Tag: Chemicals

  • Europe’s disunity over China deepens

    Europe’s disunity over China deepens

    [ad_1]

    BRUSSELS — Just when you thought Europe’s China policy could not be more disunited, the two most powerful countries of the European Union are now also at odds over whether to revive a moribund investment agreement with the authoritarian superpower.

    For France, resuscitating the so-called EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is “less urgent” and “just not practicable,” according to French President Emmanuel Macron.

    Meanwhile, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is in favor of “reactivating” the agreement, which stalled soon after it was announced in late 2020 after Beijing imposed sanctions on several members of the European Parliament for criticizing human rights violations. 

    Speaking to POLITICO aboard his presidential plane during a visit to China earlier this month, Macron said he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping discussed the CAI, “but just a little bit.”

    “I was very blunt with President Xi, I was very honest, as far as this is a European process — all the institutions need to be involved, and there is no chance to see any progress on this agreement as long as we have members of the European Parliament sanctioned by China,” Macron told POLITICO in English.

    Beijing has proved skilled at preventing the EU from developing a unified China policy, using threats ranging from potential bans on French and Spanish wine to warnings that China will buy American Boeing instead of French Airbus planes.

    Disagreement over the CAI is only one further example of divergence over China policy in Europe, where Beijing has expertly courted various countries and played them against each other in games of divide-and-rule over the past decade.

    Scholz seeks CAI thaw

    Following seven years of tortuous negotiations, the CAI was rushed through by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the end of Germany’s six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the EU in late 2020. 

    Merkel sought to seal the deal and ingratiate herself with Beijing before Washington could apply pressure to block it, causing tension with the incoming administration of U.S. President Joe Biden.

    Germany has long been the most vocal cheerleader for the CAI due to its scale of manufacturing investments in China, particularly in the car-making and chemicals sectors. 

    The CAI would have made it marginally easier for European companies to invest in China and protect their intellectual property there. But critics decried weak worker protections and questioned to what degree it could be enforced. 

    GettyImages 1250820075
    Xi Jinping during Macron’s visit to Beijing | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

    Soon after the agreement was announced, Beijing imposed sanctions on several European parliamentarians in retaliation for their criticism of human rights abuses in the restive region of Xinjiang. 

    The deal, which requires ratification by the European parliament, went into political deep freeze.

    Scholz, who at times seems to mimic the more popular Merkel, would like to take CAI “out of the freezer” — but has cautioned that “this must be done with care” to avoid political pitfalls, according to a person he briefed directly but who was not authorized to comment publicly.

    “It is surprising Scholz still thinks this is a good idea, despite the vastly changed context from a couple of years ago,” said one senior EU official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to freely discuss sensitive diplomatic issues.

    EU branches split

    Not only are EU countries divided on how to approach CAI — there’s also a rift among institutions in Brussels.

    With its members sanctioned, the European Parliament is certain to reject any fresh attempt to ratify the CAI.

    But like Scholz, European Council President Charles Michel also hopes to resuscitate the deal. He has discussed this with Chinese communist leaders, including during his solo visit to Beijing late last year, according to a senior EU official familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly.

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, however, has stymied Michel’s attempts to place the agreement back on the agenda in Brussels. Von der Leyen is far more skeptical of engaging with China, citing increasing aggression abroad and repression at home.

    Von der Leyen accompanied Macron on part of his China trip earlier this month, but said of her brief meeting with Xi Jinping and other Chinese officials that the topic of CAI “did not come up.” She has publicly argued that the deal needs to be “reassessed” in light of deteriorating relations between Beijing and the West.

    Meanwhile, Chinese officials have made overtures to Michel and other sympathetic European leaders, suggesting China could unilaterally lift its sanctions on members of the European Parliament — but only with a “guarantee” the CAI would eventually be ratified. 

    A spokesperson for Michel said an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers will discuss EU-China relations on May 12. “Following that discussion we will then assess when the topic of China is again put on the table of the European Council,” he said.

    During the same interview with POLITICO, Macron caused consternation in Western capitals when he said Europe should not follow America, but instead avoid confronting China over its stated goal of seizing the democratic island of Taiwan by force. 

    Manfred Weber, head of the center-right European People’s Party, the largest party in the European Parliament, described the French president’s comments as “a disaster.” 

    In an an interview with Italian media, he said that the remarks had “weakened the EU” and “made clear the great rift within the European Union in defining a common strategic plan against Beijing.”



    [ad_2]
    #Europes #disunity #China #deepens
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • Germany, Japan pledge to boost cooperation on economic security

    Germany, Japan pledge to boost cooperation on economic security

    [ad_1]

    japan germany 77803

    Germany and Japan agreed on Saturday to strengthen cooperation on economic security in the aftermath of tensions over global supply chains and the economic impact of the war in Ukraine.

    In the first high-ministerial government consultations held between the two countries, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reached out to Tokyo to seek to reduce Germany’s dependence on China for imports of raw materials.

    “The current challenges of our time make it clear: It is important to expand cooperation with close partners and acquire new partners. We want to reduce dependencies and increase the resilience of our economies.” the German chancellor said in a tweet.

    Scholz and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said they believe the agreement will allow both countries to diversify value chains in order to be able to reduce economic risks.

    In a joint statement, the two countries said they will work on establishing “a legal framework for bilateral defense and security cooperation activities,” including ways to protect critical infrastructures, trade routes and to secure future supply of sustainable energy.

    Germany’s decision to prioritize consultations with Japan came after the Asian country put forward an economic security bill last year aimed at securing the uptake of technology and bolstering critical supply chains. 

    Japan is Germany’s second-largest trading partner in Asia after China, with a bilateral trade volume of €45.7 billion mainly based on the import and export of machinery, vehicles, electronics and chemical products.

    The two leaders also exchanged views on the situation in Ukraine, cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region and the G7 meeting in Hiroshima scheduled for May.



    [ad_2]
    #Germany #Japan #pledge #boost #cooperation #economic #security
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • Biden EPA launches landmark push to curb ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water

    Biden EPA launches landmark push to curb ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water

    [ad_1]

    20230223 epa francis 1

    But, the agency acknowledges that the $772 million annual cost would, at least initially, be borne by American households through higher water charges.

    “It’s time,” Radhika Fox, EPA’s top water official, said in an interview. “The American people want this. They want their drinking water to be safe.”

    The regulatory proposal unveiled by EPA Tuesday would require utilities to cleanse their drinking water supplies of any detectable levels of the two most notorious chemicals in the class, known as PFOS and PFOA, which were used for decades in water repellent Scotchguard and Teflon, as well as firefighting foam, before being phased out of production in 2002 and 2015, respectively.

    EPA’s new proposal also includes a surprise provision aimed at limiting the chemicals that the industry shifted to using after the PFOA and PFOS phase-out, which chemical companies argued were safer, but that federal scientists have concluded pose severe dangers of their own.

    EPA had previously only singled out PFOA and PFOS as warranting federal regulation. But in the three years since the Trump administration first made that determination, evidence has mounted of those other chemicals’ prevalence and harms, and several states have enacted their own limits.

    Because of structural differences in their chemistry, ridding water supplies of these newer substances can require different treatment approaches. Drinking water experts feared that if EPA didn’t address them under this proposal, water utilities could invest in upgrades that failed to deal with the whole PFAS problem. But the administration’s choice to regulate the chemicals in an accelerated and novel fashion could risk putting the regulation on legally shaky ground.

    The proposed regulation would require communities to monitor water supplies for four of these chemicals – known as GenX, PFBS, PFHxS and PFNA – and then plug those results into a “hazard index” calculation. That calculation is aimed at dealing with the fact that different types of PFAS are often present in water at the same time, and scientists have found that those mixtures can be even more dangerous than just the sum of their parts.

    Using that hazard index, utilities would see whether dangerous combined levels of the chemicals are present, which would require them to treat their water to reduce levels of those chemicals or switch to alternate sources.

    Environmental groups and public health advocates heralded the proposal as a major step towards dealing with the sprawling contamination problem Tuesday. And the move was also backed by a top Republican on Capitol Hill whose state has been burdened by PFAS pollution.

    “After years of urging three consecutive administrations of different parties to do so, I’m pleased a safe drinking water standard has finally been issued for PFOA and PFOS,” West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said in a statement.

    Chemical manufacturers, whose past and current products are targeted by the proposal, have come out in opposition. The industry group American Chemistry Council said in a statement it has “serious concerns with the underlying science” used to develop the proposal.

    None of the proposal’s requirements would come cheaply to drinking water utilities or their customers, and groups representing water managers are already raising concerns. EPA estimates that it would cost $772 million per year to upgrade water treatment plants and cover the ongoing monitoring and treatment costs to comply with the rule. That’s less than the $1.2 billion the agency estimates will be saved by removing the chemicals, primarily in the form of reduced healthcare costs and premature deaths. But it represents real pocketbook pain, particularly for customers already struggling to pay their water bills.

    The drinking water utility serving the city of Wilmington, N.C., where Regan unveiled the proposal Tuesday, spent $43 million on upgrades to its water treatment facilities to filter out PFAS that a chemical manufacturing plant had poured into the Cape Fear River. The plant’s managers estimate it will cost up to $5 million more annually to operate the system, adding an average of $5 per month to customers’ bills.

    In a statement, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies suggested EPA is low-balling its cost calculations, arguing that if just 16 drinking water utilities had to install upgrades similar to Wilmington’s, the cost would exceed the agency’s cost estimate.

    “AMWA is concerned about the overall cost drinking water utilities will incur to comply with this proposed rulemaking,” the group’s CEO, Tom Dobbins, said in a statement.

    In the near term, some new federal funds available through the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law could help offset this cost, including $5 billion for small and disadvantaged communities.

    “We recognize that’s not enough for every single water utility in the country, but it’s a shot in the arm,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said as he announced the proposal.

    Ultimately, the Biden administration is working to hold polluters accountable. EPA last summer proposed designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous under the Superfund law, and the agency is exploring doing the same for other types of PFAS. That would allow EPA and other entities to force those responsible for the pollution to pay to clean it up.

    But even if the regulations are put in place as proposed, that money likely wouldn’t flow until years — or decades — after utilities and their customers have footed the bill for upgrades.

    And whether the drinking water regulation itself will even be finalized is far from guaranteed. The Defense Department, which faces potentially massive cleanup costs for its decades of contamination at more than 700 sites across the country, has stalled and weakened previous EPA efforts on PFAS.

    The new drinking water proposal was stuck in interagency review at the White House for five months, and was only released after pressure from environmental groups, activists and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. That included a publicity blitz by actor Mark Ruffalo — who starred in the 2019 film “Dark Waters” about PFOA — as well as a private pressure campaign on the White House led by Capito and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a friend of President Joe Biden.

    Environmental groups are already defending the new regulation from anticipated attacks.

    “Today’s proposal is a necessary and long overdue step towards addressing the nation’s PFAS crisis, but what comes next is equally important,” Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an attorney with the nonprofit group Earthjustice, said in a statement “EPA must resist efforts to weaken this proposal, move quickly to finalize health-protective limits on these six chemicals, and address the remaining PFAS that continue to poison drinking water supplies and harm communities across the country.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #EPA #launches #landmark #push #curb #chemicals #drinking #water
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • The fire in the warehouse of household chemicals occurred in the Leningrad region

    [ad_1]

    The site operates with the financial support of the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation.

    Registered by the Federal Service
    for supervision
    in the field
    communications, information technology
    and mass
    communications. Registration certificates EL No. FS 77 – 76208 dated July 8, 2019, EL No. FS 77 – 72003 dated December 26, 2019

    All rights reserved
    © MIC Izvestia LLC, 2023

    #fire #warehouse #household #chemicals #occurred #Leningrad #region

    The post The fire in the warehouse of household chemicals occurred in the Leningrad region appeared first on Pledge Times.

    [ad_2]
    #fire #warehouse #household #chemicals #occurred #Leningrad #region
    ( With inputs from : pledgetimes.com )

  • The environmental scars of Russia’s war in Ukraine

    The environmental scars of Russia’s war in Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    One year of war in Ukraine has left deep scars — including on the country’s natural landscape.

    The conflict has ruined vast swaths of farmland, burned down forests and destroyed national parks. Damage to industrial facilities has caused heavy air, water and soil pollution, exposing residents to toxic chemicals and contaminated water. Regular shelling around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe, means the risk of a nuclear accident still looms large.

    The total number of cases of environmental damage tops 2,300, Ukraine’s environment minister, Ruslan Strilets, told POLITICO in an emailed statement. His ministry estimates the total cost at $51.45 billion (€48.33 billion).

    Of those documented cases, 1,078 have already been handed over to law enforcement agencies, according to Strilets, as part of an effort to hold Moscow accountable in court for environmental damage.

    A number of NGOs have also stepped in to document the environmental impacts of the conflict, with the aim of providing data to international organizations like the United Nations Environment Program to help them prioritize inspections or pinpoint areas at higher risk of pollution.

    Among them is PAX, a peace organization based in the Netherlands, which is working with the Center for Information Resilience (CIR) to record and independently verify incidents of environmental damage in Ukraine. So far, it has verified 242 such cases.

    “We mainly rely on what’s being documented, and what we can see,” said Wim Zwijnenburg, a humanitarian disarmament project leader with PAX. Information comes from social media, public media accounts and satellite imagery, and is then independently verified.

    “That also means that if there’s no one there to record it … we’re not seeing it,” he said. “It’s such a big country, so there’s fighting in so many locations, and undoubtedly, we are missing things.”

    After the conflict is over, the data could also help identify “what is needed in terms of cleanup, remediation and restoration of affected areas,” Zwijnenburg said.

    Rebuilding green

    While some conservation projects — such as rewilding of the Danube delta — have continued despite the war, most environmental protection work has halted.

    “It is very difficult to talk about saving other species if the people who are supposed to do it are in danger,” said Oksana Omelchuk, environmental expert with the Ukrainian NGO EcoAction.

    That’s unlikely to change in the near future, she added, pointing out that the environment is littered with mines.

    Agricultural land is particularly affected, blocking farmers from using fields and contaminating the soil, according to Zwijnenburg. That “might have an impact on food security” in the long run, he said.

    When it comes to de-mining efforts, residential areas will receive higher priority, meaning it could take a long time to make natural areas safe again.

    The delay will “[hinder] the implementation of any projects for the restoration and conservation of species,” according to Omelchuk.

    And, of course, fully restoring Ukraine’s nature won’t be possible until “Russian troops leave the territory” she said.

    Meanwhile, Kyiv is banking that the legal case it is building against Moscow will become a potential source of financing for rebuilding the country and bringing its scarred landscape and ecosystems back to health.

    It is also tapping into EU coffers. In a move intended to help the country restore its environment following Russia’s invasion, Ukraine in June became the first non-EU country to join the LIFE program, the EU’s funding instrument for environment and climate.

    Earlier this month, Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius announced a €7 million scheme — dubbed the Phoenix Initiative — to help Ukrainian cities rebuild greener and to connect Ukrainian cities with EU counterparts that can share expertise on achieving climate neutrality.



    [ad_2]
    #environmental #scars #Russias #war #Ukraine
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • 365 days of war in Ukraine — by the numbers

    365 days of war in Ukraine — by the numbers

    [ad_1]

    russia ukraine war 42735

    Russia’s year-long war in Ukraine has led to thousands of casualties, millions of refugees and billions of dollars in damages to the country’s economy, environment and infrastructure.

    At home, Russian President Vladimir Putin is pushing the narrative of a just war against the West and crushing dissenting voices, while his country’s economy feels the bite of sanctions — though their effect has been more nuanced than expected. Yet, despite their proclaimed support for Ukraine, some European countries have been reluctant to cut ties with Moscow.

    Across the EU, citizens have been hurt by skyrocketing energy prices, and all the while trade flows with Russia have transformed in a matter of months.

    Here are 12 months of war summed up, in figures and charts.



    [ad_2]
    #days #war #Ukraine #numbers
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • US military accused of obstruction over cancer linked to ‘forever chemicals’

    US military accused of obstruction over cancer linked to ‘forever chemicals’

    [ad_1]

    For decades, Ken Brock and Gary Enos largely toiled in the same hangars at New Hampshire’s Pease national air base. The career US national guard members were responsible for giving fuel planes tail-to-nose inspections that prevented crashes.

    “We were like general practitioners for planes,” Enos said.

    Like hundreds of others who served at Pease, both developed cancer, which they and their families believe was probably from exposure to staggering levels of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in the base’s drinking water.

    Brock died in 2017, and Enos has survived two bouts of cancer. Yet despite the similar career paths and illness, the military paid for Enos’s care and disability benefits – but not for Brock and his surviving wife.

    Since then, the military has been fighting efforts by Brock’s widow, Doris Brock, to get benefits for her and service members who worked for decades at the base. It denies PFAS is behind Pease’s high cancer rates, and helped kill legislation to fund a cancer study that could have proved it wrong.

    Doris Brock is now leading the charge in a two-pronged David-versus-Goliath battle: she and a group of veterans’ advocates aim to prove Pease’s toxic water is behind the base’s cancer levels, and, on her own, she is pushing to change federal law so career national guard members who do not have sufficient active duty time can still get veterans’ benefits.

    Though her husband died in 2017, Brock says she is “still angry”.

    “He has been gone for five and a half years, but it’s gone from a personal nature to a ‘This isn’t right for everyone else still out there,’” she added. “So many people who worked on this base are hurting.”

    Pease is home to the 157th Air Refueling Wing, and the base also holds 13 superfund sites, which is a designation for the nation’s most contaminated land. Among the pollutants are PFAS, a class of chemicals typically used to make thousands of consumer products resist water, stains and heat. They are linked to serious health issues such as cancer, kidney disease, fetal complications, liver disease and autoimmune disorders.

    For decades beginning in the 1970s, Pease’s service members drank contaminated water. The Environmental Protection Agency last year issued new advisory health guidelines that found virtually no level of exposure to two different kinds of PFAS is safe – Pease’s levels were tens of thousands of times above those thresholds.

    The situation is nearly identical to that at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, where the military has agreed to pay benefits for those who served at the base and drank contaminated water. But at Pease, the military is using what veterans advocates say are unfair rules or seemingly arbitrary application of rules to deny care and disability payments for many of them.

    When denying Brock’s benefits, the military has said it cannot be proven that Brock’s and others’ cancers stem from PFAS exposure, Doris Brock said. And though Ken Brock worked full-time for 35 years and deployed around the world to serve during combat, the military initially claimed he did not have the 90 days of consecutive active duty time required for benefits.

    The New Hampshire air national guard did not answer specific questions about the situation. But Brig Gen John Pogorek noted the national guard was working on the issue as part of the Pease health working group, which was established to find answers about the cancers after pressure from Doris Brock.

    ‘That’s when I got mad’

    Ken Brock retired from Pease in 2005 and in 2015 tests revealed a bladder cancer that had nearly advanced to stage four, and doctors gave him up to five years to live.

    In 2016, Brock applied for Veterans Affairs benefits that would have paid for his care, given him access to VA hospitals, and qualified him for disability payments, and Doris Brock for survivor payments after he died.

    But Brock was rejected, and after trying experimental chemotherapy treatments, he died in June 2017 aged 67.

    Enos had a different experience: he developed bladder cancer in 2007 and received health care and disability payments. When the cancer returned in his prostate in 2017, he used private insurance, but still continued to receive disability payments.

    Though he and Brock proved they had adequate active duty time, only Brock was denied benefits. And still others who served for decades next to them aren’t receiving benefits because they do not have adequate active duty time. The situation is “not right”, said Enos, who is part of the working group.

    “I want my friends and comrades to live, to get the services they need to live and to be compensated for what they have done for their country,” he added.

    Doris Brock said she was told by Veterans Affairs in 2016 “it costs too much” to pay for all veterans to receive benefits.

    “They said, ‘That’s why we have these rules,’” she added. “That’s when I got mad enough to say, ‘OK, fine, I’m going to fight to change the rules.’”

    She set out on a “research quest” in 2016 to learn more about the link between Ken Brock’s cancer and Pease’s contamination and quickly found dozens of service members around his age also had cancer, and learned about the high PFAS levels in the drinking water.

    ‘There’s a problem’

    After Brock pulled together a coalition of veterans and advocates in 2018, the group seemed to score a major victory when the military agreed to do a cancer mortality study, which Congress funded in that year’s defense bill.

    But the military probably only agreed to it because they know mortality studies are of limited use, said Mindi Messmer, a scientific adviser for the Pease health working group. It only looked at death rates, and fewer people are dying from cancer because of advancements in medicine and early detection.

    “If a bunch of people are getting sick from their service but not dying then there’s less of a case for the military to have to pay benefits,” Messmer said.

    Still, the death rates at Pease are so high that the 2021 results revealed statistically elevated levels of prostate, breast and lung cancers.

    “Sometimes, as much as they try not to show it, they can’t bend things that much and they have to admit there’s a problem,” Messmer said.

    A mortality study also does not prove the water at the base is behind the elevated cancer levels. Proof requires a cancer incidence study. Funding for an incidence study was included in the version of last year’s defense bill that passed the House, but it was stripped from the final Senate bill.

    Advocates said they were told by their congressional delegation that the military did not want the study, so it was left out.

    “I can’t even begin to tell you how angry I was when I heard that it was cut,” Brock said.

    Gen Pogorek said the New Hampshire air guard supports a cancer incidence study and “can’t speak for why it was dropped”.

    Hope also came and went when Congress passed in August the Honoring our Pact Act, which significantly expanded benefits for veterans exposed to toxins, but still excluded most at Pease.

    The group is now exploring how to chart a new path forward. Separately, Doris Brock continues pushing for a bill to scrap the active duty requirements for career national guard members, and the issue is now being studied.

    Though both prongs of her David-and-Goliath battle face uncertain futures after years of twisting the military’s arm, Brock remains steadfast.

    “I’m not going away,” she said.

    [ad_2]
    #military #accused #obstruction #cancer #linked #chemicals
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Can Putin win?

    Can Putin win?

    [ad_1]

    “I am wicked and scary with claws and teeth,” Vladimir Putin reportedly warned David Cameron when the then-British prime minister pressed him about the use of chemical weapons by Russia’s ally in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and discussed how far Russia was prepared to go.

    According to Cameron’s top foreign policy adviser John Casson — cited in a BBC documentary — Putin went on to explain that to succeed in Syria, one would have to use barbaric methods, as the U.S. did in Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. “I am an ex-KGB man,” he expounded. 

    The remarks were meant, apparently, half in jest but, as ever with Russia’s leader, the menace was clear. 

    And certainly, Putin has proven he is ready to deploy fear as a weapon in his attempt to subjugate a defiant Ukraine. His troops have targeted civilians and have resorted to torture and rape. But victory has eluded him.

    In the next few weeks, he looks set to try to reverse his military failures with a late-winter offensive: very possibly by being even scarier, and fighting tooth and claw, to save Russia — and himself — from further humiliation. 

    Can the ex-KGB man succeed, however? Can Russia still win the war of Putin’s choice against Ukraine in the face of heroic and united resistance from the Ukrainians?  

    Catalog of errors

    From the start, the war was marked by misjudgments and erroneous calculations. Putin and his generals underestimated Ukrainian resistance, overrated the abilities of their own forces, and failed to foresee the scale of military and economic support Ukraine would receive from the United States and European nations.

    Kyiv didn’t fall in a matter of days — as planned by the Kremlin — and Putin’s forces in the summer and autumn were pushed back, with Ukraine reclaiming by November more than half the territory the Russians captured in the first few weeks of the invasion. Russia has now been forced into a costly and protracted conventional war, one that’s sparked rare dissent within the country’s political-military establishment and led Kremlin infighting to spill into the open. 

    The only victory Russian forces have recorded in months came in January when the Ukrainians withdrew from the salt-mining town of Soledar in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine. And the signs are that the Russians are on the brink of another win with Bakhmut, just six miles southwest of Soledar, which is likely to fall into their hands shortly.

    But neither of these blood-drenched victories amounts to much more than a symbolic success despite the high casualties likely suffered by both sides. Tactically neither win is significant — and some Western officials privately say Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may have been better advised to have withdrawn earlier from Soledar and from Bakhmut now, in much the same way the Russians in November beat a retreat from their militarily hopeless position at Kherson.

    For a real reversal of Russia’s military fortunes Putin will be banking in the coming weeks on his forces, replenished by mobilized reservists and conscripts, pulling off a major new offensive. Ukrainian officials expect the offensive to come in earnest sooner than spring. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov warned in press conferences in the past few days that Russia may well have as many as 500,000 troops amassed in occupied Ukraine and along the borders in reserve ready for an attack. He says it may start in earnest around this month’s first anniversary of the war on February 24.

    Other Ukrainian officials think the offensive, when it comes, will be in March — but at least before the arrival of Leopard 2 and other Western main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Zelenskyy warned Ukrainians Saturday that the country is entering a “time when the occupier throws more and more of its forces to break our defenses.”

    All eyes on Donbas

    The likely focus of the Russians will be on the Donbas region of the East. Andriy Chernyak, an official in Ukraine’s military intelligence, told the Kyiv Post that Putin had ordered his armed forces to capture all of Donetsk and Luhansk by the end of March. “We’ve observed that the Russian occupation forces are redeploying additional assault groups, units, weapons and military equipment to the east,” Chernyak said. “According to the military intelligence of Ukraine, Putin gave the order to seize all of the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.” 

    Other Ukrainian officials and western military analysts suspect Russia might throw some wildcards to distract and confuse. They have their eyes on a feint coming from Belarus mimicking the northern thrust last February on Kyiv and west of the capital toward Vinnytsia. But Ukrainian defense officials estimate there are only 12,000 Russian soldiers in Belarus currently, ostensibly holding joint training exercises with the Belarusian military, hardly enough to mount a diversion.

    “A repeat assault on Kyiv makes little sense,” Michael Kofman, an American expert on the Russian Armed Forces and a fellow of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “An operation to sever supply lines in the west, or to seize the nuclear powerplant by Rivne, may be more feasible, but this would require a much larger force than what Russia currently has deployed in Belarus,” he said in an analysis.

    But exactly where Russia’s main thrusts will come along the 600-kilometer-long front line in Ukraine’s Donbas region is still unclear. Western military analysts don’t expect Russia to mount a push along the whole snaking front — more likely launching a two or three-pronged assault focusing on some key villages and towns in southern Donetsk, on Kreminna and Lyman in Luhansk, and in the south in Zaporizhzhia, where there have been reports of increased buildup of troops and equipment across the border in Russia.

    In the Luhansk region, Russian forces have been removing residents near the Russian-held parts of the front line. And the region’s governor, Serhiy Haidai, believes the expulsions are aimed at clearing out possible Ukrainian spies and locals spotting for the Ukrainian artillery. “There is an active transfer of (Russian troops) to the region and they are definitely preparing for something on the eastern front,” Haidai told reporters.

    Reznikov has said he expects the Russian offensive will come from the east and the south simultaneously — from Zaporizhzhia in the south and in Donetsk and Luhansk. In the run-up to the main offensives, Russian forces have been testing five points along the front, according to Ukraine’s General Staff in a press briefing Tuesday. They said Russian troops have been regrouping on different parts of the front line and conducting attacks near Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region and Lyman, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Novopavlivka in eastern Donetsk.

    Combined arms warfare

    Breakthroughs, however, will likely elude the Russians if they can’t correct two major failings that have dogged their military operations so far — poor logistics and a failure to coordinate infantry, armor, artillery and air support to achieve mutually complementary effects, otherwise known as combined arms warfare.

    When announcing the appointment in January of General Valery Gerasimov — the former chief of the defense staff — as the overall commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, Russia’s defense ministry highlighted “the need to organize closer interaction between the types and arms of the troops,” in other words to improve combined arms warfare.

    Kofman assesses that Russia’s logistics problems may have largely been overcome. “There’s been a fair amount of reorganization in Russian logistics, and adaptation. I think the conversation on Russian logistical problems in general suffers from too much anecdotalism and received wisdom,” he said.

    Failing that, much will depend for Russia on how much Gerasimov has managed to train his replenished forces in combined arms warfare and on that there are huge doubts he had enough time. Kofman believes Ukrainian forces “would be better served absorbing the Russian attack and exhausting the Russian offensive potential, then taking the initiative later this spring. Having expended ammunition, better troops, and equipment it could leave Russian defense overall weaker.” He suspects the offensive “may prove underwhelming.”

    Pro-war Russian military bloggers agree. They have been clamoring for another mobilization, saying it will be necessary to power the breakouts needed to reverse Russia’s military fortunes. Former Russian intelligence officer and paramilitary commander Igor Girkin, who played a key role in Crimea’s annexation and later in the Donbas, has argued waves of call-ups will be needed to overcome Ukraine’s defenses by sheer numbers.

    And Western military analysts suspect that Ukraine and Russia are currently fielding about the same number of combat soldiers. This means General Gerasimov will need many more if he’s to achieve the three-to-one ratio military doctrines suggest necessary for an attacking force to succeed. 

    GettyImages 1246735415
    Ukrainian officials think Russia’s offensive will be in March, before the arrival of Leopard 2 and other Western tanks | Sascha Schuermann/Getty Images

    But others fear that Russia has sufficient forces, if they are concentrated, to make some “shock gains.” Richard Kemp, a former British army infantry commander, is predicting “significant Russian gains in the coming weeks. We need to be realistic about how bad things could be — otherwise the shock risks dislodging Western resolve,” he wrote. The fear being that if the Russians can make significant territorial gains in the Donbas, then it is more likely pressure from some Western allies will grow for negotiations.

    But Gerasimov’s manpower deficiencies have prompted other analysts to say that if Western resolve holds, Putin’s own caution will hamper Russia’s chances to win the war. 

    “Putin’s hesitant wartime decision-making demonstrates his desire to avoid risky decisions that could threaten his rule or international escalation — despite the fact his maximalist and unrealistic objective, the full conquest of Ukraine, likely requires the assumption of further risk to have any hope of success,” said the Institute for the Study of War in an analysis this week. 

    Wicked and scary Putin may be but, as far as ISW sees it, he “has remained reluctant to order the difficult changes to the Russian military and society that are likely necessary to salvage his war.”



    [ad_2]
    #Putin #win
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )