Thursday, January 05, 2023

The Somali gold rush endangering frankincense and myrrh

By Mary Harper
BBC News, Daallo Mountain

The three kings of the biblical nativity carried three precious gifts to mark the birth of Jesus - but a modern-day gold rush in Somaliland is putting the ancient perfume trade in frankincense and myrrh at risk.


"The gold, frankincense and myrrh brought by the three wise men to baby Jesus definitely came from here," said the old man sitting in the dust under a tree.

I met Aden Hassan Salah on Daallo Mountain, part of the Golis range that straddles the self-declared republic of Somaliland and Puntland State in Somalia. Both territories claim the area.

"The routes of the camel caravans that for centuries transported them from here to the Middle East can be seen from space," he said.

The Bible refers to how these animals carried the gifts to Bethlehem where it is believed that Jesus was born.

A younger man, dressed in a sarong and Manchester United football top, sprang up from the ground. His name was Mohamed Said Awid Arale.


Many of the gold-diggers who started arriving in Daallo Mountain in 2017 are former nomads


"As I'm sure you know, 'Puntland' means the 'land of exquisite aromas,'" he said.

"One thousand, five hundred years before Jesus was born, Egypt's most powerful female pharaoh, Hatshepsut, made a famous expedition here. She ordered the construction of five boats for the journey, filled them with the three precious substances, and sailed back home.

"Gold was used to adorn Hatshepsut's body, frankincense was burned in her temples and myrrh was used to mummify her after she died."

Gold, frankincense and myrrh have been exported from the region for thousands of years. Much of the world's frankincense comes from the Horn of Africa.

Today, one of the gifts brought to baby Jesus, gold, is sowing the seeds of destruction of the other two.

The men on Daallo Mountain are part of the problem.


The famous trees of this region of the Horn of Africa are depicted on the walls of the Temple of Hatshepsut

They spearheaded a gold rush which began around five years ago and has led to the uprooting of frankincense and myrrh trees, some centuries old.

"Gold-miners have swarmed into the mountains," says Hassan Ali Dirie who works for the Candlelight environmental organisation.

"They cut down all the plants when they clear areas for mining. They damage the roots of the trees when they dig for gold. They block crucial waterways with their plastic bottles and other rubbish," he said.

"Day by day, they are ensuring the slow death of these ancient trees. The first to go are the myrrh trees, which are uprooted when the diggers clear the land for surface mining.

"Frankincense trees last a bit longer as they grow on rocks and are destroyed once the miners dig deep into the earth."

Woody perfume


A little further up the hill is a frankincense village where the trees have been passed down from generation to generation.

A woman sat on a turquoise plastic chair in her porch surrounded by children, their mothers and baby goats.


We burn frankincense to chase away flies and mosquitoes. We inhale it to clear colds and we consume it to cure inflammation"Racwi Mohamed Mahamud
Owner of frankincense trees


"I have no idea what you're talking about," said Racwi Mohamed Mahamud when I asked her about the story of the Magi bearing gifts.

"All I know is that my family has owned these trees for hundreds of years. They are passed from great-great-grandfather to great-grandfather to grandfather to father to son."

She ordered a young man to fetch some frankincense recently tapped from a tree. He came out carrying a cloth bundle, set it on the ground and opened it. The air was filled with a delicious woody perfume.

We sifted through the sticky substance to find nuggets of frankincense. These are cleaned, dried and graded before being sold to middlemen who export them across the world to burn in churches, mosques and synagogues and to create medicine, essential oils, expensive cosmetics and fine perfumes, including Chanel No 5.

Ms Mahamud looked at me blankly when I asked her what she thought about her frankincense eventually ending up in fancy department stores promising miracle anti-ageing properties and mysterious, seductive aromas.

"That sounds like nonsense to me," she said.

"We burn frankincense to chase away flies and mosquitoes. We inhale it to clear colds and we consume it to cure inflammation. That's it."


This frankincense tree has been over-harvested


The tappers and graders get very little of the money made from frankincense, with a kilogram selling for between $5 (£4.15) and $9. There have been scandals involving ruthless middlemen and greedy foreign companies.

They get slightly more for myrrh which currently sells for $10/kg. Like frankincense, it is a resin tapped from small, thorny trees. It is used to embalm dead bodies and to make perfume, incense and medicine.

It is believed to have antiseptic, analgesic and anti-inflammatory qualities and is used in toothpaste, mouthwash and skin salves.

The villagers explain how the goldminers came to their area with their shovels and pickaxes.

"We stood firm against them," says Ms Mahamud shaking her fist.

"We said: 'You have come here for your crude, yellow gold. We have our green gold and nobody can take it away from us.'"


Frankincense resin, used in perfumes like Chanel No 5, fetches between $5 and $9 pr kg


The miners ran away and never came back.

The atmosphere in the frankincense village was completely different from that in the goldminers' settlement.

It was basic, but there was a sense of community.

People young and old strolled about, chatting, drinking tea and complaining about how low frankincense prices made it difficult to make ends meet, especially during this time of high inflation and severe drought.

Drugs and jihadist taxes

It took a while to work out what was so strange about the goldminers' place.

Eventually I realised there were no women or children there.

 Golis range, that borders disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland, has long been a source of riches

"We don't really know what has happened to our families," said Mr Salah, the old man I met sitting under the tree.

"We used to be nomads but endless failed rainy seasons and droughts meant we had to give up our traditional way of life."

He explained how they came to the mountains in 2017 to look for gold.

"There was nothng here when we arrived. It was just a dry river bed. This was the first place where gold was found. We have built it up into a kind of village," he said pointing at some shacks built from sticks.

I asked Mr Salah and the few dozen other men sitting with him whether they preferred the gold-digger's life to that of a nomad. They shook their heads and shouted out in rage.

"As nomads we had dignity. We depended on nobody. We lived with our families, our camels, goats and sheep. We lacked for nothing," he said.

"The camels carried our shelters and cooking pots. The livestock provided our food and milk. We cannot eat or drink the gold we find. It cannot carry our shelters and belongings."

The area around the mines is bare of vegetation - and targeted by khat dealers and jihadist tax collectors

The miners explained how they sold the mineral to traders who smuggled it by sea to Dubai.

Gold-mining is not only destroying the environment. It is wrecking their lives.

"We have become drug addicts," said Mr Arale, the man in the red Manchester United shirt

"We are hostages to khat dealers," he said, referring to a narcotic leaf chewed by many Somalis.

"They control our lives. We spend all our money on khat instead of our families, which are lost to us."

As they spoke, a land cruiser drove into the village. Two well-dressed men emerged from the vehicle. The miners said they were the khat dealers.

"Gold has ruined our lives in other ways too," said Mr Salah. "It has driven some of us mad, like our friend who found $50,000 worth of gold and lost his mind."

Candlelight's Mr Dirie explained how gold was destroying the local community.

"Some schools have closed because all the teachers have left to join the gold rush. Students are leaving too."

He said Somalis from other regions were coming into the mountains leading to deadly clan clashes.

"Many of the miners are armed," he said. "We must turn around and leave now. It is not safe to stay here for a long time."

The Islamist groups, al-Shabab and the Somali branch of Islamic State, have started to demand taxes from the gold-diggers.

As we drove out of the mountains on the long dusty road, I wondered if those who buy expensive perfumes, cosmetics and jewellery have any idea where the substances used to make them come from, how many hands they pass through and how much destruction they have caused.

The White Lotus Seasons 1 and 2: Satirizing the wealthy and privileged


Mike White’s mini-series The White Lotus recently concluded its second season on HBO.

The first season, set in Hawaii, was a sharply drawn, satirical picture of the conflicts that erupt when a group of wealthy guests arrive at a luxury resort and set into motion a tragicomic series of events. The second season, set in Italy, ends on a much weaker note, but also takes on elements of social status and privilege.

Jolene Purdy, Murray Bartlett, Alexandra Daddario and Jake Lacy in The White Lotus

White is a perceptive observer of American social relations, and he treats his characters with a degree of depth and complexity. He previously directed Beatriz at Dinner (2017), in which a Mexican American immigrant massage therapist unwittingly ends up at her affluent client’s dinner party (where things go wrong), and Brad’s Status (2017), a comedy about an upper middle class man’s career crisis as he compares his life to that of his even more successful friend. White’s Enlightened (2011-12)another HBO series, canceled after two seasons, also has intelligent moments as it examines the frustrations and self-delusions of certain white-collar professionals in their corporate environments.

The first season of The White Lotus offered a refreshing and amusing social critique. It effectively portrayed the clash between the psychologically miserable, monied visitors and the hotel staff, as the lovely resort turns into a living hell for the workers. The show received a number of Emmy nominations and also won an award for outstanding limited series.

Season 1: “It’s all about the money”

The first season opens at a Hawaiian airport as a departing Shane Patton (Jake Lacey) looks out the window to see a corpse being loaded onto his plane. We learn from a visibly perturbed and irritated Shane that this was a honeymoon vacation but that his wife is not with him.

In a flashback, we see a boatload of insufferable, rich American guests—including newlyweds Shane and Rachel (Alexandra Daddario)—arrive at the lavish resort, the White Lotus. The mood is lighter, with Louis Armstrong’s “On Coconut Island” playing in the background.

Also on the boat are the affluent Mossbachers—the emasculated Mark (Steve Zahn), his careerist wife Nicole (Connie Britton), their sharp-tongued college sophomore daughter Olivia (Sydney Sweeney) and their alienated teenage son Quinn (Fred Hechinger). We learn later Nicole is the CEO of a Google-like search engine company, but that she only got the position by utilizing the reactionary atmosphere of the #MeToo campaign to her advantage.

Olivia is with the equally insufferable, but less privileged Paula (Brittany O’Grady), who has been brought along to entertain and accompany her wealthier friend. The last passenger on the boat is Tanya McQuoid (Jennifer Coolidge), a lonely alcoholic and an emotionally troubled heiress who ends up later starting a fling with hotel guest Greg (Jon Gries).

On shore are the hotel workers, along with manager Armond (Murray Bartlett), who urge the staff “to disappear behind our masks” as a form of “tropical kabuki” where the goal is to ensure the wealthy guests get everything they want. Conflicts ensue—among the guests and between the guests and the staff.

The cinematography is alluring, and the music in the opening credit sequence is striking, as is the soundtrack overall. The cast is generally exceptional, including Bartlett (with shades of John Cleese’s Basil in Fawlty Towers), Coolidge, Britton, Daddario, Sweeney, and Zahn. Lacey as Shane effectively captures the spoiled, born-with-a-silver-spoon type, with all the emotional vapidity and arrogance. Molly Shannon as Shane’s mother Kitty, in a scathing depiction of “old money,” is exceptional throughout.

A number of scenes and interactions stand out in the first season that highlight how individuals, no matter how well-intentioned, are ultimately shaped by social relations. And the rich in the first season of The White Lotus live up to Fitzgerald’s apt characterization: they smash up things and people and retreat into their money or vast carelessness.

The most intense conflict occurs between the entitled Shane and Armond the hotel manager. A former alcoholic, Armond is driven back into substance abuse while on the job, losing his equilibrium and cheerful exterior. At his lowest point, Armond tells Dillon (Lukas Gage), a staffer with whom he begins sexual relations in a drug-fueled night, “You make shit money. They exploit me. I exploit you.”

Connie Britton in The White Lotus

White effectively captures the hypocrisy of upper middle class politics as well in a number of interactions, including between Olivia and her mother Nicole. The latter declares that “Hillary Clinton was one of the most influential women of the last 30 years.” Olivia scoffs, “She was a neolib and a neocon.” Nicole responds to the taunts, pointing out that “most of these activists” and armchair critics like her daughter, “don’t really want to dismantle the systems of economic exploitation, not the ones that benefit them, which are all global by the way. They just want a better seat at the table…. What’s your system of belief, Olivia? Not capitalism? Not socialism? So just cynicism?”

We also see the cutthroat politics of “corporate feminism” and #MeToo efforts at work. Seeking to flatter Nicole, the search engine CEO, Rachel explains that she had written a profile about the other woman, “Not just you. It was ‘Ten Power Women in the Tech World.’” Nicole is angered, “That was a hatchet job….You made it out that I got my promotion because of my optics. ‘She rode the #MeToo wave.’ … You didn’t have to make me come across like some kind of Machiavellian gorgon using the victimization of other women in my company just to further my own craven ambitions.” White has taken the true measure of the toxic and careerist politics of the #MeToo movement here.

Later, Rachel, who accepts that she only does “clickbait journalism” for online publications, tells Shane and his mother at dinner, “I wanna do something meaningful,” such as working for a non-profit. Shane’s mother, Kitty, who’s never had money concerns, dismisses Rachel: “Oh, but those jobs are so awful, honey. They make no money.” Shane concurs, “But what’s even the point? Those jobs are just asking wealthy people for their money. Your job would literally be to ask yourself for money. It’s all about the money!”  Kitty chimes in grotesquely, “Money, money, money, money, money! And if you have money, then that’s what you bring to the table.” 

Season 2: Sex and money

The second season of The White Lotus reprises some of the same general concerns. However, White said he wanted to focus much more on the relationships between the sexes in this season, and as a result the second loses much of the coherence and sharpness of the first.

The new set of episodes begins again with a dead body washing up on the beaches, a far less-satisfying plot device this time around. Wealthy guests arrive at another White Lotus resort, in Taormina, Sicily. Tanya turns up with Greg, to whom she’s now married, along with her aide Portia (Haley Lu Richardson). Tanya and Greg’s relationship has now frayed considerably.

Also arriving are two married couples, Daphne (Meghann Fahy) and Cameron Sullivan (Theo James) and Harper (Aubrey Plaza) and Ethan Spiller (Will Sharpe). Ethan is a newly affluent tech entrepreneur being pursued by the cocky, womanizing Cameron, a wealth portfolio manager and Ethan’s former college roommate. Their unlikely friendship is largely rekindled thanks to Ethan’s rise in social status and the opportunities this now provides Cameron, who previously looked down on the other man as his inferior.

The third set of guests are the DiGrassos, including the patriarch-grandfather, the boorish and lusty Bert (F. Murray Abraham), his sex-addicted Hollywood producer son Dominic (Michael Imperioli) and Dominic’s sweet but awkward son Albie (Adam DiMario). Albie is constantly embarrassed by his father and grandfather’s sexual peccadilloes.

The White Lotus, Season 2

The dynamics among the trio, and with various women, produce numerous amusing moments. White, perhaps somewhat critical of the puritanical #MeToo atmosphere, which treats men as sexual predators, points to a deeper complexity when Bert says, “Women aren’t all saints, Albie. They’re just like us.” Abraham and Imperioli are excellent in their roles.

The hotel staff include the sexually frustrated and testy manager Valentina (Sabrina Impaccioatore) and a number of hotel workers. Interlopers in the hotel include Lucia (Simona Tabasco), a sex worker seeking out wealthy clients, and Mia (Beatrice Granno), an aspiring singer. At one point, Mia sings a lovely rendition of “The Best Things in Life are Free,” which of course they are not.

The second season has many standout moments and scenes, but the show unfortunately veers into hackneyed territory by the end.

The relationship dynamics and power struggles between Cameron, Ethan and their wives generate some of the best lines of the series. Cameron with his alpha male sex drive and Daphne live in social circles far above the troubles of the world, disconnected from the “apocalyptic” news cycle, they claim. Ethan and Harper, a lawyer, both “socially conscious” to a point, are sanctimonious in their attitude toward contemporary events, which apparently keep them up at night. One scene where Daphne takes Harper to a plaza surrounded by leering men makes a visual allusion to Antonioni’s L’Avventura, a film about rich Italians living empty lives. 

Aubrey Plaza and Meghann Fahy in The White Lotus

Coolidge is once again humorous and sympathetic in her role. She reminds Portia she’s happy to be among people of her own social status as “it’s a good feeling when you realize that someone has money, ‘cause then you don’t have to worry about them wanting yours.” Her wealth, however, becomes the prey of a gay entourage led by an old-money dandy Quentin (Tom Hollander) and his supposed working class nephew Jack (Leo Woodall).

The acting is again mostly terrific. The cinematography is stunning, and once again the soundtrack is entertaining. White can make a paradise for the wealthy come across as truly suffocating and grotesque. His eye for the natural, elemental beauty of the world—moonlights, volcanoes, sunrises and waves—is striking, especially in contrast to the social rot and ugliness of the wealthy who dominate the social landscape.

But the second season gets by much more on individual moments. It lacks the inner artistic unity of the first season, which more satisfyingly moves the various social interactions to their logical conclusions. Season two of The White Lotus, unfortunately, falls prey to cliched television tropes, with sensationalist plot devices that become increasingly outlandish. There’s also a flatness and falseness to some of the character arcs, including the fates of Mia and Lucia, as well as those of Tanya and her gay friends.

Mike White is sharpest when he examines the hypocrisies of American class society, tracing out its corrosiveness in an artistically convincing manner. In an interview with the New Yorker about the success of the first season, White said, “I constellated the show with many people grappling with ideas about money. Who has the money can really create the dynamic of a relationship. Money can really inform and pervert our most intimate relationships, beyond just the employee-guest relationship at the hotel.” Both seasons bring this out with varying degrees of success.

Israel’s new government unveils plan to weaken Supreme Court

New justice minister wants to curb the power of the high court, a move critics say would undermine democracy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s justice minister has unveiled the new government’s plans to overhaul the Supreme Court [File: Atef Safadi/Pool Photo/AP]

Published On 5 Jan 2023

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s justice minister has unveiled a plan to overhaul the country’s judicial system and weaken the country’s Supreme Court.

Critics have accused the government of declaring war against the judiciary, saying the plan announced on Wednesday will upend Israel’s system of checks and balances and undermine democratic institutions by giving absolute power to the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history.

Justice minister Yariv Levin, a confidant of Netanyahu and longtime critic of the Supreme Court, presented his plan a day before the justices are to debate a controversial new law on Thursday that allows a politician convicted of tax offences to serve as a Cabinet minister.

“The time has come to act,” Levin said of his plan to overhaul the court.

His proposals call for a series of sweeping changes aimed at curbing the powers of Israel’s high court, including by allowing legislators to pass laws the court has struck down and effectively deemed unconstitutional.

Levin laid out a law that would empower the country’s 120-seat parliament, or Knesset, to override Supreme Court decisions with a simple majority of 61 votes. He also proposed that politicians play a greater role in the appointment of Supreme Court judges and that ministers appoint their own legal advisers, instead of using independent professionals.

Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox and ultranationalist allies have also said they hope to scrap Supreme Court rulings outlawing Israeli outposts on private Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. They would also seek to allow for the protracted detention of African asylum-seekers and make official the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox from the country’s mandatory military service.

Levin argued that the public’s faith in the judicial system has plummeted to a historic low and said he plans to restore power to elected officials that now lies in the hands of what he and his supporters consider overly interventionist judges.

“These reforms will strengthen the judicial system and restore public faith in it,” Levin said in a televised statement.

“People we did not vote for decide for us,” he said, referring to the court.

“That’s not democracy.”

In a speech Wednesday ahead of Levin’s announcement, Netanyahu appeared to back his justice minister by vowing to “implement reforms that will ensure the proper balance between the three branches of government”.

Since being indicted on corruption charges, Netanyahu has campaigned against the judicial system. He denies all charges, saying he is the victim of a witch hunt orchestrated by a hostile media, police and prosecutors.

Levin said his plan to overhaul the Supreme Court is “not connected in any way” to Netanyahu’s trial.


Fierce criticism


The planned overhaul has already drawn fierce criticism from Israel’s attorney general and political opposition, though it is unclear whether they will be able to prevent the far-right government from racing forward.

Yair Lapid, former prime minister and head of the opposition, said he will fight the changes “in every possible way”.

Recent opinion polls by the Israel Democracy Institute found a majority of respondents believe the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down laws that conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which serve as a sort of constitution.

“It will be a hollow democracy,” Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute think-tank, said of the proposed changes.


“When the government has ultimate power, it will use this power not only for issues of LGBTQ rights and asylum-seekers but elections and free speech and anything it wants,” Fuchs said.

“We are already in a very fragile situation when we talk about human rights and our constitutional foundations because we have almost no checks and balances.”



As part of negotiations to form the current government, Israel’s parliament last month changed a law to allow someone convicted and on probation to serve as a Cabinet minister.

That paved the way for Aryeh Deri, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, to serve half a term as the minister of health and interior affairs, before becoming finance minister. He will also hold the post of deputy prime minister. Deri was convicted of tax fraud and given a suspended sentence last year.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court is expected to hear petitions against Aryeh Deri serving as minister.


Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, a prime target of the new government, has declared her opposition to the ministerial appointment. Baharav-Miara was appointed by the previous government, which vehemently opposes Netanyahu’s rule.

Netanyahu’s allies have floated the idea of splitting up the post of attorney general into three roles including two that would be political appointments.

That would water down the current attorney general’s authority while opening the door for Netanyahu to install someone more favourable to throwing out the charges against him.

KEEP READING

AL JAZEERA


Benny Gantz: I can't be part of an extreme government that will harm the justice system'

National Unity chairman blasts Minister Yariv Levin's reform: Netanyahu has no legitimacy to dismantle the legal system in Israel.
Benny Gantz

National Unity Party chairman MK Benny Gantz on Wednesday blasted the reforms in the judicial system announced by Justice Minister Yariv Levin.

In an interview with Channel 13 News, Gantz asked to convey a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said, "Yes - you were elected by the majority. Yes - you have the legitimacy to form a government. Yes - you are expected to govern. However, you do not have the legitimacy to dismantle the legal system in Israel. You will be remembered as the one who permitted the system to deteriorate to an unbalanced and dangerous place for democracy in Israel."

Gantz said the reform in essence seeks to produce "regime change in Israel."

"We don't have a balanced system. We don't have a constitution that protects us. We don't have two houses. There is a government that mostly controls the Knesset, and now they will control the courts together," he added.

Gantz explained that he is not completely opposed to judicial reform and even pointed out some issues that need to be corrected in it.

Related articles:
Gantz: I want no part in civil war Netanyahu is trying to ignite
'Maintaining contacts is of paramount importance'
'We will fight together against the government'
'These coercive & racist policies will harm you the most'

"We are proposing a solution, an orderly reform based on the Basic Law: The Legislation, which will be carried out in a long process and with underhanded opportunism. This would be done together with all the relevant bodies. Then, if the Knesset wants to invalidate a ruling of the Supreme Court, it will be carried out by a majority that is not a political randomness."

To the question of whether he would consider joining the Netanyahu government, he replied, "I cannot sit in an extreme government whose purpose is harming the justice system. There is a great danger here for the country and the private citizen. We will be harming our legal protection in the world."

UKRAINE
The true war of attrition begins 
Meduza sums up what happened on the battlefield in 2022 — and what it portends for the year ahead

January 4, 2023
Source: Meduza






Ukrainian artillery firing back at Russian positions in the Kharkiv region. December 24, 2022
Evgeniy Maloletka / AP / Scanpix / LETA

Late in 2022, the war in Ukraine reached a new turning point. Russia conducted its “first wave” of mobilization and partially eliminated the personnel deficit that contributed to its numerous military defeats in the fall. Now, the Russian army might face a shortage of a different resource: artillery ammunition. Meanwhile, Ukraine is experiencing a shell shortage of its own. Overcoming the deficiency won’t be easy: the West, which is assisting Ukraine with supplies, has largely exhausted its own stockpiles. It’s against this backdrop that Russia and Ukraine are fighting a protracted artillery battle around the cities of Soledar and Bakhmut, which is rapidly eating away at the ammunition both sides have left. It’s increasing looking like the true “war of attrition” — as many began referring to the war in Ukraine almost as soon as its hot stage began — will take place in 2023. The outcome of this stage will hinge primarily on which side is better able to adapt to its worsening ammunition shortage.

In this article, our editors attempt to assess the military situation in Ukraine based on the available data. Meduza opposes the war and demands the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.

What states were the Russian and Ukrainian armies in at the start of the full-scale war?

The Russian army

In February, Russia’s command planned to mount a quick victory by launching a decisive operative and advancing its troops at a record pace. In the first days of the full-scale invasion, the Russian army captured a significant amount of Ukrainian territory, taking advantage of the fact that the Ukrainian military hadn’t yet had time to deploy and wasn’t ready to mount a full defense anywhere outside the Donbas.

Just a few weeks later, however, as Ukrainian units arrived at the fronts that had by then formed, the Russian army suffered a major defeat: it completely withdrew from Ukraine’s north (with the exception of the Kharkiv area, which was significant for its subsequent offensive in the Donbas) and retreated south — to 50 kilometers outside of Kherson (to prevent the city and surrounding bridges from falling into the reach of Ukrainian artillery). It became clear that Russia’s troops weren’t prepared to attack the positions of a fully deployed and well-motivated opponent.

In the next stage of the war, the Russian command hoped to conduct a wide-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine. The Russian Armed Forces planned to exhaust the Ukrainian army’s reserves, sapping its supply of armored vehicles and personnel. At the same time, the Russian military's own problems had become clear by the spring:

  • Its units badly lacked personnel: this affected both its troops’ ability to conduct combat operations and its supply chain, which also suffered from labor shortages. Vladimir Putin was unwilling to use mobilization to fix this shortcoming at the time (though there were rumors about a mobilization drive as early as May).
  • The practice of using battalion tactical groups (BTGs) consisting of soldiers at constant readiness (every brigade or division was instructed to designate these soldiers in advance) turned out to be unsuitable for a full-scale war; these groups were created for fast-paced operations against relatively weak opponents. BTGs have also been used to support hybrid operations, but in those cases, local partners have usually done the “dirty work” (such as in Syria or in earlier stages of the war in the Donbas). Neither of these scenarios apply to the current situation in Ukraine.
  • The Russian Aerospace Forces tried and failed to gain dominance in Ukrainian airspace. Russian aviation didn’t have a proven system for overcoming anti-air defenses like NATO does. Because Ukraine’s air defense systems are still operating, the Russian Aerospace Forces were unable to use the method that had worked for them in Syria: dropping conventional unguided bombs from medium altitudes after using computer systems to aim them. At the same time, Russia had few high-precision guided weapons.
  • As a result, aviation played a decisive role neither over the front line nor behind it. The latter is especially significant: the Russian military is still incapable of stopping the flow of Ukrainian reinforcements to the most difficult parts of the front.
  • The Russian army’s logistics system also proved ill-suited for intensive fighting. The Russian military depends on railroads, and can therefore only attack from the vicinity of railway stations. It can receive supplies in the Donbas and in the eastern part of the Kharkiv region, but the railroad in the annexed part of the Zaporizhzhia region is only connected by rail to Crimea, which itself can only receive supplies through the Kerch Bridge. The railroad from Donetsk to Melitopol, meanwhile, has been impossible for Russia to restore; it’s too close to the front line.
  • Russia’s logistical problems have determined where it can and can’t launch large-scale offensives. Its only options are parts of Donetsk, western parts of the Luhansk region, and eastern parts of the Kharkiv region.

It was these factors that determined the course of Russia’s summer campaign. Because of its manpower shortage, the Russian military was forced to abandon its plan of surrounding all of Ukraine’s positions in the Donbas. Instead, it had to choose a less ambitious course of action: conducting an offensive on Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk from Izyum in the Kharkiv region. The goal was to reach Ukraine’s main base in the region, in Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.

At the same time, without full aviation support, Russian troops were relying entirely on their superior artillery and ammunition supplies, which seemed inexhaustible. During the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, according to Ukrainian generals, the Russian army (across the entire front) fired 40,000–60,000 shells a day, while Ukraine launched no more than 6,000 shells daily.

Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk were ultimately captured in early July, at the same time that Russian forces (primarily PMC Wagner) reached the outskirts of Bakhmut. There, however, the offensive wore thin, and Russia’s units were transferred from Sievierodonetsk and Izyum to Kherson, where Ukraine was expected to launch a counteroffensive.

The Ukrainian army

In early December, the British Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) released a report whose authors included high-ranking Ukrainian military officers. It summarized the Ukrainian side’s view of the war’s initial stage.

  • For the first few weeks after Russia launched its invasion, Ukraine was unable to deploy troops in the areas of Russia’s major assaults. It was finally able to complete its deployment in late March, which allowed Ukrainian forces to stop Russia’s offensives around Kyiv and Mykolaiv. Ukrainian artillery, which wasn’t yet suffering from an ammunition shortage at that point, played an important role.
  • Mobilized Ukrainians began joining territorial defense brigades as well as new battalions and brigades in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Over time, the units of mobilized soldiers became more combat capable.
  • Ukraine’s military command managed to save some of its air defense systems (though most of its air defenses were destroyed by Russia’s first offensive) and aviation (Russia’s Aerospace Forces were unable to stop Ukraine from sending its aircraft to alternate airfields).
  • After the Russian army’s retreat from northern Ukraine, the West agreed to significantly ramp up both the quantity and quality of its weapon supplies to the Ukrainian military. In late spring, Ukraine started receiving heavy weaponry, including howitzers. This was especially significant, as ammunition for the Soviet-made weapons the military was using before had started to run out — both because it consumed ammo at a high rate and because it had lost multiple large storage facilities to Russia.
  • In July, when the Ukrainian army was retreating from Sievierodonetsk, it received its first shipment of HIMARS multiple rocket launcher systems. This immediately changed the situation on the front, exacerbating Russia’s already-serious logistics problems. By late summer, large Russian weapons storage facilities were blowing up practically every day. It’s likely that Russia lost a significant portion of its shells to Ukrainian HIMARS strikes. By the end of July, Russian artillery activity had decreased markedly.

After that, the Ukrainian Armed Forces took advantage of the numerical advantage it had gained as a result of the country’s mobilization (and of the Kremlin’s refusal — at the point — to conduct its own mobilization). This took the form of two major attacks:

  • The first was launched in late August, in the Kharkiv region, and didn’t lead to quick success. From the beginning, Ukrainian troops faced combat-ready Russian reserve troops that had been transferred from the Donbas, and suffered significant losses without gaining much territory in most areas. Nonetheless, by the end of the fall, Russia had left Kherson. Supporting a large group of forces capable of resisting sustained Ukrainian attacks while its crossing points over the Dnipro River were bombed everyday turned out to be an impossible task.
  • Ukraine’s second attack was launched in early September in the southeastern part of the Kharkiv region. It caused the immediate collapse of Russia’s defenses and the destruction of Russia’s bridgehead on the Seversky Donets River, from which Russia had been attacking Slovyansk and Kramatorsk. Russian troops abandoned hundreds of armored vehicles in the course of their retreat. A week after the start of the offensive near Kupyansk, Ukrainian forces blocked the supply routes for all of Russia’s forces in the northern Donbas. As a result, the Russian army abandoned its defense line along the left bank of the Seversky Donets, as well as a large railway station and the city of Lyman.

The success of this offensive is directly linked to the Russian army’s logistics problems. After the fierce battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, Russia was suffering from a severe manpower shortage. The Russian command was ultimately only able to devote combat-capable troops to one area that was under threat: its bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro (where it sent troops from Izyum, among others). In the area around the Balakliya and Kharkiv regions, the Ukrainian military encountered only small and ineffective Russian units.


Please, read this message from Meduza’s team:

Dear readers! For eight years, Meduza has delivered reliable information about Russia and the rest of the world. Our reporting is vital for millions of people in Russia, Ukraine, and beyond. Access to trusted news sources is even more important in times of war. Help Meduza publish the news that Russia’s censors want to silence. Please, support our work.


To plug its holes in the front, the Kremlin declared mobilization in Russia immediately after it lost Lyman. The units of mobilized soldiers that arrived near Lyman and Kupyansk were ultimately able to stop the Ukrainian military from advancing further into the Luhansk region.

The battle for Bakhmut continues to rage on. Why are both sides so determined to control the city?

Russia’s offensive on Bakhmut began all the way back in July — immediately after it captured Lysychansk. The fighting scaled down fairly quickly; most of Russia’s forces that had fought in the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk left the Donbas in August (many soldiers were transferred to Kherson, while others went on leave). Many Ukrainian troops, too, were transferred out of the area for various reasons.

PMC Wagner (whose numbers were then relatively small) spent several months working to capture favorable positions on the flank of a small Ukrainian group defending Bakhmut. In late July, the Wagner Group captured the Vuhlehirska Power Station, which was just 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of the city. In August, forces from the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic” joined the mercenaries to take control of the Knauf plant in Soledar, eight kilometers (five miles) from northeastern Bakhmut. After gradually gaining ground throughout the two months that followed, they found themselves quite close to Bakhmut in the southeast and northeast.

But while Russia’s proxy forces had been making slow progress towards the city, the situation on the front had fundamentally changed. The Russian grouping that was supposed to advance from Izyum to meet Wagner’s forces had disappeared from the map; an immediate assault on Bakhmut no longer made sense. Russia could no longer surround Ukraine’s forces in Kramatorsk and Slovyansk or even capture significant territory in the Donbas: the Ukrainian Armed Forces had already set up a new defense line beyond Bakhmut that Russia’s troops would have to break through, suffering more losses and expending ammunition.

At the same time, however, the Wagner Group itself had grown significantly larger over the fall by recruiting prisoners and acquired its own heavy artillery (along with the experienced artillery gunners of the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic”), aviation, and air defense systems. Airborne units were also sent from Kherson to provide assistance.

Ultimately, as the mercenary group’s assault intensified, Ukraine’s command was forced to choose between surrendering Bakhmut or sending massive reinforcements to the area. It chose the second option. In December, units of more than 10 Ukrainian brigades took part in combat from Soledar and Bakhmut to the outskirts of Horlivka.

This isn’t the first time both sides have involved major forces in a battle of little to no strategic importance — the same thing happened in Sievierodonetsk. In June, the Ukrainian military sent substantial reserves to defend the city but was unable to hold its positions — and suffered huge losses. Nonetheless, Ukraine’s resistance exhausted the Russian army and forced it to expend a huge amount of artillery shells.

It’s likely that both sides consider the summer battle to have been a success:

  • The Russian army formally occupied a significant portion of the Donbas and tied down Ukraine’s forces;
  • The Ukrainian army forced the Russian army to spend a large amount of resources.

Many Western military experts, including Michael Kofman and Rob Lee, agree: in their view, even though Russia won the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, it was probably even more damaging to the Russian army than the defeats in Balakliya, Izyum, Kupyansk, and Lyman. Russia’s irrational expenditure of resources this summer was the key to the success of Ukraine’s subsequent offensive, according to Kofman and Lee.

Now, however, both sides are experiencing growing ammunition shortages that will be difficult to overcome. While the West supplied Ukraine with more than 100,000 shells after its defeat at Sievierodonetsk this summer, it’s unlikely to give support on such a large scale again. But the Russian side is in a similar boat: while its shell stocks seemed practically endless in the summer, now it’s experiencing a deficit even around Bakhmut.

The war is exhausting ammunition stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine, and the West. How do they replan to replenish them?

In late December, a video appeared online in which two men claiming to be PMC Wagner fighters berated Russian Army General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov for his failure to supply the troops carrying out the assault on Bakhmut with enough ammunition. Wagner Group founder Evgeny Prigozhin later confirmed that the clip was made by his mercenaries — and with his approval. According to Prigozhin, the ammunition shortage is preventing Russian forces from completing the operation successfully.

Western military and intelligence officials have also spoken about this issue: according to some estimatesRussia will start facing critical ammunition problems in January. Ukrainian officers, too, have noted that Russia’s artillery around Bakhmut seems to be firing less than it did in the summer.

In other words, Russia is now feeling the consequences of its intensive shelling against Ukrainian forces this summer. On one hand, the Russian military is unable to use the reserves that remain from the Soviet period (they’re expired). On the other hand, it can’t manufacture ammunition fast enough to keep shelling at the rate it did during the battle for Sievierodonetsk (even if the Ukrainian estimates that Russia used 40,000–60,000 shells a day are exaggerated). Experts estimate that between 2014 and 2021, Russia produced about 3.5 million 152-mm shells. That’s likely the same amount it consumed in the first six months of the war. The situation with multiple launch rocket system munitions is comparable. As a result, even increasing production by dozens of percentage points wouldn’t be enough to solve the problem.

At the same time, Western media has begun reporting that the Pentagon wants the Ukrainian military to adjust its approach in the war. Rather than expending large amounts of ammunition, Washington reportedly wants Ukrainians to learn to fight “more like Americans” — that is, to maneuver more effectively.

The West’s desire to change the way Ukrainians fight is almost certainly a response to NATO’s own shell shortage. Unlike countries whose armies were built on the legacy of the Soviet one, NATO countries stopped viewing artillery as the “God of war” decades ago — and, as a result, they have neither the stockpiles necessary for firing thousands of weapons for months on end nor the manufacturing capacity necessary to produce millions of shells per year. The West’s plans for increasing production are clearly insufficient to provide Kyiv with ammunition on the scale it needs.

But making Ukrainian troops “fight like Americans” won’t work either, Michael Kofman has warned. That’s because the U.S. relies not just on maneuvers and interactions between different branches of its armed forces, but also — and more heavily — on its overwhelming firepower. And that firepower lies not in artillery but in aviation — something the Ukrainians don’t currently have on the necessary scale.

The U.S. is taking practical steps to make Ukraine’s Air Force more effective in its current state. Its last military aid package to Ukraine, for example, included kits for converting unguided aerial munitions into guided ones. These should increase the accuracy of Ukraine’s bombs, though they won’t solve the country’s main problem, which is a shortage of planes. Even before the full-scale war, the Ukrainian Air Force was an order of magnitude inferior to Russia’s in size, and it’s suffered significant losses since February. But NATO has made it clear that, at least for now, providing Ukraine with Western-made planes is off the table: Washington believes the risk of unnecessary escalation is too high.

The next stage of the Hot Cold War


January 05, 2023 

After a year of big surprises, led by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the global spike in inflation rates, and the collapse of cryptocurrency ventures, what kind of year will 2023 prove to be? This kind of short-run question is hard to answer, because repercussions of events spread so quickly and unpredictably across our globalized world. But the last 12 months highlighted one major trend that will shape what happens next, in 2023 and beyond: the decline of Russia.

Russian aggression is nothing new. Moscow has been invading other countries since the mid-1990s and has occupied parts of Ukrainian territory since 2014. But the brutality of Russia’s attacks since late February far exceeds what is acceptable to most countries. The most recent phase, destroying civilian energy infrastructure, is widely seen as amounting to a war crime. It is unlikely to change the course of the war, which Russia is losing.

In the bigger picture, Russia has again entered a period of secular decline, during which it will have limited access to Western investment, technology, or consumer goods. Russia’s empires have collapsed before, in 1917-18 and again when the Soviet Union imploded in 1989-91. In both cases, the collapse took a while to get going, and then proved quite complete. Of course, historically Russia has also been able to reassert control, using its own resources during the Civil War of 1917-22 and getting a lot of help from Western companies during the 1990s.

This time, too, we should expect a long struggle for power within Russia, implying serious existential risks for the world, including who ends up controlling Russian nuclear weapons. But the more direct economic impact will be reflected in the world energy market.

Demand for Russian fossil fuels is way down. Before its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia produced about 10.8 million barrels of oil per day, of which around eight million were exported (either as crude or refined products). The sharp decline in Russian economic activity means that more oil is available for export, but the European Union, the United States, and their allies are now buying crude from other suppliers – and the same will be true for refined products from February 2023. The International Energy Agency predicts that Russian oil exports will fall to around six million barrels per day over 2023-24. Over the medium term, India might buy 1-2 million barrels and China could sop up the rest – assuming both countries want to become more dependent on a malevolent and unreliable partner.

Purchases by India, China, and a few others can still result in a lot of free cash flow and tax revenue for Russia. Whoever leads Russia will put much of these proceeds into building and buying weapons – including missiles with which it can hit a wide range of countries from long distance. NATO member countries are, one hopes, protected to some extent by the threat of retaliation, but Russia can be expected to engage in sabotage and other deniable attacks on Western energy infrastructure (and similar vulnerable strategic targets). Russia is on its way to becoming the best-financed pariah state ever.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was careful not to attack Western Europe and the US too directly (and vice versa). Instead, both sides used proxy wars and other forms of pressure. This time, however, we should expect much more direct confrontation. The Russian elite have boxed themselves into a corner, with a bizarre set of beliefs – right-wing nationalism on steroids – and long-range weapons. Giving ground – literally or metaphorically – to these extremists, will only embolden them to take more.

The need to limit over time how much cash Russia can spend on aggression is why the price cap on Russian oil exports is so important. The evidence so far is that this is working as intended, enabling India and China to buy Russian oil at a big discount compared to world prices.

But further measures are needed, including accelerated investments in renewable energy to reduce world demand for oil. If we continue to depend on Russia and its allies in the OPEC+ cartel, the ability and temptation to disrupt our economies will be immense. There is now a pressing national security dimension to the energy transition.

High inflation in the 1970s had multiple causes, beginning with tight economies in the 1960s (and the Vietnam War). But the problems were exacerbated by two oil price shocks, in 1973 and 1979. OPEC+ members understand that they have the power to do this again, at a time of their choosing – or the next time Russia asks for a favor.

Oil demand and supply are quite unresponsive to oil prices in the short run, but historically quite responsive over 5-10 years. In 2023 and beyond, the West needs to focus more intently on reducing demand for fossil fuels, particularly oil, and increasing the supply of alternative energy sources (outside the control of Russia and OPEC).

Copyright: Project Syndicate
-- Contact us at english@hkej.com




SIMON JOHNSON
Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-founder of a leading economics blog, The Baseline Scenario.