Categories: News

Intelligence Community Claims Responsibility for Killing Russian Generals Because It Didn’t Happen Unless You Know They Did It – Opinion

Over the weekend, an intriguing rumor bubbled up from several sources that Russia’s top military officer, General Valery Gerasimov, had been wounded in a Ukrainian artillery strike on a Russian command post in the Izium salient west of Kharkiv (Mysterious Ammunition Dump Explosion Rocks Russia and Did Ukraine Nearly Kill Russia’s Top Military Officer?). Gerasimov had been at a frontline post command because Russian President Vladimir Putin had changed the command structure in his invasion of Ukraine. He made Gerasimov field commander (Russian Army In Ukraine Undergoing Major Command Shake Up, Sources Say). Although contradictory information has been reported about whether Gerasimov sustained injuries or was present at the command post in time for the artillery strikes, Gerasimov is not known to have been seen since.

Even if he’s not wounded, a staff REMF like Gerasimov probably suffers from fecal incontinence and an aversion to loud noises after the experience. The head of electronic warfare troops in the Donbas Campaign, Major General Andrei Simonov was one confirmed death from this artillery assault. It is ironic that the command post’s destruction was caused by Electronic Intelligence and Signals Intelligence.

Gerasimov was attacked just one week earlier. A second Russian base on the opposite side of the battlefield was also targeted by artillery, and was destroyed.

The Russian Generals’ fatality rate is one of the main features of the war.

Is it possible that so many Russian military officers are dying in Ukraine? This is comparable to what happened in the most difficult days of World War II.

THE WAR was nearly over, Yakov Rezantsev assured his troops on day four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was one month ago. On March 25th the lieutenant-general, commander of Russia’s 49th Combined Arms Army, was reportedly dead, killed in a strike near the city of Kherson. Officials in Ukraine claim that he is the seventh Russian general who died in combat in Ukraine. Western officials agree. Russia has yet to confirm this and it hasn’t been independently verified. But it is clear that the country’s top brass are suffering unusual attrition. Why?

General officers—in most armies, those who rank higher than colonel or brigadier—typically command big formations, like divisions and corps. These formations must be managed from large headquarters. They are usually out of rocket range, so they can stay further away from frontlines. This puts the generals in a better position.

America lost nine generals during combat in Vietnam. However, that was more than 20 years ago and not just a few days. Most of them died after their helicopters were destroyed. In the past two decades of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, just one American general died—and he was shot by an Afghan soldier. The Soviet Union was believed to have lost only six generals even during its brutal occupation of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989.

To find an attrition rate of even a fraction of the senior officers, you have to look back over 80 years. During the second world war around 235 Soviet generals were killed in combat, according to “Fallen Soviet Generals”, a book by Aleksander Maslov (over 200 more died in other ways). Even then, during the worst period—from June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, to November 1942, when the Red Army encircled the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad—an average of just under six generals were killed per month, about the same as the current toll.

This article explains the reasons. The Russian Army lacks leadership and the general must be present to bring about change. They are very susceptible to attacks because of their forward position. The Russians are using unsecured cell phones for command and control purposes because their multi-billion ruble secure mobile subscriber network doesn’t work when mobile and outside of Russia. To that list, I would add that Russian headquarters units don’t participate in field exercises as units subject to air, ground, artillery, and cyber attacks. As a result, they didn’t practice those survival skills in peacetime, getting the headquarters units killed in wartime. As generals are expected to visit their headquarters, they will have to do so if they wish to become commanders. The general is also vulnerable if the headquarters becomes insecure by its inept operations.

It isn’t only the generals. The losses of 36+ colonels, as well as a uncounted amount of lieutenant colonels or majors in an army that is so dependent on senior officers being involved in military operations are likely to account for the majority of lethargy which has characterized Russian military activities.

The New York Times offers an alternate explanation. The deceased generals weren’t done in by being too close to the front or by poor Operational Security (OPSEC); they were done in by the “fat-asses-wear-glasses” set at Langley: U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say.

Senior American officials claim that the United States provided intelligence on Russian units, which allowed the Ukrainians kill and target many Russian generals killed in combat in the Ukraine War.

…

Biden’s classified efforts to give Ukraine real-time battlefield information are part of the targeting assistance. That intelligence also includes anticipated Russian troop movements gleaned from recent American assessments of Moscow’s secret battle plan for the fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, the officials said. According to officials, it was not possible for them to say how many generals were killed due U.S. aid.

The United States has focused on providing the location and other details about the Russian military’s mobile headquarters, which relocate frequently. Ukrainian officials have combined that geographic information with their own intelligence — including intercepted communications that alert the Ukrainian military to the presence of senior Russian officers — to conduct artillery strikes and other attacks that have killed Russian officers.

Amazingly, the leaked information shows that either the organization’s perceived benefit has been more important than national policy or the individuals behind it are trying push the United States towards a stronger role in Ukraine. The headline was the exact same thing that caught the attention of the journalists for the piece.

For this article, officials spoke under the condition that they would not reveal the details of classified intelligence which was being shared with Ukraine.

Because it fears that the information will provoke Russia’s President Vladimir V. Putin into an even larger war, much of the battlefield intelligence has been kept secret by the administration. American officials are reluctant to describe how they have obtained information regarding Russian troop headquarters in order not to endanger their collecting methods. The U.S. intelligence agency used various sources throughout the conflict to locate Russian troop movements, both classified and commercial.

While I generally think Vladimir Putin should be told to take his feelings and stuff them where the sun doesn’t shine, I don’t see the value in providing intelligence assistance to the Ukrainians that enable them to kill Russian generals willy-nilly and then crowing about it in public. That doesn’t make sense and for an administration that remains scared sh**less that giving Ukraine obsolescent Soviet-era fighters might be seen as escalatory, boasting about your role in killing senior Russian officers is mindboggling.

The leakers were quick to steer the conversation away from Gerasimov with a “sure we arranged the hits on some Russian generals but we didn’t have anything to do with nearly killing THAT Russian general” brush-off.

Some strikes were not carried out using American intelligence. A strike over the weekend at a location in eastern Ukraine where Gen. Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s highest-ranking uniformed officer, had visited was not aided by American intelligence, according to multiple U.S. officials. According to officials, the United States has no obligation to provide intelligence regarding senior Russian leaders.

Officials acknowledge that American intelligence was crucial in the deaths and captures of generals.

They don’t want to provide Ukraine with actionable intelligence about the movements of Chief of the General Staff, Russian Armed Forces Forces, and First Deputy Defense Minister. This would go against Executive Order 12333 which prohibits assassination.

It didn’t take long for the Biden White House to respond.

John Kirby is the Defense Department’s spokesperson.

Adrienne Watson is the National Security Council spokesperson.

Both Kirby’s and Watson’s responses were labeled as non-denial denials by the press. It is true that such an assessment was made, although it may also hint at the possibility of the truth being more accurate than false.

Before we move on, here are some thoughts. First, let me ask why someone from the Intelligence Community is doing such a thing. I’ve previously posted on the insatiable desire of our Intelligence Community to force themselves into stories when their best play would be just to shut up. Sometimes they resort to clownish behavior in their quest for media praise, as shown by this post Was the Intelligence Community just taking credit for an event that never happened?

In this case, I’d guess that some part of the Intelligence Community wants to puff up its role in the war. Their motivation to exaggerate their role in the war is budget-driven and turf-driven. It is not a good idea to disclose our activities. Never forget that leaks like this can virtually always be explained by consulting Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:

 First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. These include dedicated educators in an educational bureaucracy as well as many scientists, engineers, and launch technicians at NASA.

Second, they will have people dedicated to the organisation itself. You can think of many examples: many administrators from the education system; many professors in education; many teachers union representatives, most of NASA Headquarters staff.

Iron Law states, in any case the second group is to gain control. They will control the promotions and write the rules.

The most serious possibility is that some people within government are trying to force Biden and his associates into a stronger stance towards Russia. But, since they can’t move Biden in that direction, they’ve decided to goad Putin into making the first some in escalating the war beyond Ukraine.

This post was last modified on May 5, 2022 5:02 pm

Share
Published by
Pluralist
4 years ago

This website uses cookies.