create pressure on the adversary and push him to negotiate.

From an operational point of view, the Russian offensive was an example of previous military action and planning: in six days, the Russians seized a territory as large as the United Kingdom, with a speed of advance greater than what the Wehrmacht had achieved in 1940.

The bulk of the Ukrainian army was deployed in the south of the country in preparation for a major operation against the Donbass. This is why Russian forces were able to encircle it from the beginning of March in the "cauldron" between Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and Severodonetsk, with a thrust from the East through Kharkov and another from the South from Crimea. Troops from the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) Republics are complementing the Russian forces with a push from the East.

At this stage, Russian forces are slowly tightening the noose, but are no longer under any time pressure or schedule. Their demilitarization goal is all but achieved and the remaining Ukrainian forces no longer have an operational and strategic command structure.

The "slowdown" that our "experts" attribute to poor logistics is only the consequence of having achieved their objectives. Russia does not want to engage in an occupation of the entire Ukrainian territory. In fact, it appears that Russia is trying to limit its advance to the linguistic border of the country.

[kabar]

About the author

Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism, in particular Le Détournement published by SIGEST, Gouverner par les fake news, L'affaire Navalny. His latest book is Poutine, maître du jeu? published by Max Milo.

This article appears through the gracious courtesy of Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement, Paris.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

1) There is no more reason to trust a word this guy says as opposed to anyone else. Just as anyone else could be a paid agent of Soros, the Deep State, Zelensky, or the Boogeyman himself, this guy could be a paid agent of the Russians. Absolutely no way to know.<p

2) Regardless, not a word of what was written changes the inarguable fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. That single fact, standing alone, makes it clear to me which side we should be on.

[CodeJockey]

For later

[Jan_Sobieski]

This article confirms what many of us, who have been on the ground in Ukraine, have been saying from day 1. Read it.

[refermech]

All hail Putin! All hail Plankton!

[kabar]

It is not a matter of convincing you. It is another perspective that attempts to provide some context to how this war came about. It didn't happen overnight. The US helped to overthrow the duly elected Ukrainian government in 2014. Many of the same players in the USG that helped engineer that coup are now in the Biden Administration. including Victoria Nuland, the current Deputy Secretary of State.

Feb 14, 2014--Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Very superficially, I have to ask , why isn’t the Russian invasion/ annexation / whatever of Crimea a larger part of the author’s providing “context?”

Crimea seceded. Russia protected and ensured Crimea’s secession.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Let's try to examine the roots of the Ukrainian conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about "separatists" or "independentists" from Donbass. This is a misnomer. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of "independence" (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of "self-determination" or "autonomy" (самостоятельность). The qualifier "pro-Russian" suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term "Russian speakers" would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.

This is completely false. The OSCE has tracked tens of thousands of people in combat fatigues coming and going from Russia into the Donbas since the "civil war" started, including armored convoys, tanks, heavy artillery, and military resupplies in order to give more ammo to the Russian soldiers who were constantly firing into Ukraine and killing Ukrainian soldiers.

Ukraine never fulfilled Minsk because the Russians were constantly fortifying the Donbass.

These forces have since then terrorized the Donbass, turning it into an open air gulag (as some Ukrainians trapped in the Donbass have described it), while killing and wounding Ukrainian soldiers daily.

I will add that Minsk was forced upon Ukraine by the usual suspects: the Germans and the French, both of whom, but especially the former, have appeased and surrendered to Russia's aggression continually since 2008 when Russia invaded and raped Georgia. The Germans in particular under Merkel have done everything possible to weaken Europe and make it dependent on Russia.

and despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.

The OSCE has FOOTAGE of Russian forces going back and forth from Russia into Ukraine, including tracking these forces to resupply depots. Here is an example:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2018/08/11/osce-drone-films-trucks-entering-donbas-from-russia-at-night/

This is hardly "crude." This individual is outright lying to the reader and misrepresenting the evidence that has been gathered over the past 8 years of the militarization of the Donbas by Russia.

The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side

Thousands of modern Russian equipment, including tanks and heavy artillery, have been documented in Donbass. These were not from "Ukrainian defectors".

If that were true, Ukraine would have steamrolled over the Donbass years ago, slauthering all the Russian orcs and goblins using equipment that was now obsolete in comparison to the new and improved Ukrainian military.

The truth is Ukraine never went into Donbass because it was occupied by Russian forces.

In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass.

The author takes it out of context. The SBU director is speaking of verified Russians. This is very different from the 30,000 people in military uniforms observed in 2015 crossing the border into Ukraine by the OSCE in that same year. Those we can "see" crossing. The 56 are those we have identified and registered as known members of the Russian military, which confirms, in any case, the presence of Russian forces in Donbass.

In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the "Fall 2017" recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.

I did not take a deep dive into this article to confirm all the data the author claims exists therein, except that the 70% quote is a fabrication. The article was published in April 2017, but the author here quotes it as having data from November 2017.

I got tired of reading this article and checking its sources after this point.

[OldCorps]

Very informative article. I urge everyone with an open mind about the war in Ukraine to read this.

The mainstream media is so full of lies. The only exception I can remember is retired Colonel MacGregor commenting on Fox News.

The US foreign policy objective here is clearly to attrit the Russians to the very last dead Ukrainian soldier.

[Prince of Space]

If you read the article you’d have learned that the Russians were asked to come into Ukraine by the representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk areas. They had been begging for Putin to declare them independent states since the referendum they held in 2014. He finally did so on February 21st and they formally asked Russia to come to their aid on February 23rd.

The Russian-speaking population of the Donbass was being destroyed by the incessant shelling from the paramilitary Ukrainian organizations, with the implicit permission of Kiev. The West knew it was happening and even fomented it by training the paramilitary groups carrying it out. If only Ukraine and the West had abided by the Minsk agreements of 2015, all of the bloodshed of the last 8 years could have been avoided. To blame Putin alone for this is unbelievably sophomoric.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

See my post. The writer is a confirmed liar.

[kabar]

Regardless, not a word of what was written changes the inarguable fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. That single fact, standing alone, makes it clear to me which side we should be on.

We invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, to name a few. We overthrew the recognized governments of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. And supported regime change in Syria. We came up with our own justification.

If he decided to intervene, Putin could invoke the international obligation of "Responsibility To Protect" (R2P). But he knew that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention would trigger a storm of sanctions. Therefore, whether Russian intervention were limited to the Donbass or went further to put pressure on the West over the status of the Ukraine, the price to pay would be the same. This is what he explained in his speech on February 21. On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Correction: I missed the second link he included in the paragraph which does contain the 70% quote. I was too hasty after seeing his misrepresentation from the previous paragraph with the other article.