The Battle Lines Have Moved So Little, Microscope Needed To See Changes

About that supposed Russian breakthough and Ukrainian collapse at Pokrovsk so breathlessly reported by many western media? Sorry, we're focused on the summit in Beijing...

The reality is that despite a massive Russian build-up presaging a summer offensive, reported as such by media reliant on Kremlin propaganda rather than actual developments, the battle lines have not changed, although the Russians lost tens of thousands more casualties and a bit more of its rapidly dwindling armor inventory. The relentless promotion of Russian chances and denigration of Ukraine's causes informed observers to wonder if the owners of the New York Times, Washington Post and the like have invested in the Russian economy as the next big global play. As if. JL

Phillips O'Brien reports in his substack:

Last week the battlelines hardly changed (which is far more the norm than you think). The Russians made no advances towards Pokrovsk and were actually pushed back near Kupiansk, And yet this is in the height of the summer campaigning season, when the Russian Army we were told was adapting strongly, building up its reserves—and just after the Russians had executed a supposedly devastating breakthrough against Ukrainian forces. Once that infiltration was quickly sealed, now that Russian advances have been severely cut back—we hear crickets. The last three weeks have indicated not massive problems with Ukrainian manpower (which are actually grossly distorted) but more massive problems with how the war is viewed by the press and analytical community. 

Last week the battlelines hardly changed (which is far more the norm than you think). The Russians made no notable advances towards Pokrovsk, were actually pushed back a little near Kupiansk, though they seized some farm fields in a few places. Here is the most recent Deep State map covering a wide swath of the front line from Kupiansk down to Zaporizhzhia.

And here it was last Saturday (August 23).

The differences are so small as to be almost impossible to locate. And yet this is in the height of the summer campaigning season, when the Russian Army we were told was adapting strongly, building up its reserves—and just after the Russians had executed a supposedly devastating breakthrough against Ukrainian forces which indicated the Ukrainians were close to collapse while Putin was on the March.

It was fewer than 3 weeks ago that such stories were widely spread in major outlets such as the Financial Times, Washington Post, and, Daily Telegraph, to name just a few. This avalanche of stories was based on the long-term bugbears being pushed by the analytical community which include such reasons as Ukrainian morale was failing, Ukraine is not drafting enough soldiers from its own population, the Russian military is adapting and getting better, Ukraine has no chance of retaking the lost territory….

And all of it was fed by quotes by western analysts. I found this one piece on the Russian “breakthrough” which combined all the doom by the analytical community as regurgitated by someone who has worked with Pete Hegseth in the Trump Pentagon—Dan Caldwell. On 14 August it was reported that Caldwell had just spoken at an event and went through all the reasons that Ukraine was in peril.

"The Russians currently have the upper hand on the battlefield and, while for good reasons there may be an unwillingness to acknowledge that out loud directly, it also reinforces the fact that there really aren't any good options to fundamentally change that," he added. "From what I saw previously, and from what I'm seeing now in open-source, is that what has been building up for the Ukrainians is fundamentally a manpower issue."

And now, once that infiltration was quickly sealed, now that Russian advances have been severely cut back—we hear crickets. For instance, the Washington Post wrote arguably the worst piece on the “calamity” Ukraine was supposedly facing two weeks ago (even when it was no calamity). Since then, their reporting on the war has simply left that “breakthrough”. Where are the analyses of how the Ukrainians reacted quickly? How the Ukrainians cut the breakthrough into pieces? Or really how the original reporting was completely off-kilter and a small Russian infiltration success was turned into another club to beat Ukraine?

The last three weeks have indicated not massive problems with Ukrainian manpower (which are actually being grossly distorted) but more massive problems with how the war is viewed by the press and analytical community. Sadly, there are no signs that it is going to get better—and it matters, because Ukraine will (and in some ways already is) coming under massive pressure to cede land to Russia. It would be far better to report the land war for what it is—a bloody quagmire for Russia, where the Russian state is expending vast resources and losing mass numbers of soldiers for little or at times no gain. Because that is the truth.